How Mission PK was aborted

Poll strategist Prashant Kishor's entry into the Congress was aborted despite being cleared at the highest level of the Congress' first family trio - Sonia, Priyanka and Rahul Gandhi. It ended not due to the opposition of the so-called Old Guard in the party but by his own overweening ambition. Other than the Gandhis, he wanted to be answerable to no one else in the party, and even they must hand over full electoral control.

The contradictions and shortcomings in Kishor's proposals were glaring. For example, while he proposed elections for all organisational posts, direct appointment was reserved for the three Gandhi family members and Kishor himself. The historical analysis of how the organisational malaise in the party was seemingly traced to 1998, the year Sonia Gandhi became party president, rather than to the 1970s under Indira Gandhi. He suggested that by holding on to the top leadership, the Gandhi family destroyed vibrancy in the party. Yet, he also proposed that their leadership must remain to back his plans to restructure the party for elections. Although his analysis only aimed at creating an election management structure for 2024, it lacked a programmatic approach to renew the party and did not provide a long-term blueprint for organisational transformation. He recommended that the Congress get 70 per cent of the minority vote while being simultaneously critical of the Congress' image as a party of minorities. Most importantly, he has no prescription for tackling the hyper-nationalism of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party.

Also Read | One-man show vs grand old party: What didn't work between Prashant Kishor and Congress

Some of these issues were discussed within the party, yet no one was openly critical in the face of approval by the Gandhis. However, there was apprehension that he expected to run the Congress on a franchisee model – where the party would be handed over to him fully in order to deliver electoral victory. Kishor had parked himself at 10 Janpath, the residence of Congress president Sonia Gandhi, for a few days last week and was even holding meetings with his non-Congress guests there. The suggestion that he was already in charge of the party did not endear him to other leaders within the Congress. Yet no one spoke against him.

Then suddenly, something changed. Instead of the working president or vice president's post he had asked for, he was offered the chairmanship of the 15-member Empowered Action Group (EAG) created by the Congress president for the 2024 elections. He refused, sticking to his demand of running the election mechanism of the party – from fund collection to micro-managing the polls – all by himself and reporting directly to the Gandhis. This was neither acceptable to Sonia Gandhi nor to the other senior leaders of the party.

It also went against him that he had spent two days as the personal guest of Telangana Rashtra Samithi chief and Telangana Chief Minister K Chandrasekhar Rao to finalise an election management consultancy for the 2023 state elections. While his presentation to the Congress leadership ruled out any alliance with a party that was a direct rival of the Congress in a state, he felt he could be exempted from this, and his company – Indian Political Action Committee or IPAC – could advise political adversaries of the Congress. Not surprisingly, his argument that his "professional" advice to IPAC was quite distinct from his "political" advice and work with the Congress was unacceptable to the party leadership. His claim of having distanced himself from IPAC while continuing to advise "his people" there was difficult to swallow.

A perceptible change also occurred in Sonia Gandhi's attitude towards Kishor after he refuted comparisons to the late Ahmed Patel, claiming that while Patel was a 'minion', he would be a 'stakeholder' in the party. By all accounts, although Ahmed Patel was a formidable power within the party in his lifetime, he was counterbalanced by Ambika Soni. Then there were regional countervailing forces – Ahmed Patel was not free to act as he wanted. Kishor wanted a totally free hand.

Many insiders believe that the pointed insult directed at a dead and a trusted colleague might have changed the attitude of Sonia Gandhi. She is believed to be extremely sensitive to comments that deliberately demean others. It may have revealed to her a key aspect of Kishor's personality – disparaging others to brighten his own image.

It seems of the Gandhi trio, Priyanka Gandhi was the keenest on Kishor's Congress entry. Rahul Gandhi was apparently a reluctant sponsor of the idea, while party president Sonia Gandhi followed old-style politics of holding her counsel while asking others to advise her and tell her what they thought of Kishor's ideas. The attempt at giving a key role to Kishor is being seen essentially as Priyanka Gandhi misjudging his ambition and conceit.

Party insiders claim that this is precisely what happened when she supported a maverick like Navjot Singh Sidhu in Punjab politics. Kishor is as smug, cocksure and egotistic. The Kishor episode is likely to damage Priyanka Gandhi's reputation in the party as a repeat of her Punjab mistake.

There is also discomfiture within the party that sensitive negotiations about the plans for the coming state elections and the 2024 general elections were held so openly. The so-called transparent discussions which were leaked to the media are likely to underline the desperation of the Congress party. While Kishor's election marketing business thrives on such publicity, it is the Congress party which is the loser. It may find it difficult to live down its public embarrassment.

(Bharat Bhushan is a journalist based in Delhi.)

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.

Check out latest DH videos here