top of page

By:

Arun Vijay

5 May 2026 at 9:27:06 pm

Gandhi to Gramsci: How Congress Lost Its Indian Roots

Unless Congress returns to Gandhi-Vinoba-Radhakrishnan, it will keep strengthening Hindutva forces with its own hands. Rahul Gandhi’s speech at the ‘Chhatron Ki Goonj’ programme in Pune was not merely a speech, but an ideological manifesto. He stated: “70 crore women are India’s greatest strength. You should not be trapped in just three boxes—daughter, wife, or mother. You belong to nobody. You do not belong to anybody except yourself. Smash the patriarchy.” He criticised the Manusmriti’s...

Gandhi to Gramsci: How Congress Lost Its Indian Roots

Unless Congress returns to Gandhi-Vinoba-Radhakrishnan, it will keep strengthening Hindutva forces with its own hands. Rahul Gandhi’s speech at the ‘Chhatron Ki Goonj’ programme in Pune was not merely a speech, but an ideological manifesto. He stated: “70 crore women are India’s greatest strength. You should not be trapped in just three boxes—daughter, wife, or mother. You belong to nobody. You do not belong to anybody except yourself. Smash the patriarchy.” He criticised the Manusmriti’s thought that “a woman should never be independent” and said violence, fear and economic-social control deprive women of opportunities. The core is female autonomy. But its framing reveals Congress’s ideological transition: a tendency to see family and tradition as a ‘fetter’ or ‘cage’. Even if community kitchens or day-care centres were absent from this speech, the direction is clear. This breaks from Congress’s hundred-year-old philosophy. The break began in 1947; its aggressive form has now emerged. Since 1947, Congress had two schools. The first, represented by Mahatma Gandhi, Vinoba Bhave, Kaka Kalelkar, Dr Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan and Rajaji, believed India must be reformed from within. Radhakrishnan described ‘The Hindu Way of Life’ as tolerant. Gandhi sought women’s liberation in Sita’s refusal, not the French Revolution. Vinoba gave women the right to the Vedas through Bhoodan and Brahma Vidya Mandir. They saw the family not as a fetter, but an ashram, and interpreted Manusmriti according to changing times. This became Congress’s mainstream. The second began with Nehru’s Fabian Socialism. While Gandhi said “Go to the villages”, Nehru said “Go to Soviet planning”. Macaulay remained in education and Western ideas of secularism entered culture. Indira Gandhi pushed the party further left. After 2004, under Sonia Gandhi’s NAC, thinkers like Harsh Mander and Aruna Roy officialised foreign ideological imports. Gandhi and Vinoba went into museums; the Western-Marxist framework became mainstream. Rahul Gandhi represents the most aggressive form of that import. The influence of Antonio Gramsci is evident. The Italian Marxist argued that power is won not merely through elections but by shattering Cultural Hegemony through the War of Position and Organic Intellectuals. The strategy means gradually changing definitions through schools, universities, media, NGOs and cultural platforms.. In Pune, references to “a Hindutva project trapped in Manusmriti” and “you belong only to yourself” follow this technique. Depicting Mangalsutra and Karwa Chauth as slavery or patriarchy is part of the process. Certain JNU groups are Organic Intellectuals in Gramsci’s language—appearing like us on the outside, but working for a foreign revolution. Political Suicide This is Congress’s biggest political suicide. Gramsci developed his philosophy against Italy’s centralised Catholic Church. India is not Italy. Its culture is scattered among thousands of castes, saints, folklore, Anganwadi workers and grandmothers running cradles. It cannot be transformed by a single speech. “You belong to nobody…” also forgets a biological and social truth. A human being is born dependent: on a mother’s milk, a father’s hard work and a grandmother’s lullabies. Who cares for children, the elderly, disabled and sick? Not a government scheme, but the belonging that says “You are mine.” ‘My life, My rules’ looks good on Instagram, but even the self-reliant must follow society, law and workplace rules. Attachment is not a fetter, but a ladder. A Mangalsutra is not a chain; it is a public confession: “I have taken your responsibility for life.” This is the Indian perspective. This is especially dangerous for first-generation learners. In a house where no one is a graduate and the mother works in the fields, telling a youth “Your family is your enemy, society suppresses you, rebel alone” does not make him free; it makes him orphaned. He has no NGO backing him, only his family. Therefore, wise youth should choose their battles. Do not fall for false promises or activist groups. Progress does not come from rejecting family or unnecessary conflict with society. Build your world by taking along the family that raised you. Do not reject your parents. Solve life’s problems with patience, gentleness and firmness. This is the true path to liberation. Rahul Gandhi’s path is the opposite. He tells youth their roots are backward. Critics therefore say this thought is close to the philosophy of his maternal home—not because of blood, but context. From this, Modi smiles in his heart. Congress itself provides videos for the BJP. It gets applause in JNU, while votes go to the BJP in Solapur, Nagpur and Vidarbha. The problem is not leadership, but the ecosystem. Unless Congress returns to Gandhi-Vinoba-Radhakrishnan and says “reform from within Indian tradition”, it will remain in a foreign laboratory and strengthen Hindutva forces with its own hands. Female autonomy is necessary. Violence, discrimination and economic dependence must be destroyed. But autonomy is possible not by breaking the family, but by strengthening it and moulding Indian values according to the times. This is the true Indian way. (The writer is a senior journalist. Views personal.)

