The Redundant Gandhi

CONGRESS LEADER Rahul Gandhi’s political priorities, it seems, can be interpreted through the lens of Nobel Prize-winning behavioural economist Richard Thaler’s theories. Before delving into one such theory that helps us better understand the Nehru-Gandhi scion, it’s worth noting that his flawed political strategies appear to be driven by three ‘M’s: Mother, Modi-phobia, and Monopoly.

First, his mother, Sonia Gandhi, the matriarch of the First Family of Congress whose worldview is shaped by her Catholic sensibilities, has apparently instilled in him a sense of entitle­ment, an unshakable belief that he is destined to rule India. This seemingly dynastic arrogance of a “son burdened with destiny” fuels his persistent political ambition, going by his demeanour in and out of Parliament that smacks of rudeness and reeks of scorn. Second, his frustration with Narendra Modi, a self-made leader with no family legacy, has bordered on the obses­sive. Since Modi’s rise nationally in 2014, Gandhi Jr’s rhetoric has often been marked by a tone not only inelegant but also dismissive, particularly towards a prime minister who has now secured three consecutive General Election victories, a feat last achieved by Gandhi Jr’s great-grandfather, Jawaharlal Nehru, who died in 1964.

Finally, there is his desire to monopolise power within Congress, with little regard for the growing disaffection and alienation among party members. Rather than empowering capable re­gional and national leaders with imagination and foresight, he tends to perpetually rely on a circle of yes-men comprising mostly political lightweights and obedient foot soldiers, endangering any pos­sibility of a collective leadership that could revitalise the party.

This is where Thaler’s concept of the “sunk cost fallacy” becomes relevant. Simply put, in economic terms, this propo­sition, made by Thaler in 1980, refers to the tendency to throw good money after bad. More broadly, it describes a cognitive bias that compels individuals to continue investing in unviable or im­practical decisions simply because they have already committed time, effort, or resources to them. Often, this persistence is driven by incorrigibly irrational behaviour, including stubbornness, preconceived notions, or an unwillingness to admit error—traits rarely found in consistently successful people.

Rahul Gandhi’s choices over the decades leave us with little doubt that the sunk cost fallacy shapes the thinking of the Congress high command, now effectively led by him alone, while sidelining leaders with institutional memory, charisma, prag­matism and political acumen. Unfortunately for him, even as he dispenses with truth and pursues his ideological fixations, many within the party are either striking out on their own or growing disillusioned with his limited capacity to function as a credible Opposition leader, one capable of countering the formidable Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) with imagination and tactical sharp­ness. Over the years, a steady stream of Congress leaders has exited, alienated by his inert leadership and his rigid, unaccommodating style. Recent developments underscore a deeper truth: within his own party, there are now far fewer adherents than once assumed of a brand of politics that often feels contrived, whether on ques­tions of national integrity, patriotism, the Maoist menace, cross-border terrorism from Pakistan, entrepreneurship or beyond.

At a time when excessive sops have hurt the economies of Congress-run states Telangana and Karnataka, Rahul Gandhi continues to focus on projecting himself as the champion of the poor without focusing on growth strategies, making it convenient enough for his two chief ministers to wholeheartedly embrace populism at the expense of judicious spending and financial discipline

Rahul Gandhi’s invariably reflexive criticism of every initiative by the Union government, even on matters as vital as India’s global standing, its existential battle against state-sponsored terrorism, and the internal challenges threatening to derail its much-touted growth story, comes across as needlessly combative and naïve. All this, at a time when the Modi government has secured support from political parties of all hues, including Congress, for its diplomatic initiatives abroad in the form of multiple outreach delegations to argue India’s case against terrorism in the wake of a limited war with Pakistan. Instead of embracing the bipartisan spirit that some of his more astute party colleagues were eager to project, Gandhi Jr and his acolytes chose to mock the outreach teams, which included senior leaders from their own party, an approach widely seen by analysts as either politically suicidal or self-defeating. In that sense, the Congress high command’s refusal to claim credit where it is due reveals a mix of vanity and misplaced confidence, a phenomenon that exemplifies Thaler’s concept of sunk cost fallacy.

