Source : INDIA TODAY NEWS
At a time when the BJP is facing sustained criticism from Opposition parties for allegedly engineering defections and engaging in political manoeuvring to shore up its parliamentary numbers ahead of the Monsoon Session, where contentious issues such as the Delimitation Bill are expected to figure prominently, the Congress has suffered embarrassments of its own. Despite ostensibly possessing the requisite numbers, the party failed to secure two valuable Rajya Sabha seats in Madhya Pradesh and Jharkhand, exposing shortcomings in its organisational grip, alliance management and legislative floor strategy.
advertisement
Ironically, on the very same day that the Congress struggled to hold together support in Jharkhand, it scripted a remarkable victory in Karnataka, securing 16 additional votes during Legislative Council elections despite having a legislative strength of only 135. The contrasting outcomes have prompted a pertinent question: why does the same Congress display vastly different levels of political management in elections held on the same day?
WHAT WENT WRONG IN JHARKHAND?
To ensure the victory of Congress Rajya Sabha candidate Pranav Jha, the party had deputed two senior observers — Bhupesh Baghel and Ajay Sharma.
Former Chhattisgarh Chief Minister Bhupesh Baghel has handled several critical assignments for the Congress, including the Assam Assembly elections in 2021 and preparations for the 2026 polls, besides the Uttar Pradesh Assembly elections in 2022, but these interventions have rarely translated into electoral gains for the party.
Sources say Baghel remained in Ranchi only between June 6 and June 8, met Chief Minister Hemant Soren just once, and left without returning to oversee the crucial stages of election management. Ajay Sharma, too, was involved in the Congress’ management during the Rajya Sabha elections in Haryana, where party candidate Ajay Maken suffered a shock defeat to Independent candidate Kartikeya Sharma despite favourable arithmetic.
A party source told India Today that AICC General Secretary (Organisation) KC Venugopal “didn’t take much interest” in the Jharkhand Rajya Sabha contest, “best known to him”, and that the lack of active oversight eventually contributed to the defeat.
The blame, however, is not restricted to Congress managers. Party insiders suspect cross-voting by four RJD legislators and two CPI(ML) MLAs in favour of Independent candidate Parimal Nathwani. A party source involved in election management suggested that an “angry RJD” may have sought revenge for the Bihar Rajya Sabha elections, where its candidate A.D. Singh lost due to the absence of Congress MLAs.
Many leaders believe the RJD’s grievances could have been addressed had the Congress high command shown greater urgency and political will. The episode has highlighted shortcomings in alliance management.
Another section of leaders argues that Hemant Soren’s meeting with Nathwani ahead of the election sent the wrong political signal. Several legislators allegedly interpreted the meeting as an informal endorsement, creating optics that ultimately proved detrimental to the Congress candidate.
WHAT WENT RIGHT IN KARNATAKA?
While Congress managers in Jharkhand were struggling to retain their own support base, Karnataka Chief Minister DK Shivakumar and Karnataka Congress president BK Hariprasad were busy expanding theirs.
All five MLC Congress candidates won the Legislative Council elections comfortably. Though the Congress had a strength of 135 legislators, its candidates eventually secured 151 votes. The BJP fell short by seven votes, polling 57 instead of its expected 64, while the JD(S) secured only 14 votes against an anticipated tally of 18, indicating significant cross-voting in favour of Congress.
Speaking to India Today, BK Hariprasad said the party “didn’t leave anything to chance or fate.” According to him, Congress carefully analysed the prevailing political landscape and acted accordingly.
Hariprasad cited previous Rajya Sabha victories secured by Congress candidates such as Ahmed Patel, Vivek Tankha and Karambir Singh Boddh in BJP-ruled states after 2014, arguing that indirect elections are ultimately decided by meticulous political management rather than merely by who heads the government in a state.
Another Karnataka leader further claimed that Congress successfully exploited simmering discontent and unfulfilled aspirations among BJP and JD(S) legislators, enabling it to garner surplus votes in Karnataka.
WHAT WENT WRONG IN MADHYA PRADESH?
Congress leader Meenakshi Natarajan’s Rajya Sabha bid in Madhya Pradesh collapsed even before polling began after the Returning Officer rejected her nomination papers on June 9 over an incomplete disclosure affidavit.
The development deeply embarrassed the Congress leadership, as Natarajan is widely perceived within the party as being close to Rahul Gandhi. Sources say the rejection has “hurt” the top leadership, although responsibility for the lapse is yet to be fixed.
Some leaders argue that Natarajan alone should be held accountable, especially since she was contesting from a politically hostile state and should have exercised greater caution. One senior leader remarked that while she is often described as an “intellectual and ideological person”, it was difficult to understand how someone who had contested three Lok Sabha elections could allow her nomination papers to be rejected on technical grounds.
Others, however, suspect internal sabotage, noting that the party overlooked several senior Madhya Pradesh leaders, including Kamal Nath, Digvijaya Singh, Arun Yadav, Kamleshwar Patel, Jitu Patwari and Shobha Ojha, while deciding on the candidature.
The twin setbacks in Jharkhand and Madhya Pradesh stand in stark contrast to Karnataka’s success story. Together, they underline a persistent challenge confronting the Congress: while the party has repeatedly accused the BJP of weakening rivals through strategic poaching and political inducements, it must first demonstrate an ability to effectively manage its own alliances, candidates and legislative arithmetic if it hopes to emerge as the fulcrum of a united Opposition ahead of the 2027 and 2029 electoral battles.
– Ends
SOURCE :- TIMES OF INDIA
