Mainstream WeeklyRahul Gandhi’s call for a united, aggressive resistance to the RSS and BJP faces major hurdles as the opinion is deeply divided among regional opposition leaders regarding his call to transition the INDIA bloc into a permanent "resistance movement" against the ruling party. While some regional allies share his idea on unified opposition, some are sceptical of his strategic vision, electoral viability, and ability to keep the alliance intact. They feel that he should have shared his idea with his partymen.
This divergent opinion sends the clear message that the Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance (INDIA) while remains fundamentally united on anti-RSS ideology, the regional rivalries, contrasting political strategies, and skepticism from alliance partners complicate a cohesive nationwide movement. Some of the leaders of INDIA bloc nurse the view that Rahul should begin this resistance from his own party Congress.
While Rahul Gandhi has urged the INDIA bloc to stop relying solely on traditional electoral politics, arguing that institutions have been compromised and a "fair field" no longer exists, significant number of opposition leaders prefer to rely on traditional electoral politics instead of grassroots mobilization. They are scared of going for resistance confrontation with RSS-BJP. They also nurse the view that Rahul’s resistance theory is a move to equate Congress with INDIA: some thing of the nature INDIA is Congress and Congress is INDIA. The opposition is typically made up of diverse, and sometimes competing, regional and national parties. Aligning them on a single, unified national narrative is deeply challenging due to conflicting regional interests.
Many opposition leaders rely on traditional, top-down approaches to politics rather than building the local social infrastructure necessary for true, mass-level resistance. Often, popular anger over issues like joblessness or inflation erupts in spontaneous youth- or civil-led protests. Political parties frequently fail to harness these movements, leaving them looking like peripheral observers rather than movement leaders. Some opposition factions concede that democratic institutions are already compromised, taking a "wait-and-see" fatalistic approach rather than actively fighting.
Basically to take them out of this fatalistic approach, Rahul has given the call for resistance. One thing is absolutely clear that Rahul is trying to make a conscious departure from the traditional Congress. The accusation of the opposition leaders against Rahul that he does not organise popular protest against the atrocities and tortures, like putting the social and political activists in jail without any rationale reason, is also correct. He should have tried to identify with the needs and aspiration of the people. But at the same time a question arises why the leaders of the allies parties have not taken the joint lead to hit the streets and forced the RSS/BJP government to retreat. The farmers’ agitation is the best example.
Farmers continued its movement for more than a year and forced Narendra Modi to apologise and withdraw the three farm laws on November 19, 2021. He apologized to the country saying; "Maybe something was lacking in our tapasya (penance), which is why we could not convince some farmers about the laws." He said, "I urge farmers to return to their homes, their farms and their families, and I also request them to start afresh. The farmers achieved this grand victory without active support and participation of the political leaders in the movement.
It would not be an exaggeration to say the opposition parties primarily focus on their state and regional issues. Even the national parties like CPI(M) too has not focussed on national issues as was expected from it. It has lost completely lost its support base in Bengal. It is a political non entity there. The CPI(M)-led Left Democratic Front (LDF) lost the 2026 Kerala assembly elections due to a combination of severe anti-incumbency, economic distress, and alienation of its core voter base. This historic defeat ended a 10-year rule, reducing the CPI(M) to out-of-power status across all Indian states.
The primary factors that led to the LDF’s downfall include:Economic and Governance Crisis. The growing perception of autocracy and extravagance under Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan alienated many. The centralization of power and the sidelining of prominent, popular leaders in favour of a single-leader projection heavily damaged the LDF’s image. There was widespread dissatisfaction among traditional labour constituencies—such as coir, cashew, and construction workers—who form the Left’s core social base. The government’s refusal to engage with protesting grassroots workers created deep resentment. In an attempt to woo certain Hindu communities, the CPI(M)’s political manoeuvring backfired, which ended up alienating minorities without securing compensatory Hindu votes
In this adverse situation, when Narendra Modi and Amit Shah have let loose reign of terror and determined to finish the opposition, make India a “Congress Mukta Bharat”, Rahul has been trying to position the Congress as an unwavering anchor that will not compromise with the RSS, challenging allies to view their fight as a daily mass-mobilization movement rather than just an election. Despite the unity call, major allies like the TMC, SP, and Left have expressed frustration with the Congress’s overarching leadership and frequently criticize the party’s state-level units. Regional leaders privately acknowledge that they are competing against both the BJP and the Congress in state elections, which fractures the united front. Regional parties rely on their localized political instruments and are hesitant to abandon standard electoral structures entirely for Gandhi’s "resistance movement" framework.
