Almost three decades at the UN in various capacities have earned Shashi Tharoor into a ‘global citizen’. He has considered himself unique from the other ‘cattle class’ politicians – in fact, cattle class was the word Tharoor used to describe laymen traveling in second class train, though he later withdrew it.

So, when Sonia Gandhi relinquished her post as the president of the Congress party, Tharoor, a three-time MP, perhaps considered himself the most suitable professional politician to replace her. Despite knowing that he is not in the good books of the first family of the Grand Old Party, Tharoor insisted, fought, and lost to Mallikarjun Kharge, not before garnering an impressive 12% votes (more than 1,000 votes). Tharoor survived the defeat, got nominated to the Congress Working Committee, and won the Lok Sabha election for the fourth consecutive time. 

But when Congress, emboldened by its increased strength in Lok Sabha, amplified its attack against the Modi government, Tharoor explicitly showed his indifference. His public pronouncements on various issues, be they national or local, suggest that this indifference stems not necessarily from his disillusionment with the party leadership but because of the fact that he is basically a post-ideology politician. The controversy over him being nominated to the Union government’s ‘Operation Sindoor’ foreign outreach team also lends credence to the fact that his political philosophy anchors around what is essentially his post- ideological politics.

Though the term post-ideology politician is generally used for turncoat politicians, it can also be used to refer to people who abhor ideological adherence and accept the neoliberal consensus in politics. They are, in a sense, people who believe in what Francis Fukuyama called ‘end of history’. Those who explicitly or implicitly subscribe to this view believe that the ideal form of political system is a liberal democracy where laws of the market prevail. This is the logic of neoliberalism. For Shashi Tharoor and his ilk, the fight between different political parties has to be confined within this broad ideological frame.  

Tharoor transcending party lines has to be seen in this background. When it comes to issues of ‘development’, Tharoor has put his party in an awkward situation often. Now he is doing the same with regard to Modi’s nationalism narrative.

Here are some examples.

 When the Union government decided to hand over management and operation of the Thiruvananthapuram airport to Adani Group, Shashi Tharoor was the lone politician from Kerala who supported the move. Tharoor’s support came when the Congress and Communist Party of India (Marxist) were opposing the move. A few months ago, when the CPI(M) unleashed a publicity blitz claiming Kerala as most investment-friendly state in the country, Tharoor had no qualms about supporting it, much to the chagrin of the Congress in the state. When the Congress party was raising the concerns of fisherfolk adjacent to the Vizhinjam port project in Kerala, despite being the MP of that area, Tharoor gave short shrift to their plights.

The positions he took in all the above issues are not party specific. He went along with CPI(M) in the Vizhinjam port issue and endorsed their claim of industrial revival in Kerala but opposed CPI(M) when the Kerala ruling party stood against handing over Thiruvananthapuram airport to Adani. He was bound by the logic of neoliberal development and not by his party’s stand. Remember his praise for Modi after Donald Trump said the Indian prime minister is a better negotiator than himself. When his Modi praise drew flak, he clarified his position: ‘I can’t always talk in party interest’.

Despite flaunting his flamboyant style, like all status quoists, Tharoor's social outlook is conservative. Though he opposes Hindutva, his book Why I Am a Hindu glorifies Hindu religion and says ‘Hinduism is adaptable and flexible, which is why it has survived for nearly 4000 years’. He goes on to argue that it must be revived and reasserted in its glorious liberalism, its openness and acceptance its eclecticism and universalism, and in the land of its own birth’

When the Supreme Court allowed women of menstruating ages to visit Sabarimala Temple, Tharoor, keeping aside his cosmopolitanism and his proclaimed adherence to constitutional values, made a scathing attack against the Supreme Court order. He wrote, “For a secular institution like the court to engage in a theological exercise as to what aspect of faith or belief is an ‘essential religious practice” is therefore problematic; when such a ruling is done by those who do not share the belief or practice impugned in the legal process, the problem is compounded.”

Coming to the ongoing controversy regarding Modi’s foreign outreach programme, it would be naïve to think that a politician like Tharoor is unaware of the Modi government’s agenda to make political gains out of Operation Sandoor. The rightist forces, under the grab of nationalism and supporting the army, have many a times triggered hyper-nationalist sentiments to push their majoritarian politics. This was on display after Operation Sindoor. But Tharoor was not concerned; he even appreciated the government for its ‘calibrated and very well calculated’ move against Pakistan without any question being asked. This was the time when Congress was seeking an explanation from the government on Trump’s statement offering mediation between India and Pakistan. 

Post-ideological politicians like Tharoor always present themselves as non-partisan. For them, politics has to be practiced and propagated without disturbing the status quo. The prevailing status quo that they seek to protect is a system embedded in neoliberalism, conservatism, and hypernationalism. So whenever Congress's policies are incongruous with this, Tharoor dissents. Because, as he said, he is not a party spokesman, but more than that, he belongs to a class for which ideological commitments are anathema.

For all practical purposes, among the mainstream political parties, there is de facto consensus regarding neoliberalism. A decade of the Modi government’s aggressive posturing is nudging many mainstream political parties and leaders into accepting different variants of Hindutva as an accepted ‘national policy’. The inauguration of the Ram temple built on the ruins of Babri Masjid bears testimony to this – one must remember that some so-called secular politicians attended the ceremony. Accepting the government narrative on Operation Sindoor without raising any questions is another example of this.

N.K. Bhoopesh, is journalist and columnist based in Kochi, Kerala. 

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.