Selective Outrage

Correspondent
May 9, 2025
2 min read

India’s left-liberal media has long prided itself on being the torchbearer of secularism, dissent and moral rectitude. In the aftermath of ‘Operation Sindoor,’ the precision military strike launched by the Modi government against Pakistan-based terror camps, it has revealed its not a principled commitment to peace or truth, but a disturbing penchant for ideological prejudice, performative sanctimony and selective outrage.


The operation itself was a textbook display of calibrated force and geopolitical prudence. Prime Minister Narendra Modi, often caricatured as ‘authoritarian’ by the ‘liberal’ English-language commentariat, chose patience over provocation. He consulted opposition leaders, held detailed discussions with defence chiefs and took key international stakeholders, notably the United States and Russia, into confidence before authorising limited military action. The symbolism of ‘Operation Sindoor’ was also carefully crafted: a pointed reminder that the attack’s real victims were Hindu women widowed by Pakistan-sponsored militants in Kashmir. The government’s briefings were also strategic and symbolic as two ranking female officers, one of them Muslim, were made the public face of the mission, underlining a new Indian confidence that blends military muscle with democratic pluralism.


But this was unacceptable for India’s entrenched ‘left-liberal’ press, steeped in academic jargon, Western validation and a knee-jerk hostility to anything remotely ‘Hindutva.’ That a Muslim officer briefed the nation on ‘Operation Sindoor’ was branded ‘tokenism’ by such commentators. Others crudely alleged that the April 22 Pahalgam massacre was the logical culmination of reported atrocities against Muslims since Modi came to power in 2014.


The semantic nitpicking over ‘Operation Sindoor’ was maddening. An editor of a prominent magazine dubbed the operation’s name as ‘patriarchal’ and coded in Hindutva tropes. In a bizarre case of moral inversion, sindoor was likened to symbols of ‘honour killings’ and gender oppression, ignoring both its cultural resonance and the cruel reality that these women had lost their husbands in cold blood. For years, India’s ‘secular’ commentariat nurtured a preordained binary: the Congress may be flawed but was at least ‘secular’ while the BJP was an inveterate ‘fascist.’ Thus, the 2002 Gujarat riots are always focused upon but the Congress-backed pogrom of the Sikhs in 1984 is either downplayed or rationalised. Terrorism in Kashmir is tragic, but state retaliation is ‘jingoism.’ A strong Muslim voice in government is ‘tokenism’ but its absence is ‘exclusion.’ Even journalistic rigour is selectively applied. When Pakistan claimed to have downed Indian jets, some Indian outlets rushed to amplify the story before verification, inadvertently echoing enemy propaganda.


Dissent is vital in any democracy. But when its becomes indistinguishable from disdain, when editorial choices are dictated by ideological conformity, then the press becomes a caricature of itself. Ironically, many of these journalists enjoy robust free speech and loudly lament India’s supposed slide into ‘fascism’ from the safety of their X handles. Yet they turn a blind eye to Putin’s repression, Erdogan’s purges or Xi Jinping’s camps. In their eyes, Modi remains the greatest threat to democracy even as they broadcast their outrage freely, without fear of censorship or reprisal. ‘Operation Sindoor’ was a statement of cultural self-confidence. That confidence has rattled those who have spent their careers gatekeeping Indian discourse. Today, their monopoly is over. The people are watching and they no longer believe that the emperor has clothes.

Recent Posts

See All

Comments

bottom of page