In his speech at INDIA bloc meet on June 8, Rahul for the first time openly clarified that Congress did not block Nitish Kumar from leading INDIA bloc. It is a known fact that Mamata Banerjee and Akhilesh Yadav were not in favour of Nitish becoming the convenor of INDIA. If Nitish had taken over the responsibility to lead INDIA, the political scenario would have been quite different than what it is today. While BJP has trounced Bihar and Bengal, it is steadily moving ahead to marginalise Akhilesh in Uttar Pradesh. It is after TMC defeat in Bengal, Mamata could realise the importance of INDIA and persuaded Rahul to hold the meet on June 8.
The dynamics of how opposition leaders view Gandhi’s push to motivate and lead a united front are structured across several key factors. Major breakaway and regional leaders acknowledge that the Congress acts as the necessary anchor for any national coalition. Leaders like Abhishek Banerjee of the Trinamool Congress (TMC) have met with Gandhi to reinforce coordination and accept his central role. Congress veterans and certain state allies actively campaign for the bloc to formally endorse Gandhi as the singular face against Narendra Modi to present a clear "Modi vs. Rahul" national narrative. To reassure allies who fear Congress dominance, Gandhi publicly stated that the Congress is willing to accept internal criticism and "swallow poison" to preserve unity, which has softened some structural resistance. In closed-door alliance meetings, Gandhi argued that traditional electoral tools no longer work because state institutions are compromised. Strange enough, even in this situation some INDIA allies argue that the focus must remain on winnable election strategies rather than "theatrical surrender" or waiting for the government to collapse.
Little doubt Rahul Gandhi’s acceptance as the leader of the broader opposition coalition is complicated. While the Congress officially projects him as the Leader of the Opposition, regional parties frequently express reluctance. This hesitation stems from the Congress’s shrinking national footprint, ideological conflicts in state elections, and a desire to project a federal, non-dynastic alternative. At the same time, this reluctance has been heavily amplified by targeted political campaigns from the BJP’s social media machinery. Opposition parties face a structural dilemma; to protect their own local influence and often view Congress’s dominance as a threat. Coalition partners as the Left in Kerala have criticized Gandhi’s leadership choices, citing the difficulty of building a united front while competing against Congress at the state level.
Rahul Gandhi’s call for "resistance with unity", unite the opposition, remains highly uncertain, as his efforts to rally the INDIA bloc are being met with mixed responses, internal friction, and external skepticism. Gandhi stated the Congress party is willing to absorb criticism and act as the unifying glue to keep the alliance together. While Gandhi’s appeal has successfully established a narrative of collective resistance within Congress circles, significant structural and ideological differences across regional parties suggest the opposition remains fragmented.
A politician is usually a cunning guy and Rahul Gandhi is yet to be recognised as a prudent politician and what is indeed more shocking is he has not been credited with his political achievements. It was his talent that panicked the saffron ecosystem and its public face Narendra Modi started calling him Pappu, simply for demeaning him and present as a political naïve. But the facts speak otherwise. In the modern political scenario, no other leader be traced who could compete Rahul.
Saffron Andha Bhakts are not tired of projecting Modi as the most intelligent and shrewd politician and his lieutenant Amit Shah as the modern Chanakya. An intelligent, shrewd politician must have a clear vision to serve as a practical compass. Intelligence helps draft realistic policies, but vision is what gives their strategy meaning. Without foresight, a politician simply reacts to daily crises without making any real, lasting progress. Three traits are necessary to judge the intelligent and shrewd politician: Vision, as the destination creates purpose: Direction: A grand goal ensures every day-to-day policy decision points toward a better future and Intelligence: ability to execute strategic foresight. An intelligent politician looks towards direction with a vision. Ironically all these three are not present in Modi. He is merely creation of the situation having the sense of inferiority.
