On 11th May, Rahul Gandhi accepted the invitation for a public debate with Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The call for the PM Modi Vs Rahul Gandhi debate was made by former editor of The Hindu N Ram, retired judge of the Supreme Court of India Madan Lokur and retired chief justice of the Delhi High Court AP Shah. It is essential to contextualise this move by Gandhi as well as the three who proposed to be moderators of the debate in a broader spectrum of Indian politics. While the three who called for debate have known and well-documented anti-Modi stand, here their bias or genuine in demanding the debate is not in question but Gandhi’s stature is.
It is essential to note that debates are a democratic practice. However, they respect the hierarchy and achievements that distinguish leaders in a country as vast and complex as India.
The idea of a political debate between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and MP Rahul Gandhi comes across more as a political stunt rather than a substantive proposition. It reflects a misjudgment on the part of the three invitees of Gandhi’s standing in the political arena when compared to the stature of Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
To begin with, PM Modi has over two decades of administrative experience, first as Chief Minister of Gujarat and then as Prime Minister of the country. Notably, PM Modi has never faced a defeat in his political career. On the other hand, Gandhi has always been an MP, that too from a seat that is known as his “family’s seat” for most of his political career. He was defeated by Bharatiya Janata Party’s Smriti Irani on the so-called family seat, and he had to enter Parliament from Wayanad, Kerala.
PM Modi has extensive administrative experience and a proven track record. He stands as a towering figure in Indian politics and has significant national and international achievements including economic reforms, strategic foreign policy maneuvers and an in-depth understanding of the core issues of the country. His contributions to economic growth, technological advancements and foreign direct investment have resulted in notable public support reflected in the BJP’s consecutive electoral victories.
To compare it with Rahul Gandhi’s political journey, it is more about “rediscovering” him as a young leader repeatedly. Rahul Gandhi has “arrived” in Indian politics so many times that if he does not get “discovered” as a young leader “who can lead the country” before the Assembly or General elections, it feels as if there is a void in the politically charged atmosphere. Gandhi’s leadership has been questioned even within his party. Those who questioned were sidelined or thrown out of the party and he continued to show his inability to steer the Congress to a commanding position nationally.
Even in the 2024 elections, Congress has to join hands with over three dozen national and regional political parties including all-time rivals like DMK, TMC, AAP and more. While PM Modi is the Prime Minister face of BJP, I.N.D.I. Alliance does not have any PM face for the ongoing elections. Even the Congress party has chosen not to call Rahul Gandhi PM candidate for I.N.D.I. Alliance openly. Congress under his leadership in the recent assembly elections failed miserably in four out of five states. One may say Gandhi is not the President but Mallikarjun Kharge, but everyone knows Kharge is controlling the party only on paper. While walking behind Gandhi, Congress has struggled to present a sustainable agenda and connect effectively with a broader electorate.
Understandably, the BJP is sceptical of the call for PM Modi Vs Rahul Gandhi debate and Gandhi’s acceptance of the challenge. Several leaders of the BJP including Smriti Irani, who defeated Rahul Gandhi in Amethi in the 2019 Lok Sabha Elections, have questioned the premise of such a debate and emphasised the disparity in both the political stature and the administrative accomplishments of the two leaders. Gandhi’s challenge to PM Modi for debate is being seen as an attempt to elevate his political profile without having the credentials that warrant such a comparison with the Prime Minister of the largest democracy in the world.
Furthermore, the idea that any leader of a smaller stature could demand a debate with the PM based on this precedent has the potential to a trivialization of the stature of the prime ministerial office. It could turn serious political discourse into a spectacle and would distract the political discussion from core issues to unnecessary drama. Moreover, Rahul Gandhi had ten years to have a debate with PM Modi in the parliament. He could have asked for it towards the end of Lok Sabha 17. However, he decided to go on walk around the country to get “rediscovered” rather than going to the Parliament and behave as responsible opposition.
To conclude, while debates are a healthy part of democracy, it has to be between leaders of similar stature rather than being just an attempt at political discourse. The disparity of achievements and leadership between PM Modi and Gandhi is notable. The reality has to be reflected while demanding a debate between two leaders.
