In a development that has caught the attention of political observers across India, Congress MP Shashi Tharoor on Sunday appeared to back senior party leader Digvijaya Singh’s remarks on organisational discipline and strength, highlighting the need for cohesion and strategic reform within the Congress party. Speaking to reporters in Delhi, Tharoor stated, “Even I want our organisation to strengthen. There should be discipline in our organisation. Digvijaya Singh can speak for himself,” according to reports from the ANI news agency.

Tharoor’s comments come in the aftermath of Digvijaya Singh’s social media post, which drew widespread attention and sparked debate both within the Congress and among political opponents. Singh had shared an undated photograph featuring Prime Minister Narendra Modi alongside former BJP veteran L.K. Advani, describing it as a testament to the organisational strength and effectiveness of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).

Digvijaya Singh’s Perspective

In his post on X, Digvijaya Singh sought to highlight what he described as the organisational prowess of the BJP and RSS. He wrote that the photograph illustrates the journey of a grassroots volunteer within the RSS or a worker within the Jan Sangh/BJP, who, through consistent dedication and adherence to organisational discipline, rose to hold significant political positions, including that of a state chief minister and eventually the Prime Minister of India. Singh remarked, “I found this picture on the Quora site. It is very impactful. It shows how an RSS grassroots volunteer and a Jan Sangh/BJP worker, who once sat on the floor at the feet of leaders, went on to become a state’s chief minister and the country’s prime minister. This is the power of organisation.”

The photograph accompanying Singh’s post featured Prime Minister Modi, former BJP president L.K. Advani, and several other party functionaries at a public rally. In his post, Singh also tagged senior Congress leaders, including party president Mallikarjun Kharge, Rahul Gandhi, Jairam Ramesh, and Priyanka Gandhi, drawing attention to the potential lessons in organisational discipline that could be applied to the Congress.

Mixed Reactions Within the Congress

Reactions within the Congress to Singh’s remarks have been divided, reflecting differing perspectives on the party’s approach to learning from its political rivals. Some leaders, like Sachin Pilot, sought to downplay the controversy, emphasizing the unity within the Congress while acknowledging the right of individuals to express their opinions. Pilot stated, “The Congress remains united. Individuals are entitled to express their views, and discussions about organisational efficiency are a normal part of internal discourse.”

Other leaders, however, strongly opposed any suggestion that the Congress could or should draw inspiration from the RSS, an organisation historically associated with Hindutva ideology and the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi by Nathuram Godse. Pawan Khera, a senior Congress spokesperson, categorically rejected any comparison, saying, “There’s nothing to learn from the RSS. What can an organisation known for Godse teach an organisation founded by Gandhi?” His remarks underscored the sensitivity surrounding the party’s ideological identity and its historical alignment with Gandhi’s principles of nonviolence and secularism.

Political Response from the BJP

The BJP, while describing Singh’s comments as an internal matter for the Congress, did not miss an opportunity to launch a counterattack. BJP MP Sudhanshu Trivedi took aim at Rahul Gandhi, referencing his portrayal in former U.S. President Barack Obama’s book, The Promised Land. According to Trivedi, Obama described Gandhi as possessing “a nervous, uninformed quality” and suggested that while he had done the coursework and appeared eager to impress, he lacked either the aptitude or the passion to truly master the subject. The BJP’s intervention highlighted the potential political fallout from Singh’s remarks, particularly in the context of ongoing rivalry between the two parties.

Digvijaya Singh Clarifies His Position

In response to the criticism, Digvijaya Singh sought to clarify his stance, asserting that his comments had been misunderstood. Speaking to PTI, Singh emphasised that his intention had been to discuss organisational strength rather than endorse the ideology or political positions of the BJP or RSS. “You are misunderstanding things. I praised the party organisation. I am a staunch opponent of the RSS and Modi ji,” he said, attempting to strike a balance between acknowledging the structural efficiency of the BJP while reaffirming his opposition to their political ideology.

This clarification also came after Singh had previously used social media to call for reforms within the Congress party itself. On December 19, Singh publicly urged internal changes, praising Rahul Gandhi and expressing confidence in his ability to implement necessary reforms. He stated, “I am sure you would do it because I know you can do it,” highlighting the need for proactive leadership and internal restructuring to strengthen the party.

The Broader Context of Organisational Strength in Indian Politics

The remarks by Digvijaya Singh and the support shown by Shashi Tharoor bring attention to a recurring theme in Indian politics: the role of organisational discipline in electoral and administrative success. The BJP and RSS are widely regarded as examples of highly structured and cohesive political entities, often credited with their ability to mobilise grassroots workers, coordinate campaigns effectively, and maintain a clear chain of command. By comparison, Congress has faced criticism over the years for internal factionalism and a lack of sustained organisational discipline, which some analysts argue has hindered its ability to compete consistently against the BJP.

Shashi Tharoor’s support for Singh’s comments suggests a recognition among senior Congress leaders that structural reform and disciplined organisational practices are necessary for the party’s revival. Tharoor’s statement, “Even I want our organisation to strengthen,” indicates that calls for internal reform are not isolated to a single voice but reflect a broader acknowledgment of the need for cohesive strategy and disciplined functioning within the Congress.

Internal Party Dynamics and the Future of Reform

Within the Congress, the debate over organisational discipline is likely to continue, as leaders navigate the delicate balance between maintaining ideological purity and learning from competitors’ organisational strategies. While some members, like Pawan Khera, fear that acknowledging any lesson from the RSS could dilute the party’s foundational principles, others see structural reforms as essential to reviving Congress’s electoral prospects.

The mixed reactions to Singh’s comments illustrate the ongoing tension between tradition and pragmatism within the party. Leaders like Shashi Tharoor, who have historically advocated for modernisation and efficiency, appear open to introspection and structural improvements. Meanwhile, the cautious approach of leaders who emphasise ideological continuity underscores the enduring significance of the party’s historical identity and its association with Mahatma Gandhi’s vision for India.

Conclusion

The controversy sparked by Digvijaya Singh’s post, and the subsequent backing by Shashi Tharoor, highlights a critical conversation within the Congress about organisational discipline, internal reform, and the strategies needed to remain politically competitive. While the BJP and RSS are often cited as examples of structural efficiency, the Congress faces the challenge of strengthening its own organisational framework without compromising its ideological foundations.

As Indian politics continues to evolve, the debate over party discipline and structural cohesion is likely to remain a central theme, influencing both internal party dynamics and broader electoral strategies. The remarks of Singh and Tharoor serve as a reminder that even established political parties must continually adapt and reform to maintain relevance, cohesion, and effectiveness in a highly competitive political landscape.