Rahul Gandhi, the scion of India’s most prominent political dynasty, has often positioned himself as the voice of dissent against the current government. His rhetoric frequently portrays him as a crusader for justice, democracy, and the so-called “idea of India.” But in his quest to challenge the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Gandhi often crosses the line between legitimate opposition and undermining the very institutions and values that define the Indian state.
Recently, Gandhi stoked significant controversy by alleging that the Congress Party was not fighting a fair fight. He claimed that their battle was not just against the BJP or its ideological parent, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), but against the “Indian State itself.” Speaking to a gathering, Gandhi declared:
“Do not think that we are fighting a fair fight. There is no fairness in this. If you believe that we are fighting a political organisation called the BJP or RSS, you have not understood what is going on. The BJP and the RSS have captured every single institution of our country. We are now fighting the BJP, the RSS, and the Indian State itself.”
These remarks, shocking in their breadth and implications, not only drew sharp criticism from the ruling BJP but also raised questions about the Congress leader’s understanding of the Indian state. His comments suggest a troubling conflation of political opposition with a broader attack on India’s institutions, institutions that have evolved over decades as the bedrock of the nation’s democracy.
India is one of the world’s oldest civilizations and largest democracies, built on a foundation of resilience, diversity, and unity. Its statehood transcends politics, representing the sovereignty of its people. For Gandhi or anyone else to conflate opposition to a government with opposition to the state is both misguided and dangerous.
Criticism of government policies is not only healthy but essential for democracy. However, Gandhi’s repeated attempts to internationalize domestic issues, question the integrity of Indian institutions, and now allege that the state itself is the enemy go beyond constructive criticism. Such actions erode public trust in the very systems that hold the nation together.
Over the years, Gandhi has made statements that have raised eyebrows and drawn sharp criticism. His speech at Cambridge University in 2023, where he claimed that Indian democracy was “under attack,” was widely seen as an attempt to tarnish India’s global image. Now, with his assertion that the Congress is fighting the “Indian State itself,” Gandhi has moved from dissent to dangerous rhetoric.
The idea that the BJP and RSS have captured every institution in the country is not only exaggerated but also dismissive of the democratic will of the people. Indian institutions, though not perfect, have shown remarkable resilience in adapting to the challenges of governance in a diverse and populous nation. Gandhi’s sweeping generalizations undermine faith in these institutions and alienate the very citizens he seeks to rally.
History has shown that those who pit themselves against the Indian state invariably fail. The Indian state, rooted in the collective spirit of its people, has withstood countless challenges, from external invasions to internal insurgencies. Leaders who misinterpret this resilience as a weakness or an opportunity for exploitation have faced the consequences.
The Indian people are deeply patriotic. While they may criticize governments and policies, their allegiance to the nation is unwavering. When Gandhi or his party frames their opposition as a fight against “Hindutva nationalism” or “authoritarianism,” they often alienate the very citizens they claim to represent. This alienation was evident in the 2019 general elections, where the Congress party suffered its worst defeat in history, securing just 52 seats.
The Indian state, despite its challenges, remains robust because it is underpinned by the strength of its citizens. When Gandhi or any leader undermines the state, it triggers a natural response from the people. This is not about blind loyalty to the government of the day but a collective instinct to protect the nation’s sovereignty and unity.
Gandhi often frames his fight as one against authoritarianism, yet his approach reeks of entitlement. He seems to believe that his family legacy grants him the moral high ground to question the state without consequence. This is a miscalculation. India has moved beyond dynastic politics and personality cults. The people demand accountability, transparency, and meritocracy—values that Gandhi’s politics often fail to embody.
Rahul Gandhi must recalibrate his approach if he hopes to remain relevant in Indian politics. Instead of framing his opposition as a fight against the state, he should focus on presenting a credible alternative to the government. This involves constructive criticism, policy innovation, and a deep engagement with the electorate.
Moreover, Gandhi must recognize that patriotism and opposition are not mutually exclusive. A leader can criticize the government while simultaneously strengthening the nation’s institutions and values. This requires maturity, vision, and a willingness to rise above petty politics.
The Indian state is not a monolith—it is a living, breathing entity shaped by the dreams and struggles of its people. To fight the state is to fight the essence of India itself, a battle that is not only futile but self-defeating. Rahul Gandhi’s current trajectory pits him against this collective will, making it impossible for him to win.
India is a resilient democracy, capable of absorbing dissent and evolving through challenges. However, it is also a nation that demands respect for its institutions, values, and sovereignty. Gandhi must decide whether he wants to be remembered as a leader who strengthened India or one who squandered his potential in a futile fight against its soul.
