The “revolt” of the 23, therefore, against the Congress high command is the first time that a sizable group has raised their voice of dissent. Since nearly all of them have long years of service to the party, it is not easy for the leadership to brush them aside like Jagan Mohan Reddy, for instance.

All that the high command can do is to promote “true” loyalists like Gaurav Gogoi and Ravneet Singh Bittu as deputy leader of the opposition in the Lok Sabha and the party whip, respectively, to warn the 23 letter writers that they are walking on thin ice.

At the same time, the leadership trio of Sonia, Rahul and Priyanka Gandhi would know that they, too, are entering a minefield where one false step can spell disaster by causing an organizational split to the BJP’s delight. Moreover, the fault for such an eventuality will lie squarely on the Congress’s first family rather than on those who have merely called for a more “visible” and “active” leadership.

Since the dig is palpably aimed at Rahul, who occasionally becomes invisible by disappearing abroad and has been called a part-timer rather than a 24x7, hands on commander, the trio will have to tread carefully lest any plan that they may have of passing on the baton of the party presidentship from Sonia to her son is scuttled.

However, the possibility of such a succession is also shrouded in mystery, for Rahul ostensibly shows no inclination at present to step into his mother’s shoes. Yet, he acts as almost as a veritable No 1 by interacting on camera with domestic and foreign dignitaries and launching sharp attacks on Narendra Modi despite the belief in a section of the Congress that targeting the prime minister directly can be counter-productive.

The objective behind these endeavours is unclear. Is Rahul preparing to take over the reins of the party despite his disavowals or does he just want to be someone beyond and above the party who says and does what he wants irrespective of who is the president ?

Uncertainties of this nature appear to have forced the hands of those who have the welfare of the party in their minds but could not push ahead earlier because of the Congress’s culture of sycophancy which bars criticism of the family. They may have also felt that this is a “now or never” moment.

If no one took up the gauntlet and chose to remain silent instead, the likelihood of the Congress’s setbacks in the forthcoming Bihar, West Bengal and U.P. assembly elections can be highly demoralizing and an ill omen for the next general election in 2024. Unless the party bucks up, it can only go downhill.

What must have worried the 23 all the more is that the family does not seem to be aware of this grim possibility. It still hopes that the government’s ”failures” on the coronavirus front or the economy or the faceoff with China will erode the BJP’s popularity and help in the Congress’s automatic recovery without any effort on its part.

But people do not usually vote against a party - unless they are really angry as against the Congress in 1977 - but in favour of one. And the Congress with its organizational disarray and over-dependence on one family does not look like one which the voters will trust. Its ideological incoherence is another factor which can turn the electorate against it.

Such confusion was never more apparent when the Congress tried to imitate the BJP by demonstrating its faith in religion with Rahul visiting various temples and claiming to be a Brahmin who wears the sacred thread. His great grandfather, Jawaharlal Nehru, would have been appalled at such dissimulation which struck a blow at Nehru’s vaunted secular principles.

Patently under pressure from the BJP, the Congress has not only become ambivalent about secularism, but it is also apparently undecided about economic reforms, thereby presenting a picture of confusion which can hardly be expected to win voters. At the root of this muddled outlook is apparently an intellectual deficiency which precludes clear and unambiguous thinking.

A focussed leadership which does not regard its position as a permanent entitlement on the basis of birth or marriage would have seen the letter writers as well-wishers who deserve to be listened to with respect and not derided as suspicious malcontents. But none in the family seems to have such a breadth of vision. (IPA Service)