The Congress tradition and Shashi Tharoor debate

The ongoing debate surrounding Shashi Tharoor has become a subject of intense discussion both within and outside the Congress Party. Politically, his views—whether right or wrong—must be analyzed through a broader historical and ideological lens. While the Congress has always upheld internal democracy and the freedom to express diverse opinions, no leader, including Tharoor, can unilaterally impose their views as the party’s official stance.

Since its founding in 1885, the Indian National Congress has been the cradle of India’s political evolution. Over the decades, it has accommodated a broad spectrum of ideologies—ranging from moderate constitutionalism to radical nationalism, from socialist thought to conservative economic policies. The Congress has thrived as a movement of leaders with differing perspectives, both during the freedom struggle and in post-independence governance, enriching its legacy through internal debate and ideological diversity.

A Legacy of Ideological Diversity

The Congress has always been a melting pot of contrasting viewpoints. During the early 20th century, there was an ideological split between moderates and extremists. Leaders like Dadabhai Naoroji, Gopal Krishna Gokhale, and Ferozeshah Mehta, influenced by Western liberal thought, advocated peaceful constitutional methods to achieve self-rule. In contrast, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Bipin Chandra Pal, and Lala Lajpat Rai championed a more aggressive approach, embracing protests and boycotts.

Within this spectrum, Maulana Hasrat Mohani emerged as a radical left-wing voice. Joining the Congress in 1904, he was the first to raise the demand for complete independence (Azadi-e-Kamil) in 1921, even before the idea gained broader acceptance. While Mahatma Gandhi initially hesitated to endorse this call, he later aligned with the growing sentiment of the younger generation.

Gandhi’s unique contribution to the freedom struggle was his philosophy of Satyagraha—a fusion of moral conviction and political strategy. His non-violent methods mobilized the masses and transformed the independence movement into a people’s struggle. However, these methods were not universally accepted within the party. Subhas Chandra Bose, for instance, rejected non-violence, advocating armed resistance. Meanwhile, Jawaharlal Nehru, though deeply influenced by Gandhi, leaned towards socialism as the framework for India’s economic development.

Post-Independence: Shaping India’s Political Course

After 1947, the Congress transitioned from a liberation movement to the ruling party, shaping India’s destiny for decades. Under Nehru’s leadership, India adopted a socialist model of governance, drawing inspiration from the Soviet Union. However, right-leaning Congress leaders, including Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel and Purushottam Das Tandon, critiqued this model, arguing for a more market-driven economy and emphasizing cultural nationalism.

Indira Gandhi, Nehru’s successor, deepened socialism by nationalizing banks and abolishing the privileges of former princely rulers. Her populist slogan, Garibi Hatao, resonated with the masses. However, her centralization of power and the declaration of Emergency (1975–77) triggered internal dissent, leading to a major split in the party, with leaders like Morarji Desai and Jagjivan Ram breaking away.

The Congress’s ideological trajectory continued evolving. While Indira Gandhi championed socialist policies, Rajiv Gandhi (1984–1989) introduced early economic liberalization, promoting private industry and IT development, and reduced government control. The most dramatic shift came under P.V. Narasimha Rao and Manmohan Singh in 1991, when India embraced economic reforms, liberalization, and globalization, moving away from Nehruvian socialism. Though met with resistance from socialist factions, these reforms were essential to address India’s economic crisis.

Tharoor and the Congress’s Tradition of Debate

Given this rich history, the Congress must approach Shashi Tharoor’s remarks with a sense of perspective. His call to attract non-Congress youth, intellectuals, and a broader cross-section of society should not be dismissed outright. The party has always grown by incorporating diverse viewpoints, and his contributions—both as a politician and as a scholar—underscore the role of intellectual engagement in political discourse.

That said, Tharoor’s statements—such as his praise for the Kerala government’s policies and his support for Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to the US—have fueled speculation both within and outside the party. While healthy debate is welcome, leaders must also exercise caution to ensure their remarks do not contradict the party’s core principles or create unnecessary controversies.

The Relevance of Ideological Pluralism Today

The Indian National Congress has never been a monolithic entity; rather, it has reflected the vast ideological diversity of India itself. The party’s strength lies in its ability to accommodate differing opinions while maintaining unity. As the Congress faces formidable political challenges, it is imperative for its leaders and cadres to remember this legacy.

Now, more than ever, the need of the hour is collective action. Inner-party democracy is the Congress’s hallmark, but it should be exercised with responsibility and a shared commitment to the party’s larger mission. At a time when forces are actively working to weaken both the party and the nation, unity must take precedence over differences.

At the same time, it is important to recognize that some media outlets have misrepresented and distorted Shashi Tharoor’s statements on this issue. In an era where narratives can be easily manipulated, Congress leaders and workers must exercise greater caution in the days ahead. The focus should remain on strengthening the party, fostering constructive dialogue, and staying united against forces that seek to create division.

(The writer is the Convener of the Indian Overseas Congress, Middle East.)