SENSE OF SELF-IMPORTANCE

Irony died a sudden death when in 2013 Rahul Gandhi publicly censured the Manmohan Singh government controlled by his mother Sonia Gandhi and tore into pieces a copy of the ordinance introduced to overrule the then Supreme Court order on disquali­fying convicted MPs and MLAs. He went on to call the ordinance “nonsense”, in a bid to detach himself from the wrongs com­mitted by the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government, remote-controlled by his own family.

Since then, Gandhi Jr, a globe-trotter who loves his vacations and the good life, has never stopped projecting himself as pro-poor and anti-rich in a desperate bid to resurrect his political career, although in vain, as he and his party suffered resounding setbacks in three General Elections and lost multiple state polls in the 12 years that followed. As of now, Congress is in power on its own only in three states compared with 13 in 2014.

However, Rahul Gandhi remains un­willing to adapt to new political realities, and his disdain for the aspirations of the middle class has not diminished in the slightest. From criticising the Union gov­ernment’s efforts to combat the Naxalite threat, which former Manmohan Singh had described as the gravest internal securi­ty challenge, to opposing initiatives aimed at modernising the armed forces and im­proving the standard of living through digitalisation, his refusal to support bipar­tisanship on critical national security mat­ters has rendered him increasingly out of touch. This perception is only reinforced by the fact that even senior leaders of his own party, including erstwhile loyalists, now publicly express views at odds with his well-known positions.

PUBLIC DISPLAYS OF DISAFFECTION

A telling example is the recent statement by family loyalist Salman Khurshid on the ab­rogation of Article 370 which underscores this internal tension. Khurshid, widely regarded as attuned to the sensitivities of the party’s first family, said during a diplo­matic visit to Indonesia that the scrapping of Article 370 of the Indian Constitution in 2019 ended the longstanding problem of separatism in Jammu & Kashmir, which he said brought prosperity to the region. He added, “Kashmir had a major problem for a long time. Much of that was reflected in the thinking of the government in an ar­ticle called 370 of the Constitution, which somehow gave the impression that it was separate from the rest of the country. But Article 370 was abrogated and it was finally put to an end.” Khurshid also suggested recently that the persistent criti­cism of the Modi government’s handling of Pakistan amounts to an “unpatriotic” act. “When on a mission against terrorism, to car­ry India’s message to the world, it’s distressing that people at home are calculating political allegiances. Is it so difficult to be patriotic?” Khurshid wrote on X.

Nothing could have been a worse rebuke of the positions taken by Rahul Gandhi and the darbaris surrounding him who had used every opportunity to make disparaging statements on Congress members who were part of parliamentary outreach missions at foreign capitals to reinforce India’s position that Pakistan remains a terror-harbouring nation in need of international censure.

Notably, unlike leaders such as Shashi Tharoor, who possess deep expertise in foreign affairs, many of the darbaris occupy­ing balcony seats within the Congress establishment have spent much of their careers as backroom operators or special assistants to senior party figures. Three prominent Congress leaders—Tha­roor, Khurshid, and Anand Sharma—held key posts in the Minis­try of External Affairs during the UPA years. Yet it was the darbaris who were scrambling to criticise the party’s MPs travelling abroad as part of outreach delegations.

CHARTING THEIR OWN COURSE

Tharoor, for his part, had pushed back against the internal snip­ing. Speaking to journalists in Brazil during his assignment as head of a parliamentary delegation to the North and South Ameri­cas, he said: “I think this is the time now for us to focus on our mission. Undoubtedly, in a thriving democracy, there are bound to be comments and criticisms, but I think at this point we can’t afford to dwell on them. When we get back to India, we will have our chance to speak to our colleagues, critics, and the media. But right now, we are focused on the countries we are visiting and on getting the message out to the people here.”