Chanakya was a philosopher, economist who overthrew of the Nanda dynasty and established the Mauryan Empire. He is best remembered for his sharp political pragmatism and as the author of the Arthashastra. He has been the Strategic Statesman. He is widely compared to Niccolò Machiavelli, though Chanakya’s writings significantly predate The Prince. He was a brilliant academic. His foundational treatise, the Arthashastra, remains one of the world’s earliest and most comprehensive works on economics, military strategy, taxation, and state administration.
Amit Shah’s "Chanakya" moniker is largely a media-driven title meant to signify electoral prowess. He has weaponised the already criminalized political system; used the political structure that is fundamentally corrupt, illegal, or unethical, as a tool to attack, punish, or destroy political opponents, precisely has criminalised the system. The political institutions, laws, or law enforcement agencies are already compromised, acting more like a mafia or syndicate than a fair, impartial government. Describing Amit Shah as a mere strategist is the more accurate, a literal description. Shah’s expertise is highly concentrated on party organization, booth management, and winning elections.
In an era of centralized power, opposition movements typically cycle through four repeating phases: Flash-point Protests: mass mobilizations; Tactical Retreat and Pivot: Grassroots Coalition Building and Legal and Institutional Advocacy: Independent legal challenges by civil liberties groups that test the boundaries of an overextended judiciary and regulatory framework.
In his seminal 1951 philosophical essay, The Rebel, Albert Camus explores how individuals resist oppression. He famously defines a rebel as "a man who says no" to injustice, but notes that this refusal is rooted in a deeper "yes" to shared human dignity and life. Camus’s philosophy of resistance is built on several key pillars: The Assertion of Dignity: Rebellion begins the moment a person subjected to oppression decides that "so much will I consent to, but no more". By drawing this moral line, the individual claims their own humanity and recognizes that their suffering is shared by others, moving from isolation to solidarity ("I rebel, therefore we exist").The Refusal of Hatred: Having actively taken part in the French Resistance against the Nazis during World War II, Camus fiercely opposed tyranny, yet he insisted on resisting without becoming what he despised.
Camus is deeply critical of modern political revolutions and totalitarian ideologies (both Fascism and Communism). He argues that when rebellion justifies mass violence and murder in the name of a distant, utopian future, it betrays itself and becomes a new form of tyranny. True resistance demands "clean hands" and moderation. Camus believed that life is the ultimate value, and no ideological end—no matter how noble—can ever justify unjust means.
This quote by Albert Camus points to a uniquely human contradiction: unlike animals, which simply live according to their nature, humans constantly resist, question, and try to redefine who they are. At a deeper level, Camus is highlighting our endless dissatisfaction. We are always projecting into the future, trying to become better, more successful, or different, instead of accepting the present version of ourselves. The question Camus leaves us with is uncomfortable: are you evolving, or just running away from yourself
Political resistance is the deliberate opposition to dominant power structures, aimed at challenging, reshaping, or overthrowing unjust authority and systemic inequalities. In political philosophy, power and resistance are inextricably linked. As famously posited by Michel Foucault, power is not merely top-down coercion, but a network of relations. Resistance is the inherent pushback against these dynamics. Paradoxically, resistance can sometimes reinforce dominant power structures, either by inadvertently defining the societal norms it pushes against or by exposing dissenting groups to official state repression. Resistance is not limited to physical actions; it also occurs in the realm of ideas, symbols, and culture. Marginalized groups often use language, dress, and art to challenge dominant narratives and articulate a counter-hegemonic identity, an approach frequently seen in historic anti-apartheid struggles or indigenous rights movements.
