top of page

By:

Quaid Najmi

4 January 2025 at 3:26:24 pm

Congress’ solo path for ‘ideological survival’

Mumbai: The Congress party’s decision to contest the forthcoming BrihanMumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) elections independently is being viewed as an attempt to reclaim its ideological space among the public and restore credibility within its cadre, senior leaders indicated. The announcement - made by AICC General Secretary Ramesh Chennithala alongside state president Harshwardhan Sapkal and Mumbai Congress chief Varsha Gaikwad - did not trigger a backlash from the Maharashtra Vikas Aghadi...

Congress’ solo path for ‘ideological survival’

Mumbai: The Congress party’s decision to contest the forthcoming BrihanMumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) elections independently is being viewed as an attempt to reclaim its ideological space among the public and restore credibility within its cadre, senior leaders indicated. The announcement - made by AICC General Secretary Ramesh Chennithala alongside state president Harshwardhan Sapkal and Mumbai Congress chief Varsha Gaikwad - did not trigger a backlash from the Maharashtra Vikas Aghadi (MVA) partners, the Nationalist Congress Party (SP) and Shiv Sena (UBT). According to Congress insiders, the move is the outcome of more than a year of intense internal consultations following the party’ dismal performance in the 2024 Assembly elections, belying huge expectations. A broad consensus reportedly emerged that the party should chart a “lone-wolf” course to safeguard the core ideals of Congress, turning140-years-old, next month. State and Mumbai-level Congress leaders, speaking off the record, said that although the party gained momentum in the 2019 Assembly and 2024 Lok Sabha elections, it was frequently constrained by alliance compulsions. Several MVA partners, they claimed, remained unyielding on larger ideological and political issues. “The Congress had to compromise repeatedly and soften its position, but endured it as part of ‘alliance dharma’. Others did not reciprocate in the same spirit. They made unilateral announcements and declared candidates or policies without consensus,” a senior state leader remarked. Avoid liabilities He added that some alliance-backed candidates later proved to be liabilities. Many either lost narrowly or, even after winning with the support of Congress workers, defected to Mahayuti constituents - the Bharatiya Janata Party, Shiv Sena, or the Nationalist Congress Party. “More than five dozen such desertions have taken place so far, which is unethical, backstabbing the voters and a waste of all our efforts,” he rued. A Mumbai office-bearer elaborated that in certain constituencies, Congress workers effectively propelled weak allied candidates through the campaign. “Our assessment is that post-split, some partners have alienated their grassroots base, especially in the mofussil regions. They increasingly rely on Congress workers. This is causing disillusionment among our cadre, who see deserving leaders being sidelined and organisational growth stagnating,” he said. Chennithala’s declaration on Saturday was unambiguous: “We will contest all 227 seats independently in the BMC polls. This is the demand of our leaders and workers - to go alone in the civic elections.” Gaikwad added that the Congress is a “cultured and respectable party” that cannot ally with just anyone—a subtle reference to the Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS), which had earlier targeted North Indians and other communities and is now bidding for an electoral arrangement with the SS(UBT). Both state and city leaders reiterated that barring the BMC elections - where the Congress will take the ‘ekla chalo’ route - the MVA alliance remains intact. This is despite the sharp criticism recently levelled at the Congress by senior SS(UBT) leader Ambadas Danve following the Bihar results. “We are confident that secular-minded voters will support the Congress' fight against the BJP-RSS in local body elections. We welcome backing from like-minded parties and hope to finalize understandings with some soon,” a state functionary hinted. Meanwhile, Chennithala’s firm stance has triggered speculation in political circles about whether the Congress’ informal ‘black-sheep' policy vis-a-vis certain parties will extend beyond the BMC polls.

Colonial Continuity

Keir Starmer’s recent arrival in Mumbai with a 100-strong entourage of British CEOs, vice-chancellors and cultural grandees had all the trappings of an imperial roadshow. His rhetoric was lofty and all about “partnership” and “shared ambition” and “a new era” with India. Yet, behind the handshakes and trade deals lies an older, more cynical truth that Britain’s interest in India remains extractive. It wants the profits of partnership without the reciprocity of openness.

 

Starmer’s historic visit, the first by a Labour prime minister in decades, was sold as a new chapter in bilateral relations. The much-vaunted UK–India trade deal, he claimed, would be a launchpad for British leadership in technology, life sciences and renewable energy. The subtext was obvious that India’s booming market and talent pool are to be harnessed for Britain’s own revival.

 

It is the latest act in a long-running performance. Two centuries ago, the East India Company cloaked plunder in the language of progress. Today, the British state cloaks economic dependency in the language of partnership. The timing of this newfound enthusiasm for India is telling: a post-Brexit Britain, cut adrift from Europe and desperate for growth, sees in India not an equal but a commercial lifeline.

 

Yet even as it praises India’s ascent, Britain refuses to treat Indians as partners. Just before his visit, Starmer was explicit that visa liberalisation had played no part in the deal. There would be no easier access for Indian workers, students or entrepreneurs, UK ministers said.

 

The message seems to be that the UK only wants India’s markets, not its migrants.

The hypocrisy is breathtaking. While Britain preaches inclusivity and global cooperation, its immigration policy is harshest towards Indians - the very group its universities and corporations court for tuition fees and contracts. By contrast, visa approvals for Pakistanis and Bangladeshis pose no problems. To Britain’s ruling establishment, Indians are welcome as consumers and clients, not as citizens or co-creators.

 

Consider the symbolism of British universities expanding campuses across India. The initiative is framed as educational collaboration, but its echoes are unmistakably colonial. In the 19th century, the East India Company exported not just goods but ideas, thus embedding English education to serve imperial ends. Now, as British academia battles ideological decay and financial strain at home, India offers a fresh frontier.

 

Starmer’s Labour, like successive Conservative governments, speaks of a “modern partnership” with India. From the Indian point of view, a confident nation poised to become the world’s third-largest economy need not play supplicant to a fading power nostalgic for empire.

 

History, it seems, is repeating itself, if as farce rather than tragedy. The East India Company once came bearing contracts and curricula, too. It promised prosperity and progress, and left behind subjugation. Today, Britain returns with memoranda and campus blueprints, insisting it wants partnership. India would do well to remember that every empire, before it fell, also called itself a friend.

Comments

bottom of page