"If Political Parties Are Not Rooted In An Ideology, They Will Perish" 

The BJP is not pursuing delimitation because it suddenly cares about representation or because it wants a better ratio between MPs and the population. The entire exercise is aimed at dividing the country and ensuring that the party can pass legislation, amend laws and even reshape the Constitution without meaningful representation from large parts of India. The BJP's delimitation is not representation, it is gerrymandering. The party has already carried out delimitation in Assam and Jammu & Kashmir. There are parliamentary constituencies in Assam with six Assembly segments and others with 12. Some constituencies have around nine lakh voters while others have nearly 26 lakh. The situation in J&K is similar. This is happening because constituencies are being cut and stitched together in a way that benefits one political outcome. The BJP believes in imposing its will. It believes laws should simply be bulldozed through. That's what this delimitation exercise is about.

Despite everything the BJP is doing [in terms of splitting political parties], I still don't believe it will achieve the numbers it seeks. But the way it is breaking parties reveals an insatiable hunger for power. The BJP takes political defeats very badly. When a united Opposition defeated the government in Parliament on key issues, I don't think Amit Shah ever truly accepted those setbacks. That is why we're witnessing what we're seeing today. The breaking of political parties, the ideological somersaults politicians are making—these developments diminish our democracy. More importantly, they reveal how intolerant the BJP has become of the Opposition.

I completely disagree. If politicians elected against the BJP now wish to join the BJP, they should first resign. They should return to the people and seek a fresh mandate. Take the example of Trinamool Congress MLAs. If 20 of them want to switch sides, that's their political choice. But they were elected on the Trinamool symbol under Mamata Banerjee's leadership. People didn't merely vote for those candidates. They also voted against the BJP. If you now wish to join the BJP, resign first. Contest again. Let the electorate decide whether it approves of your decision. Instead, what we're seeing today is every constitutional norm being ignored because the BJP believes this is how it can eventually reach the numbers it wants. I don't believe it will.

Because I think the BJP underestimates the intelligence of ordinary Indians. The current delimitation exercise is being hidden behind the Women's Reservation Bill. But people understand exactly what's happening. They are much sharper than they are often given credit for. I come from rural Uttar Pradesh (UP). People in my village know precisely what the BJP is trying to do and why.

 Of course. And we can win again. That's not the point. My point is this: if legislators genuinely believe the public supports their decision to switch sides, they should resign and contest again. When I cast my vote, I vote for someone. But I also vote against someone. That mandate cannot simply be traded away. Maybe politicians change sides because of Enforcement Directorate (ED) or Central Bureau of Investigation probes. Maybe there are financial inducements. Whatever the reason, ideological defections have now been normalised. Horse-trading is no longer considered immoral. Changing ideology overnight is celebrated as political strategy. I think that murders democracy in broad daylight

I genuinely believe that Indian politics is now moving toward a contest between two broad ideological visions. One is represented by the Congress and the other by the BJP. Those are the two competing ideas of India. The Congress believes in an inclusive India, in equal representation. We think Other Backward Classes, Dalits, Scheduled Castes and minorities deserve equal opportunity. Whether someone is Hindu, Muslim or belongs to any other faith, every citizen should enjoy the freedom to profess and practise their religion without fear.

The BJP's idea of India is very different. It believes in uniformity. Our idea is diversity.

India is extraordinary because of its diversity. The day we destroy that diversity, we destroy the very idea of India. That is why every party will ultimately have to choose a side. The INDIA bloc broadly shares an ideological commitment to protecting the Constitution. On the other side are people who repeatedly speak about changing that Constitution. If political parties are not rooted in ideology going forward, I believe they will eventually perish.

I don't think that's true at all. There is a conversation happening. A dialogue taking place. We are part of the INDIA bloc together. We are political parties and we exist to pursue political power. We exist to advance our respective ideologies and the changes we want to bring. Naturally, there will be states where we contest against each other. The Congress remains politically active in Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, UP and several other states. That doesn't mean we stop being allies where larger constitutional questions are involved.

We fought together because we understood what the BJP was attempting to engineer in Tamil Nadu. Through its alliance with the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam and its political manoeuvring, the BJP was trying to undermine the democratic mandate. It was our responsibility to ensure that the people of Tamil Nadu got the government they had voted for. That was the larger objective. We are like-minded political parties and that is why we came together. But being allies doesn't mean the Congress ceases to exist politically in Tamil Nadu. We may not be as strong as we once were, but that doesn't mean we should simply surrender our political space. No party can be faulted for wanting to grow politically.

 I see it as making the political decision that the moment demanded. Had we not acted the way we did, the BJP would have succeeded in undermining the democratic mandate in Tamil Nadu. You may interpret the same political situation differently. That’s perfectly legitimate.

 We've thought about this very carefully. The first principle is simple.You cannot impose delimitation on the country without taking states into confidence. States that performed better economically, invested in education, controlled population growth and industrialised successfully cannot now be punished because other states failed to do the same. That is the central concern of the southern states. Those concerns are genuine. The reason the representation formula was frozen after the 1971 Census was precisely to address these anxieties. It reassured states that they would not lose political representation simply because they implemented successful family planning policies.