Conventional political tools are no longer effective against the BJP. Gandhi explained his resistance by saying, which he called “Satyagraha,” “I do not give anyone the opportunity to walk in my brain with dirty feet.” Satyagraha is a form of resistance based on truth and the right to act without using violence. On September 11, 1906, in Johannesburg, South Africa, Mahatma Gandhi put into practice Satyagraha in front of three thousand Indians, presenting it as a new strategy to protest against racist and separatist policies. Methods that involve important personal sacrifices. Examples of this form of resistance include non-collaboration with the enemy, non-violence, civil disobedience, conciliation, asceticism, hunger strike, and marches that last months.
Resistance is the act of opposing, withstanding, or refusing to accept something irrational which the body and mind refuse to accept. It broadly refers to a force that blocks, or fights against a person, action, or physical process. Resistance provides the necessary friction that gives structure and meaning to existence. Resistance is the force that moulds character and individual purpose. He urged the INDIA bloc to abandon conventional politics for aggressive mass mobilization, and declared that Congress would act as the alliance’s unifying anchor. Because the BJP controls state apparatuses and institutions, the opposition must adopt a spirit of continuous resistance. The alliance must shift focus to daily civic action and mass mobilization (similar to the Bharat Jodo ). He even promised Congress is willing to "swallow poison" (endure criticism and humiliation) to keep the alliance united, and will never compromise ideologically with the BJP or RSS.
Little doubt his conciliatory approach demonstrates deep maturity and statesmanship, while critics view the speech as a necessary tactical defence to keep the coalition intact. Rather than getting bogged down in individual election results, he urged alliance leaders to recognize that the challenge before the opposition is "existential" and requires a completely new political strategy. By publicly acknowledging the concerns of allies like Mamata Banerjee and Akhilesh Yadav regarding electoral irregularities, he sought to project a cohesive national stance.
Significantly at the INDIA bloc meeting, Rahul Gandhi presented an alternative vision for India focused on unity, constitutional defence, youth empowerment, and a shift toward "resistance" politics. He urged alliance partners to set aside minor differences and unite in the face of what he called an existential threat to Indian democracy. He cautioned allies against pulling each other down, stressing the need to present a united front to successfully challenge the BJP. His forward-looking narrative emphasizes empowering Gen Z, bridging societal divides, and fostering economic systems that create sustainable jobs and handle the challenges of AI. He consistently framed the political battle as an existential fight for the Indian Constitution, pluralism, and democratic institutions.
After 138 years of its existence Rahul Gandhi is striving for creating a New Vision for India and re-defining Congress’ Ideology. This is certainly not a wrong move. At INDIA meet he emphasized the importance of unity among alliance partners and urged them to believe in their ability to defeat the BJP. He asserted that, state after state and election after election, the BJP would eventually be defeated, regardless of whether the contests were conducted fairly or marred by irregularities. "Let me tell you, it is easy to beat them if we stand together and resist," he said. There is no denying that the ‘liberty’ of Indians is under assault under BJP’s regime. BJP would have a committed judiciary, a committed bureaucracy and a committed citizenry.
He framed the Congress as a “resistance movement”, in the context of the Bharatiya Janata Party and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh “tightening their grip on the Indian State,” and rendering conventional political tools increasingly ineffective. He said: “If political parties can’t function, what functions? Resistance functions. Resistance works. Wherever we resist, it works. I have seen it with my own eyes. I have walked 4,000 kilometres across this country — resistance works. You don’t need political architecture. You don’t need the bureaucracy. You don’t need the intelligence agencies. You need the act of resistance”.
Rahul compared the Congress’s role in the alliance to Lord Shiva (in the Shaiva tradition), stating the party is willing to "swallow poison"—absorbing attacks, criticism, and humiliation from allies—to keep the anti-BJP coalition unified. He firmly declared, "We will die in the Congress party before we stand with or compromise with the BJP or the RSS." He said: "Unlike all other political parties, Congress was not built using the infrastructure and protection of the Indian state... Our party began as a resistance movement when modern India did not exist. If political institutions fail to function, resistance must. The mindset must now be: we will not fight each other. We will resist. I will not allow injustice”.