Rahul’s politics

Rahul Gandhi’s decision to orchestrate a ‘banian’ protest at the India AI Impact Summit 2026 represents a troubling disconnect between political ambition and strategic wisdom. While the Congress leader may have convinced himself that the stunt served a noble purpose, the fallout reveals a harsh truth- that the protest achieved nothing substantive and instead inflicted considerable damage on his party’s credibility and coalitional relationships. The India AI Impact Summit, held at Bharat Mandapam from February 16-21, 2026, stands as a historic milestone-the first major global AI conference hosted by a Global South nation. Anchored in principles of People, Planet, and Progress, the summit represents India’s commitment to ensuring technology serves humanity rather than exploiting it. Organized by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology under the India AI Mission, it attracted world-renowned tech leaders including Sundar Pichai and Sam Altman. This was precisely the wrong venue for domestic political theatrics. On February 20, members of the Indian Youth Congress staged a shirtless demonstration, waving white T-shirts bearing inflammatory slogans linking Prime Minister Modi to US President Trump and the Epstein Files. The protesters claimed the India-US trade deal was “compromised” and harmful to farmers, attempting to capitalize on the international spotlight to air grievances about unemployment and AI’s impact on jobs. While these are legitimate domestic concerns deserving serious debate, their presentation at a prestigious global forum bordered on recklessness. What makes this decision particularly troubling is the near-universal condemnation it generated-not from government allies, but from Gandhi’s own political partners. The Rashtriya Janata Dal and Samajwadi Party, which have supported Congress positions in Parliament, explicitly distanced themselves from the protest. RJD’s Manoj Jha acknowledged anger exists regarding the India-US trade deal but flatly rejected semi-nude demonstrations at international summits as an appropriate response. Similarly, Shiv Sena (Uddhav Thackeray faction) leaders Arvind Sawant and Aditya Thackeray issued statements disassociating themselves from Congress actions. Even within his own party, Gandhi faced embarrassment. Senior Congress leader Margaret Alva emphasized the importance of discipline and responsibility when protesting international events. Anonymous senior colleagues acknowledged that while opposition protests remain legitimate, the venue was fundamentally unsuitable. Such internal dissent suggests Gandhi’s judgment is increasingly questioned by colleagues who respect. The contrast with another summit embarrassment-Galgotias University presenting a Chinese robot dog as indigenous technology-illustrates what happens when institutions prioritize spectacle over substance. When exposed, the university apologized, and the government responded appropriately. Gandhi’s team offered no such recalibration. Ultimately, Gandhi’s gamble reflects a pattern- of unconventional tactics that generate headlines but fail to translate into political gains or policy victories. The issues he supposedly championed-youth unemployment, agricultural concerns, trade negotiations-are serious matters demanding serious platforms, not international embarrassments. Senior leaders already express dissatisfaction with his approach. In attempting to command global attention, Gandhi achieved something far different: he demonstrated that his leadership prioritizes theatrical gestures over strategic thinking. His party now faces the uncomfortable reality that its own allies view his methods as counterproductive. For a Congress party struggling to rebuild credibility, such self-inflicted wounds prove far more damaging than any government opposition could achieve.