There is one thing in common between Shashi Tharoor, Manish Tewari, Anand Sharma and Ghulam Nabi Azad beyond merely being part of multiple delegations deputed to explain India’s position to the world in the wake of the terror attack in Pahalgam and the subsequent retaliatory strikes to hit the terror bases there.
All of them were part of the famed ‘G-23’, a group of 23 leaders, supposedly dissident, who wrote a letter to the party high command seeking strong leadership. The letter was taken as a sign of defiance and rebellion against Rahul Gandhi. Most of those leaders have since made peace with the leadership. A few, like Azad, have left the party.
While Tharoor and Tewari were nominated by the BJP among four Congress leaders, the name of Anand Sharma was recommended by the Congress only. In fact, he is the only one recommended by the Congress who has also been included in the delegation. The names of the other three MPs, Gaurav Gogoi, Naseer Hussain and Raja Warring, were not accepted by the government. The delegation from the Congress also includes Salman Khurshid and Amar Singh.
The G-23 issue is long dead and buried. But those who were part of the group are feeling haunted by the past from time to time. The G-23 included other veterans like Bhupinder Singh Hooda, Rajinder Kaur Bhattal, Prithviraj Singh Chavan, among others. The party eventually appeared to have let bygones be bygones.
There is every likelihood that the Government of India, when it shortlisted the names of the Congress leaders to be included in the delegation, had the idea of G-23 as the last thing in its mind. But in hindsight, the idea must have stuck everywhere, among the ruling party as well as the principal opposition party.
The interesting part is that while in the government’s list of four Congress nominees, two were from the G-23, Tharoor and Tewari, even in the list submitted by the Congress to the government, there was one G-23 member, Anand Sharma.
Much water has already flowed down the Yamuna since the G-23 tried to offer some resistance. However, the fact that four prominent leaders of the Congress, one of whom, Ghulam Nabi Azad, is no longer with the party, are part of the delegation to represent the country and have also been part of the G-23, calls for some deep reflection by the Congress.
The government did not obviously choose them because of the G-23 link, but because all of them are quite talented enough to represent the country and put up an effective case in front of other nations. In the Congress, however, these leaders remain marginalised, mere MPs, for obvious reasons.
There is an “unintentional” message for the Congress that the talented leaders — and there is no dearth of them in the party — may try to raise questions as they raised when they came together and formed the “Group of 23”. The party did not take any remedial measures even after that. G-23 simply vanished as some of the prominent leaders like Azad and Kapil Sibal, among others, left the party.
Nothing has changed in the party since then, except that it has doubled its strength in the Lok Sabha, reaching 99. The party “leadership” believes it to be the victory of the Congress and defeat of the BJP and Prime Minister Modi, thus again reinforcing the perception that had led the G-23 to raise certain questions.
The very fact that the Congress initially resisted the government’s suggestion about the names to be included in the delegation reflects the same thinking in the party that prompted the G-23 rebellion: not to allow any critical thinking within the party and not to acknowledge, encourage and accommodate the talent that the party possesses — for not so “hidden” reasons.
“Don’t do your best, it is not required.” Maybe the party does not want any alternative and stronger leadership to emerge that may challenge the status quo, but that will not be in its overall interest. The party continues to pay a heavy price for maintaining the status quo, while waiting for some “miracle” to happen.
Follow us