Because we've acknowledged our mistakes. Our leadership has repeatedly said the Emergency was wrong. It should never have happened. The question today is whether this government has learnt anything from history. Look at the atmosphere in the country. Can journalists criticise the government freely? Can students and activists? The moment someone questions the government, they're branded anti-national. Look at what happened to the Central Board of Secondary Education students who exposed problems in the examination process. Instead of addressing the issues they raised, they were vilified. You look at climate activists. You look at people expressing dissent. There is an atmosphere where disagreement itself is treated as disloyalty.

The Congress has governed India for decades. Of course mistakes were made. The difference is that we've acknowledged them. A wise political party learns from its mistakes. If today's government keeps repeating those mistakes while simultaneously blaming Jawaharlal Nehru for everything, then what exactly makes it different?

Let me ask a simple question. The BJP has completed twelve years in office. Can anyone name one lasting institution this government has built that the country can genuinely be proud of?

And where has Make in India taken us? Manufacturing was supposed to contribute 25 per cent of the Gross Domestic Product. When the Congress left office, it was around 15 per cent. Instead of increasing, it has declined. Look at foreign investment. Net Foreign Direct Investment has weakened significantly. Indian businesses increasingly prefer investing overseas rather than at home. That tells you something. The lion in the Make in India logo isn't roaring anymore. It has become symbolic rather than substantive. The BJP is very good at creating slogans. It dominates headlines. It dominates television. But what happens after that? Take Beti Bachao, Beti Padhao. What has actually changed? Or take Atmanirbhar Bharat. Our dependence on Chinese imports remains substantial. The publicity is enormous. The outcomes are much less impressive.

People have been saying that for years. Yet, the Congress governs several states. We're part of coalition governments elsewhere. This narrative has become repetitive.

I think that perception suits the BJP. But let's step away from electoral politics for a moment and ask what is actually happening in the country. Look at the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test. Look at repeated examination controversies. Students have lost their lives. Look at the CBSE examination process about which questions have been raised.

Manufacturing hasn't taken off. The rupee has weakened. Foreign investment is under pressure. There are serious economic concerns. Look at foreign policy. Look at our neighbourhood. Look at China. Look at Manipur which has continued to suffer for years. Shouldn't governance be judged on these issues rather than simply on election victories?

That's a very simplistic way of looking at it. The BJP governs with roughly one-third of the national vote share. That also means nearly two-thirds of voters chose somebody else. Please don't disregard those voters. Democracy isn't only about those who voted for the ruling party. Those who voted against it also deserve representation.  Success in elections cannot become the only measure of governance. If that were true, we wouldn't ask governments any difficult questions.

I don't think it can. Let me say this with respect to those who chose to leave. Being in the Opposition today is extremely difficult. It requires courage, conviction, ideological commitment.

I'm not even an MP. I'm simply the Congress's national spokesperson. The kind of abuse I receive every day on social media is extraordinary. I receive rape threats. My daughter and my family are targeted. If you don't deeply believe in the fight you're engaged in, it's very difficult to withstand that kind of pressure. Many of those who eventually joined the BJP were second- or third-generation politicians. They had spent their entire lives close to power. For some, power had become a habit. Some were facing the ED or the CBI. Others believed they could no longer win elections on their own. Some simply found it politically convenient to switch sides. But I think what united most of them was that they had become accustomed to governing. Being in the Opposition was something they couldn't accept.

I don't think that's true. Ashok Gehlot remains one of the Congress' tallest leaders.

He continues to play an important role within the party.

 If Gehlot wants to discuss organisational matters, he'll speak directly to the party leadership. Politics is built on ambition. There is nothing unusual about that. Every politician wants responsibility and wants to lead. That's true in all parties. The Congress doesn't function according to the wishes of one individual. We have internal discussions. There are differences of opinion. There are different leaders. That is how a democratic political party functions.

Then perhaps people should also ask why the BJP failed to persuade 20 Congress MPs to leave after the 2024 Lok Sabha election. That question is rarely asked.

The media often mistakes disagreement for division. Politicians are not supposed to be best friends. Politics is about ambition. Naturally, there will be debates and disagreements.

There is only one top leadership position and people will aspire to it. That doesn't automatically mean the party is breaking apart. Ambition isn't the problem. The question is whether ambition remains within a shared ideological framework. I believe it does.

Perhaps many people expected every party in the alliance to speak in exactly the same voice.

That was never the idea. We are different political parties and not cut from the same cloth.

We agree on the larger constitutional questions, on the constitutional idea of India, on secularism. We agree on pluralism. What unites us is much broader than day-to-day political disagreements. But will we disagree on state-specific issues? Of course. That is perfectly natural. Democracy benefits from debate, disagreement and dissent. As long as we remain united on the larger constitutional principles, differences on individual political issues are entirely legitimate.

 Yes.

Political parties may skip meetings. They may choose different strategies from time to time. That doesn't automatically mean the alliance has collapsed. Look at the exchanges between M.K. Stalin and Rahul Gandhi. See how they continue to engage politically. People often read far too much into routine political developments. Watch Parliament. That will give you a much better indication of where political relationships actually stand.