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.

Golden Gate

ree

Few stretches of coastline are as geopolitically freighted as the one around Iran’s Chabahar port. At the mouth of the Gulf of Oman, overlooking the Strait of Hormuz, the Shahid Beheshti terminal has long been coveted as a maritime gateway to landlocked Afghanistan and Central Asia. For India, which has invested heavily in the project, Chabahar - long called the ‘Golden Gate - represents both a lifeline and a lever: a way to bypass hostile Pakistan, expand trade into Eurasia and counter China’s inroads through Pakistan’s Gwadar port. For Washington, however, the calculus has shifted.


On September 29, the Trump administration will revoke the sanctions waiver that had shielded Chabahar since 2018. From then on, anyone involved in operating, financing or servicing the terminal will face the same Treasury restrictions as other Iranian entities. This decision, framed as part of Trump’s “maximum pressure” campaign on Tehran, will reverberate far beyond Iran’s shores.


The origins of India’s involvement go back decades. As early as 2001, Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s government signed accords with Tehran to develop the port. Plans faltered when George W. Bush cast Iran as part of an “Axis of Evil,” making partnership toxic. But India returned to the project with fresh vigour in subsequent years, culminating in a 2024 deal under Joe Biden’s administration that gave India Ports Global Ltd a ten-year lease to equip and operate Chabahar. That agreement included $120m in promised investment and a $250m line of credit. India has already supplied cranes and other gear. Chabahar has also served humanitarian purposes, such as the supply of vaccines during the pandemic and pesticides to Iran during locust infestations.


In 2018, when America grudgingly allowed Chabahar to function, the rationale was Afghanistan: then run by an elected government, the country needed reliable access to supplies. That logic, Washington argues, no longer applies. Since the Taliban’s takeover in 2021, the port’s role in reconstruction has evaporated. What remains, in the eyes of Mr Trump’s officials, is a revenue stream for Tehran’s regional mischief-making.


Yet the collateral damage will hit India. New Delhi is not only exposed financially - as millions already sunk into port infrastructure are now at risk - but strategically as well. Chabahar is a node in the International North-South Transport Corridor, a route meant to tie the Indian Ocean to northern Europe via Iran, the Caspian and Russia. Undermining this project diminishes India’s reach into Eurasia, just as Beijing expands its Belt and Road network. With Gwadar less than 200 km away, China gains from any weakening of India’s position.


This comes at a time when relations between New Delhi and Washington are already strained over Trump’s punitive tariffs on Indian exports. For the Modi government, which has tried to balance its relations with both Iran and America, the revocation forces a stark choice: risk American ire by persisting at Chabahar, or retreat and cede the field to rivals.


For years Washington urged India to play a bigger role in stabilising Afghanistan and diversifying regional supply chains. Chabahar was the instrument for precisely that ambition. By suddenly rescinding the waiver, America not only hurts India but also narrows its own options in South and Central Asia. Afghanistan, now under Taliban rule, remains isolated. Central Asian republics, meanwhile, increasingly tilt towards Russia and China for connectivity. Washington may weaken Iran, but it inadvertently strengthens Beijing.


India’s room for manoeuvre is limited. Yet it cannot abandon Iran as Chabahar remains the only viable overland route to Afghanistan and Central Asia that bypasses Pakistan. New Delhi may try to lobby Congress or the State Department to restore a carve-out, citing the port’s humanitarian role. Failing that, it could seek creative workarounds. But any such moves would be fraught with risk.


For Iran, the sanctions cut both ways. Tehran wants Indian investment to offset its economic isolation. It also values India as a counterweight to China’s growing dominance. If India retreats, Iran may have little choice but to lean harder on Beijing, deepening the very dependency New Delhi fears.

Comments

bottom of page