Political rhetoric in India has never been short of drama. But every once in a while, a statement emerges that is so detached from reality that it deserves not just rebuttal but ridicule. The recent remark by Mallikarjun Kharge describing Prime Minister Narendra Modi as a “slave” of the US President Donald Trump belongs squarely in that category. It is not merely inaccurate—it is a reflection of the intellectual bankruptcy that now defines the discourse within the once formidable Indian National Congress. The irony, of course, is almost poetic. A party that has spent decades revolving around the authority of a single political family now lectures the country on independence of leadership. One cannot help but wonder: if anyone understands the vocabulary of “political servitude,” it is the Congress ecosystem itself. Take the case of Kharge. His elevation as Congress president was projected as a historic moment for internal democracy. But few in the political class are naïve enough to believe that the real power in the party shifted away from the Gandhi household. The command structure remains unchanged. The symbolic president presides, while the real authority rests with the dynasts. This is not new in the Congress tradition. The party has long perfected the art of promoting loyalists who are expected to remain grateful occupants of positions bestowed by the leadership. History offers several examples. Jagjivan Ram, one of the tallest Dalit leaders of his time, rose within the Congress system but always under the shadow of the party’s central authority. In contrast stood B. R. Ambedkar—a man who refused to bend his intellect or convictions to the whims of political power. Ambedkar chose dignity over convenience, even when it meant confronting the establishment led by Jawaharlal Nehru. That distinction between self-respect and political dependency is what the Congress seems to have forgotten. Even highly accomplished individuals have not escaped the gravitational pull of the dynasty. Consider Manmohan Singh—an economist of impeccable reputation who served as Prime Minister for a decade. Yet the uncomfortable truth acknowledged even by many Congress insiders was that authority did not entirely reside in the Prime Minister’s Office. It hovered elsewhere, in the corridors occupied by Sonia Gandhi and the party high command. The pattern is unmistakable: loyalty to the family is rewarded; independence is viewed as rebellion.
That is why voices of dissent eventually leave. Leaders such as Ghulam Nabi Azad and Kapil Sibal walked away after decades of service, unwilling to remain silent spectators to a party increasingly controlled by the political entitlement of Rahul Gandhi. Their departures were not isolated events—they were symptoms of a deeper crisis. Against this backdrop, Kharge’s accusation against Modi becomes almost comedic. To call Modi a “slave” of Trump requires either extraordinary imagination or extraordinary ignorance of geopolitical realities. During Modi’s tenure, India has pursued a fiercely independent foreign policy—balancing relationships with the United States, Russia, Europe, and the Global South with remarkable strategic autonomy. India bought oil from Russia despite Western pressure, stood firm on its national interests, and simultaneously strengthened partnerships with Washington. If this is “slavery,” the word has clearly lost its meaning. The truth is far simpler: global leaders today recognize India’s rising influence. Whether in meetings with American presidents, European leaders, or Asian partners, Modi represents a nation that speaks with confidence, not subservience. And that is perhaps what unsettles the Congress the most. For decades, its political narrative relied on projecting itself as the natural custodian of India’s global image. That illusion has collapsed. The tragedy is that instead of rebuilding itself with introspection and credible leadership, the Congress prefers theatrical accusations and parliamentary disruptions. When party leaders stall legislative business or move symbolic motions against constitutional authorities, it exposes not strength but desperation. Kharge’s remark, therefore, tells us less about Modi and more about the Congress itself. For a party still struggling to free itself from dynastic dependency, lectures about “slavery” sound less like criticism and more like confession.
