Mani Shankar Aiyar, the Congress party’s elder statesman and intellectual, has thrown a grenade into the already smoldering ruins of the party’s legacy with his revelations in A Maverick in Politics. Aiyar’s critique of Sonia Gandhi’s decision to retain Dr. Manmohan Singh as Prime Minister in UPA-II instead of elevating Pranab Mukherjee is not just a post-mortem; it’s an autopsy of a party’s slow descent into irrelevance. Aiyar contends that Sonia’s choice in 2012 doomed the Congress’s chances of forming UPA-III. By keeping Singh as Prime Minister despite his declining health and relegating Mukherjee to the largely ceremonial role of President, the Congress leadership created a paralysis in governance. Aiyar’s bluntness is striking: he believes this misstep not only undermined the government’s effectiveness but also shattered its credibility in the eyes of both the electorate and the global community. This isn’t mere hindsight; Aiyar’s critique is steeped in political logic. Pranab Mukherjee, with his unparalleled experience and commanding presence, was better suited to lead the government through the turbulence of 2012. India was grappling with a series of crises—from the Anna Hazare-led anti-corruption movement to economic uncertainty. Mukherjee’s political acumen and robust health would have been assets in navigating these challenges. Conversely, Dr. Singh’s health issues and muted leadership style made him a sitting duck for criticism, both at home and abroad. Time magazine’s infamous “Do Nothing” cover story became emblematic of his tenure’s waning effectiveness. Aiyar’s argument gains further weight when viewed through the prism of governance.
The simultaneous health struggles of both Dr. Singh and Sonia Gandhi created a leadership vacuum. The Congress party’s inability to communicate clearly about these challenges—or to manage perceptions effectively—only exacerbated the problem. Governance stagnated, and the opposition’s narrative of inefficiency took root. The Congress, once the towering colossus of Indian politics, was reduced to a shadow of itself by the time the 2014 elections rolled around. Yet, Aiyar doesn’t shy away from acknowledging the complexities of the decision. He notes that Mukherjee’s left-leaning reputation might have unsettled business interests and strained ties with the U.S. But does that justify the choice? Hardly. Mukherjee’s reputation as a pragmatist and his ability to manage diverse political constituencies would likely have overridden these concerns. And let’s not forget—India’s business and diplomatic relationships have survived far more contentious leaders. Aiyar’s critique is also a damning indictment of Sonia Gandhi’s leadership. By prioritizing loyalty over competence, she squandered the opportunity to reshape the Congress’s narrative. The vague “impressions” she gave about potential leadership changes—recalled by both Mukherjee and Aiyar—only highlight her indecisiveness. Leadership is about making tough choices, not about keeping everyone guessing. The Congress today finds itself at a crossroads, haunted by the ghosts of its past. Aiyar’s revelations are not just a reminder of what went wrong but also a call to introspection. If the party is to reclaim its relevance, it must confront its history honestly. Sonia Gandhi’s misstep in sidelining Mukherjee may have been a faux pas, but failing to learn from it would be the ultimate folly.