One of the most striking features of contemporary Indian politics is not merely the consolidation of Narendra Modi’s power and the Hindutva project, but the persistent inability of a significant section of India’s liberals and intellectuals to recognise who has consistently stood against it.Even as the Modi government has steadily eroded democratic institutions, weakened constitutional safeguards, normalised majoritarian politics and undermined India’s secular foundations, many among the country’s self-proclaimed liberal intelligentsia continue to direct their sharpest criticism not at the architects of this transformation but at Rahul Gandhi.This peculiar obsession says less about Rahul Gandhi and more about the intellectual and political contradictions of India’s liberal class.For over a decade, Rahul Gandhi has been one of the very few national political leaders willing to challenge the ideological foundations of Hindutva. He has repeatedly spoken about constitutional values, minority rights, social justice, caste inequalities, institutional independence and democratic accountability. He has endured relentless media vilification, state harassment, legal persecution and personal attacks while continuing to articulate a political vision rooted in pluralism and constitutional democracy.The Bharat Jodo Yatra and the Bharat Jodo Nyay Yatra were not merely political campaigns. They were perhaps the most sustained attempts by any Indian politician in recent decades to reconnect democratic politics with the concerns of ordinary citizens while directly confronting the politics of hate and polarisation.Yet many liberals and intellectuals continue to portray him as the principal obstacle to defeating Modi. Why?The answer lies partly in history. Since the 1970s, being anti-Congress has become almost a cultural marker within large sections of India’s intellectual circles. Opposition to the Congress was once associated with resistance to the Emergency and centralised power. Over time, however, anti-Congressism evolved from a political position into an intellectual reflex. The Congress came to be viewed as the source of all political problems, while every regional challenger was celebrated as a potential saviour.This attitude became even more pronounced because of the Gandhi family connection. Opposition to dynasty politics became a convenient shorthand through which many intellectuals dismissed Rahul Gandhi without engaging seriously with his political positions. Ironically, many of these same critics had little difficulty supporting regional parties dominated by powerful political families across India. Even several senior leaders of the BJP are from political dynasties.Dynasty was treated as an unforgivable sin only when it involved the Congress. The result has been a remarkable double standard.For years, the liberal commentariat enthusiastically promoted alternative opposition leaders as superior options to Rahul Gandhi. Nitish Kumar was repeatedly projected as the ideal anti-Modi leader despite his long record of political opportunism and his willingness to ally with the BJP whenever it suited his interests. Mamata Banerjee was celebrated as a national alternative despite her own accommodation of religious majoritarian impulses and her reluctance to build durable opposition unity. Arvind Kejriwal was hailed as the future of Indian politics even as his movement increasingly embraced selective nationalism and often collaborated with Hindutva forces.None of these leaders consistently challenged the ideological core of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh’s project. None sought to build a nationwide democratic alternative based on constitutional values. None demonstrated sustained commitment to confronting majoritarianism across the country. Yet many intellectuals invested enormous energy in promoting them while dismissing Rahul Gandhi as politically irrelevant.Also read: Is Ramachandra Guha Right on Rahul Gandhi, or Forgetting What India Under Narendra Modi is Like?The record today speaks for itself. Nitish Kumar’s political credibility has largely evaporated after repeated shifts in allegiance. Arvind Kejriwal’s political project has suffered severe setbacks and remains geographically limited. Mamata Banerjee’s party was recently defeated by the BJP in West Bengal and has failed to emerge as a credible national challenger.Meanwhile Rahul Gandhi has become the undisputed face of opposition politics at the national level. The Congress under his leadership significantly improved its parliamentary position in 2024, regained the status of the principal opposition party and reestablished itself as the central pole around which anti-BJP politics increasingly revolves. Yet instead of acknowledging this reality, many liberals continue searching for reasons to blame him.Part of the explanation may lie in the social composition of India’s intellectual elite itself. A significant portion comes from privileged upper caste backgrounds. While they often champion liberal values in the abstract, they become noticeably uncomfortable when politics moves beyond procedural democracy toward questions of social and economic justice.Rahul Gandhi’s emphasis on a caste census, wealth concentration, inequality, affirmative action and representation challenges entrenched structures of privilege. His politics increasingly combines constitutional democracy with demands for deeper social transformation. For many elite liberals, this agenda is far less comfortable than discussions about institutional reform or economic growth.Indeed, a considerable section of India’s liberal establishment has long been more committed to market-driven growth than to redistribution, poverty reduction or structural equality. They readily criticise Hindutva’s excesses but remain uneasy about politics that seeks to alter existing hierarchies of caste and class. Rahul Gandhi’s recent focus on social justice has therefore created a new source of tension between him and sections of the liberal intelligentsia.Another reason is the limited understanding of electoral politics among many commentators. Most intellectuals have never organised a political campaign, built a party structure, mobilised voters or contested an election. Their understanding of politics is often mediated through media narratives and urban conversations. They tend to view elections as the sole measure of political success while ignoring the broader struggle over ideas, institutions and democratic norms.This narrow perspective produces a distorted evaluation of political leadership. Leaders are judged primarily by immediate electoral outcomes rather than by their role in shaping public discourse, defending constitutional values or resisting authoritarianism.If electoral victories alone define political worth, then every opposition leader who loses becomes irrelevant. Such reasoning reduces democracy to a competition for votes and ignores the dangers of majoritarian rule. Elections matter enormously, but democracy is more than elections. It requires constitutional restraints, minority protections, institutional independence and a commitment to pluralism. Rahul Gandhi’s political significance lies precisely in his refusal to abandon these principles even when doing so might yield short-term electoral gains.History will ultimately judge him more kindly than many contemporary commentators do. While others search for tactical compromises with majoritarianism, he consistently challenges it. While others shift positions according to political convenience, he maintains a clear commitment to constitutional values. Many of those once celebrated as the answer to Modi have since fallen away, but Rahul Gandhi has persisted, weathering defeats while remaining committed to the fight.The tragedy is not that Rahul Gandhi has critics. Every political leader should. The tragedy is that many who claim to defend liberal democracy have spent more time attacking one of its most persistent defenders than confronting those who seek to dismantle it. As the space for democratic dissent continues to shrink in India, that contradiction has become increasingly difficult to ignore.Ashok Swain is a professor of peace and conflict research at Uppsala University, Sweden.