Barring a few leaders close to Rahul Gandhi, nearly all senior Congress figures, including former Union minister P Chidambaram, publicly supported the Modi government’s response to the Pahalgam carnage of April 22, in which 28 people were killed. Barring Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, Maharashtra MLA Vijay Wadettiwar, Karnataka minister RB Timmapur, and Rahul Gandhi’s brother-in-law Robert Vadra, the rest of the party lined up behind the government on the issue of terrorism. Gandhi Jr, however, does not seem to take such voices seriously, instead placing his trust in the likes of Jairam Ramesh, Pawan Khera and KC Venugopal, figures who often appear strik­ingly out of touch with the prevailing political mood in the country.

BONHOMIE AFTER OUTREACH

When Prime Minister Narendra Modi met members of the outreach delegations on June 10, delegations that had travelled to over 30 countries to advocate for India’s military response, Operation Sindoor, the atmosphere at 7 Lok Kalyan Marg was cordial. The meeting, held at the prime minister’s residence, saw Modi listening attentively as members from across the political spectrum shared their experiences of engaging with foreign leaders and representatives.

Rahul Gandhi’s miscalculations have placed him in a bad spot in national politics at a time when Congress appears to be in disarray with internecine wrangling coming to the fore in multiple party units, as though there is no leader, leaving the party appearing rudderless and beset with factional feuds

While gathering feedback, Modi also took time to inquire after the well-being of the delegates—and, in some cases, their close relatives. He then recounted an anecdote from roughly 30 years ago, involving a heated television debate between him and senior Congress leader Ghulam Nabi Azad. After the debate, Modi said, the two stepped out of the studio together for tea, when a curious journalist approached them and asked, “How come you two are behaving like friends after such a ferocious exchange?” Modi told the delegation that both he and Azad had burst out laughing, and that he had replied, “This is what politics does to people.”

After meeting Modi on June 10, various members shared their experiences from the evening on X. Manish Tewari posted on so­cial media: “The true strength of any great democracy is the ability to work across the aisle. To surmount our differences, ideological, conceptual, political and personal and put the larger national interest above the cut and thrust of partisan politics. And that is what this evening was all about.” He added: “Sharing some inputs with Hon’ble Prime Minister @narendramodi. I cut my politi­cal teeth on the front lines of the political battle against violent extremism, separatism and terrorism in the mid-1980s in Punjab when you were not sure that when you went out in the morning, you would even come back in the evening. That is what defined us. More than 30,000 people fell to the depredations of terrorists between 1980-1995 in Punjab, including our own kith and kin. Terrorists who were trained, resourced and armed by Pakistan. For us, Pakistan-sponsored terrorism is not an esoteric academic discussion but an existential challenge. It was therefore but a se­quitur that we would have played our part as we have done over the past 45 years in exposing the perfidy of Pakistan.”

Tharoor posted on X to say that it was a pleasure sharing our experiences “in different parts of the world with Hon’ble Prime Minister @narendramodi and listening to his point of view in a difficult month and a half for our nation.” Responses of scores of other leaders were also in the same breath, praising Modi for his leadership and warmth.

ANTI-MODI POSTURING

Rahul Gandhi could have earned brownie points, too, in the name of bipartisanship and standing with the Modi government in a time of national crisis. But he chose not to. If this is not a case of sunk cost fallacy, then what is?

As luck would have it, Rahul Gandhi’s miscalculations have placed him in a bad spot in national politics at a time when his party appears to be in disarray with internecine wrangling com­ing to the fore in multiple party units, as though there is no leader, leaving the organisation appearing rudderless and beset with fac­tional feuds and local leaders making contradictory statements. As a result, Congress finds itself increasingly isolated from the national discourse.

Politicians often resort to silence as a strategic tool during times of adversity, especially when they wish to avoid ending up on the wrong side of history. Even someone as vocally combat­ive as Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran refrained from criticising his contemporary, the anti-clerical activist and scholar Ali Shariati. Despite ideological differences, Khomeini, unlike other Shia clerics who issued fatwas against Shariati, chose silence, recog­nising Shariati’s immense popularity and demonstrating his own political astuteness.

In sharp contrast, to be perceived as antagonistic towards India during one of its gravest national security challenges, when the country was compelled to pursue a military response to cross-border terrorism, is a sign of political naivety and indifference to public sentiment. At a time when there was a groundswell of local support for Modi’s decision to launch a disproportionate response to Pakistan-backed terror, Gandhi Jr appeared more interested in criticising the Centre, much to the anguish of his own party.

