Congress cannot afford another Karnataka mistake

Indian politics has a cruel way of exposing weakness. It does not merely punish defeat; it punishes indecision, hesitation, and the inability to learn from repeated mistakes. That is precisely where the Congress party finds itself today.

There is an old political saying that parties in decline eventually learn how to lose. Over the past decade, the Congress seems to have turned that lesson into routine practice. The tragedy for the party is that many of these defeats are not inevitable. Often, the Congress enters contests with enough political space, public dissatisfaction against its opponents, and organisational presence to remain competitive. Yet, time and again, it fails to cross the final hurdle. The examples are many. Haryana and Madhya Pradesh remain painful reminders. In both states, the Congress was not irrelevant. It was in the contest. It had momentum, visibility, and voter support. Yet, in both instances, it failed to convert opportunity into victory. The party leadership continues to blame external factors, including allegations of electoral manipulation and “vote chori”, but far less attention is paid to internal dysfunction. Delayed decisions, factional rivalries, confused messaging, and a lack of clarity in leadership continue to haunt the party.

For Congress supporters, this is perhaps the most frustrating aspect. These are not new problems. They are recurring patterns. Every election seems to expose the same weaknesses in different forms. At the centre of this crisis lies a simple but critical issue: the inability to place the right person in the right role at the right time.

Voters may disagree with a party’s ideology, but they rarely forgive confusion. The Congress often appears unsure of itself. It hesitates when it should act, debates when it should decide, and second-guesses itself when political instinct demands confidence. Its opponents have understood this far better. The Bharatiya Janata Party operates with a level of organisational aggression and strategic clarity that the Congress has struggled to match. The contrast between the two leadership styles is striking. In the race between a diabetic Amit Shah and a seemingly fitter Rahul Gandhi, the former consistently wins not because of physical energy, but because of political agility, sharper decision-making, and organisational discipline.

Karnataka is not just another Congress-ruled state. It is the party’s southern anchor, one of the few major states where it still possesses organisational strength, leadership depth, and electoral viability. Losing Karnataka would not simply reduce the Congress tally by one more state. Psychologically, it would be devastating. It would deepen the national perception that the party is incapable of retaining even its strongest remaining bastions.

And yet, even in Karnataka, familiar fault lines are emerging. The leadership tussle between Chief Minister Siddaramaiah and Deputy Chief Minister DK Shivakumar is no longer an internal matter whispered about in political corridors. It has become public, visible, and constant. The media tracks every development, every statement, and every signal from Delhi. Naturally, voters are watching too.

Both leaders bring undeniable strengths to the table. Siddaramaiah represents experience, governance, and a social coalition that has historically benefited the Congress. DK Shivakumar, meanwhile, represents organisational energy, aggressive politics, and political management. Within the party, he is often viewed as the dependable troubleshooter capable of keeping the organisation functioning during difficult times. The problem is not the existence of two strong leaders. The problem is the inability of the party leadership to clearly define how both leaders fit into the future structure of power. Earlier signals suggested that DK Shivakumar might eventually get an opportunity to lead the state. Those signals now appear uncertain. The high command once again seems trapped in hesitation.

This indecision is dangerous because politics does not wait. Time is never neutral. Delay almost always benefits the opponent. Uncertainty at the top filters down rapidly. Workers begin forming camps. Rivalries deepen. Authority weakens. By the time Karnataka heads into the next Assembly election, unresolved tensions could become a serious liability for the Congress. There is also a generational dimension to this debate. Many within the party believe DK Shivakumar represents the future. His style is more combative, more aggressive, and arguably more aligned with the current political mood of the country. Siddaramaiah, while respected for his administrative experience, represents continuity with an older political approach. Neither model is inherently wrong. But the Congress appears unable to decide which direction it truly wants to embrace.

This broader drift now defines the party nationally. The Congress frequently builds momentum only to squander it. It raises expectations and then fails to meet them. It gets close to victory and then retreats at the decisive moment. “Pulling defeat from the jaws of victory” has increasingly become associated with the party. Why does this continue to happen? One reason lies in structure. The Congress still functions through an overly centralised high-command culture. State leaders often wait endlessly for approval from Delhi instead of acting decisively on the ground. This slows responses and weakens political momentum. A second reason lies in unmanaged ambition. Political ambition is natural and even necessary. But when ambition is not balanced through timely decisions, it turns into rivalry. Rivalry without resolution eventually leads to paralysis.

A third reason is the absence of a coherent narrative. Too often, voters remain unsure about what the Congress stands for in a specific election. Local concerns get mixed with vague national positioning. Messaging becomes cluttered, inconsistent, and uninspiring. The Kerala victory demonstrates that the Congress is not politically irrelevant. It can still mobilise support and win elections under the right circumstances. This is why Karnataka matters so profoundly. The state presents the Congress with an opportunity to prove that it can still act decisively - an opportunity to demonstrate that leadership conflicts can be resolved before they become destructive, and an opportunity to show that it can protect and strengthen what remains of its political map.

The solution itself is not particularly complicated. The party must settle the leadership question early. It must clearly define roles. It must prevent factional warfare from spilling into public view. Above all, it must project unity and confidence. Politics ultimately rewards those who act with clarity and conviction. It punishes hesitation. Right now, hesitation remains the Congress party’s biggest enemy.

The writer is a political analyst, entrepreneur and television personality; Views presented are personal.