‘Congress leaders had come to Maha for political tourism’

New Delhi: The Congress leaders tasked with “managing” and “monitoring” the Maharashtra cadre for the Assembly elections are said to have assumed the elections would be an easy win and therefore did not pursue their targets assertively. This resulted in the party’s lowest-ever performance, winning only 16 Assembly constituencies out of the 103 contested, with a meagre strike rate of 15%.
According to top sources privy to the developments, Sharad Pawar had already expressed concerns about the Congress’ state leadership, as it was not responsive to the changing electoral dynamics in Maharashtra.
Sharad Pawar reportedly told Congress leaders, according to a source, that the Maha Vikas Aghadi’s two parties, the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) and Shiv Sena, had strong cadres, while the Congress had a rich legacy that could create an effective combination for victory. However, he cautioned that if Congress did not respect the other two parties’ units, they might fail to secure a win.
A Congress leader stated, “The Congress party was still in the hangover of the Lok Sabha election results, as it had won the most seats (13), and therefore the state leadership was not willing to follow common instructions or respect the political existence of the other two parties. Elections are won through coordination and management, and the Congress lacked both.”
Although the responsibility for the failure lies with the state unit chief Nana Patole, he has reportedly told those around him that he will not step down, claiming that the responsibility for the failure lies with everyone, not just him. A Congress Working Committee (CWC) member commented, “Maharashtra, like Uttar Pradesh, is diverse and has sub-regional complexities. It requires a leader who truly understands the state’s demographics. However, the Congress central leadership gave the responsibility to a leader from Kerala, Ramesh Chenithala, who does not deeply understand Maharashtra politics. The party has a habit of filling positions rather than appointing leaders to win elections. Seriousness in leadership appointments could improve the party’s performance.”
Adding to the woes were internal bickerings between top leaders Balasaheb Thorat and state unit head Nana Patole. A senior Congress leader said, “Congress leaders were aware of the disagreements between the two. There was constant murmuring about it. The onus is on Nana Patole because he wouldn’t listen to anyone. His rigid style of functioning created cracks in the party’s organization, making it impossible to establish a cohesive thread with other parties.”
Another senior Congress leader holding a high position in the organization said, “The Congress had divided Maharashtra into ten regions, assigning ten top leaders to oversee them. However, no significant work was done. Most of these leaders treated it as political tourism. The party’s hierarchy did not function as effectively as the BJP’s hierarchy.”
A senior Congress functionary remarked, “This happens in a wealthy state like Maharashtra. With so much money involved, leaders tend to enjoy the perks of powerful positions bestowed by the high command, including luxurious stays. There was no sense of purpose among the majority of Congress leaders, which became a major hurdle in our progress. We failed to capitalize on the wave in our favour during the Lok Sabha elections.”
A political observer noted, “The Congress miscalculated their strategy. They assumed Marathas (33% of the state population) and Kunbis (8%) would vote for them in large numbers, but this proved to be a misstep. Their vote bank, including Maratha Muslims, voted for Ajit Pawar in several constituencies. Moreover, the Dalit narrative that worked in the Lok Sabha elections did not have the same impact this time. Overall, the Congress overestimated its support. Often, leaders in the Congress fail to take ground reports seriously, a pattern stemming from arrogance, whereas other parties show curiosity and attentiveness toward such reports.”