On May 17 and May 19, Rahul Gandhi repeatedly attacked the government and External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar, argu­ing that the Centre informed Pakistan “at the start” of Operation Sindoor, calling it a “crime”. He drew flak over misrepresentation of facts that reeked of mala fide intent. The timing of his accusa­tions was also questioned by BJP.

Gandhi posted on X on May 17: “Informing Pakistan at the start of our attack was a crime. EAM has publicly admitted that GOI did it. 1. Who authorised it? 2. ⁠How many aircraft did our air force lose as a result?” He was at it again on May 19, saying “EAM Jaishankar’s silence isn’t just telling—it’s damning. So I’ll ask again: How many Indian aircraft did we lose because Paki­stan knew? This wasn’t a lapse. It was a crime. And the nation deserves the truth.”

REMARKS BOOMERANG

Rahul Gandhi’s fulminations had little impact as the 13-mem­ber Pakistani delegation in Washington, seeking more weapons, confirmed the devastating effect of India’s four-day offensive. Pakistan’s minister Musadik Malik was quoted in the media as telling the Americans, “India came with 80 planes carrying 400 missiles, some capable of delivering nuclear warheads. We would have been reduced to rubble without our air defence system. The technology India deployed was far more advanced.” Malik was part of the delegation led by Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) chair­man Bilawal Bhutto Zardari.

According to available reports, Indian Air Force (IAF) fighter jets, the S-400 air defence system, and surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) shot down six Pakistani aircraft and destroyed four radar installations. Of the six aircraft, four were Chinese-made fighter jets while the remaining two were larger platforms: a C-130J transport aircraft and a Saab 2000 airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) aircraft.

In addition, two F-16s sustained partial damage during mis­sile strikes targeting 11 Pakistani airbases, including those at Sargodha, Rafiqui, Jacobabad, and Nur Khan in Rawalpindi. Indian forces also destroyed one Chinese-made LY-80 radar system, two American AN/TPQ-43 automatic tracking radars, and one fire unit of the Chinese HQ-9 radar at Chaklala.

The IAF launched 19 BrahMos supersonic cruise missiles and an equal number of French SCALP subsonic cruise missiles at Pakistani airbases. Separately, the headquarters of Lashkar-e-Taiba in Muridke was struck by four Crystal Maze missiles, while the Jaish-e-Mohammed facility at Markaz was targeted with six SCALP missiles launched from Rafale fighter jets.

For a politician and Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha, such statements reveal that Rahul Gandhi’s remarks are often ill-considered. They are far from isolated, as seen in his disingenu­ous claim during an interview that his great-grandfather secured Mahatma Gandhi’s release from a London prison, supposedly after Gandhi was ejected from a first-class train compartment. Anyone familiar with Gandhi’s life knows that this incident occurred in Pietermaritzburg, South Africa, in 1893, when Nehru was not yet four years old. Most recently, Gandhi Jr’s statements about alleged EVM rigging in the 2024 Maharashtra state elections, without launching any official complaint, also failed to click.

At a time when excessive sops have hurt the economies of Congress-run states Telangana and Karnataka, the 54-year-old Rahul Gandhi continues to focus on projecting himself as the champion of the poor without focusing on growth strategies, making it convenient enough for his two chief ministers to wholeheartedly embrace populism at the expense of judicious spending and financial discipline.

With the odds stacked sky-high against them across the country, even members of his own party believe the high command is tilting at windmills. Rahul Gandhi, an inveterate Family-first politician, often reluctant to accommodate talent, is increasingly compared to Umberto II, the last king of Italy. After a failed attempt to rally monarchist forces, Umberto II was exiled as Italians opted for a republic after World War II. Historians have long described Umberto II as a poor leader, lacking vision and blind to the sweeping political and socio-economic changes engulfing his nation.

Perhaps, in politics, centuries do coexist.

Congresscredibilitydissentparty organisationRahul GandhiSalman KhurshidShashi Tharoor