Momentary suspensions and revocable expulsions

Invoking the trivial allegation of ‘party indiscipline,’ Kalvakuntla Kavitha, daughter of K Chandrashekhar Rao (KCR), was suspended from BRS. Yet, as Indian politics repeatedly shows, suspensions seldom mean permanent exile. Even for this comic scene, the script may still end with a return, a ritual of reconciliation, a justification that the suspension was only a misunderstanding and a reunion presented as being for the people’s good. Today she is out, tomorrow she may be back; today she is portrayed as a symbol of indiscipline, tomorrow she may be paraded as a symbol of unity. Political quarrels, especially within families, are never final. They are instruments for bargaining and drawing lines that are erased later.

Embarrassing a leader in the name of discipline, and then in a dramatic reversal bringing the very same leader back garlanded, praised, and projected as indispensable, is a typical Indian political scenario. Suspension, or for that matter expulsion, are seldom taken seriously; they are presumed to be pauses, cooling periods, tactical moves, but rarely final acts of severance.

Examples of Sharad Pawar, Nitish Kumar, Akhilesh Yadav and Uddhav Thackeray testify to this. The cadre may wonder, and the public may speculate, but those at the top know that time heals not through emotion but through political or personal compulsions and the hunger for survival.

The Indian political system has institutionalized disloyalty as a mode of loyalty. Suspension is not complete discarding but putting on notice until conditions allow one’s return. Likewise, to be expelled is not to be exiled; it is to be kept in waiting, because every individual may matter tomorrow. Party leaders denounce rebellion, but they rarely close the door, because the same rebel may tomorrow bring the magic numbers needed to keep power. Leaders justify shifts as sacrifices for the people, but people know that sacrifice is only consistency, not ambition. The rebels strategically be able to decide either to make ‘homecoming’ or ‘climb the ladder’ in appropriate direction. For instance, Y S Sharmila rebelled against INC, sailed with her brother, formed YSRTP, disbanded and became APCC President.

Neelam Sanjiva Reddy, Morarji Desai, Jagjivan Ram, V P Singh, Chandra Shekhar, IK Gujral, Charan Singh, Sharad Pawar, Mamata Banerjee, K Karunakaran and many others would have been remembered as ‘trustworthy loyalists’ to Nehru-Gandhi family’s Indian National Congress (INC), and perhaps rewarded with insignificant positions, had they not rebelled and left the party that sidelined them.

Some, who defied and continued, went on to occupy highest constitutional offices, like President, Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, Chief Minister, Union Ministers. If history is proof, beginning with Motilal Nehru, his family members at one time or another rebelled against Congress leadership or policies not liked by them, to regain grip.

Everyone who opposed Jawaharlal, like Sardar Patel, Subhash Chandra Bose, Purushottam Das Tandon and Pattabhi Sitaramayya, among others, were calculatedly and eventually sidelined.

Nehru, despite Mahatma Gandhi’s support, could not prevent sparks of defiance from JB Kripalani, Acharya Narendra Dev, BR Ambedkar, and Syama Prasad Mukherjee, who resigned when convictions clashed with the party line. Mukherjee laid the foundations of the Jana Sangh, which decades later became the BJP, an early example of dissent creating a new ideological stream in Indian politics. In the Nehru–Gandhi style, Jawaharlal opposed Motilal’s preference for Dominion Status, though Motilal stayed within the party, but helped found the Swaraj Party. Such skirmishes were refined by Nehru’s successor Indira Gandhi to suit her political expediency.

Indira orchestrated splits and engineered dissidence to silence stalwarts like Kamaraj Nadar, Nijalingappa, Morarji Desai, Sanjiva Reddy, SK Patil, and Atulya Ghosh, triumphing over all hurdles. Her successor Rajiv Gandhi, a novice, survived turbulent times not by his own authority but backed by Nehru-Gandhi Legacy, and through a ‘strong coterie protecting their interests.’

Vishwanath Pratap Singh rebelled, and founded the Janata Dal, which later formed part of the National Front, and became Prime Minister with the odd support of both Left and BJP. Chandra Shekhar, breaking away from Janata Dal, too became Prime Minister with Congress support that lasted only a few months.

After Rajiv’s assassination, PV Narasimha Rao, then AICC President and an ‘implicit rebel from within’ silently challenged the supremacy of the Nehru–Gandhi family, represented by Sonia Gandhi. He became Prime Minister but paid the price for suspected disloyalty to her. Since 1998 Sonia has been either ‘de jure or de facto crown on the Congress throne’ no matter who served as President. She too faced rebellion before the 2004 polls, when Pawar, who was leader of opposition in 12th Lok Sabha and PA Sangma revolted over her nationality and formed the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP). Undeterred, she chose Dr Manmohan Singh as Prime Minister.

Pranab Mukherjee, who had once left Congress and formed the Rashtriya Samajwadi Congress after being sidelined by Rajiv, later merged his party back, thanks to PV’s career revival. Eventually, with Sonia’s clearance, he rose to become Rashtrapati during Manmohan’s premiership. Pawar, despite forming NCP, too had no choice but to ally with Sonia’s Congress in the UPA.

Thus, Indian politics have become a ‘theatre of rebels, suspensions, expulsions, betrayals, shifting of loyalties, reconciliations and homecomings.’ Loyalty has been reduced to convenience. Leaders like Ram Vilas Paswan allied with every major party. Nitish Kumar perfected the art of somersaults. Mulayam Singh Yadav faced constant inner battles, including with his son Akhilesh. Ajit Pawar shifted loyalties repeatedly for personal benefit. Eknath Shinde’s rebellion against Uddhav Thackeray destroyed the Shiv Sena.

N T Rama Rao of TDP was outwitted by his son-in-law N Chandrababu Naidu in the name of protecting the party. KCR walked out of Naidu’s TDP, led the agitation for Telangana, founded TRS, and became Chief Minister in 2014. Y S Jagan Mohan Reddy rebelled against Sonia’s Congress, founded YSR Congress, and became Chief Minister.

The cycle continues with mechanical certainty. Indian politics has reduced loyalty to a matter of time. Whether Kavitha continues to rebel or makes a homecoming depends on the script and screenplay. The question is when and under what banner this will be staged, which is the larger irony of our democracy. A system meant to be built on ideals and collective vision has adjusted itself to shifting alliances and negotiated comebacks.

Suspensions like Kavitha’s hardly evoke shock; they are seen as temporary interludes in a larger game where loyalty is measured not in principle but in relevance. The very idea of homecoming and rebellion for personal benefit has acquired sanctity in Indian politics. History has conditioned us to expect Kavitha’s homecoming, sooner or later, because no door in Indian politics is ever fully shut. The only uncertainty is time-days, months, years, or a single election cycle. Kavitha’s suspension and possible homecoming are not confined to one state or party but are a ‘microcosm of a national malaise.’

Yet, if viewed with some optimism, such episodes also reveal the dynamism of Indian democracy, where dialogue rarely ceases and reconciliation remains possible.

Meanwhile, Kavitha has chosen to quit her MLC position and resign from BRS membership. Chief Minister A Revanth Reddy described the entire affair as ‘internal squabbles in the BRS and disputes in the family, because of a disagreement over distribution of ill-gotten money!!!’