Kamal Nath’s documents were ready, but Natarajan was chosen:How strategy lapses cost Congress a Rajya Sabha seat in MP

The rejection of Congress leader Meenakshi Natarajan’s nomination in the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Sabha elections resulted in the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) securing the third seat unopposed. The incident has triggered serious questions over the Congress party’s electoral planning and nomination strategy for the Rajya Sabha polls. A key question being raised is whether Congress should have fielded a backup (dummy) candidate, considering the high stakes involved in the contest. The developments have also fueled speculation over internal disagreements regarding Natarajan’s candidature, especially since former Chief Minister and Senior Congress leader Kamal Nath had reportedly completed preparations for his own nomination. Political analysts and parliamentary experts point to several procedural and strategic errors that may have contributed to the outcome. To find answers to these questions, Bhaskar spoke to experts in parliamentary affairs and politics. Read the Monday Story… Four key mistakes that hurt Congress 1. Failure to field a backup candidate According to Devendra Verma, an expert on parliamentary affairs and former Principal Secretary of the Chhattisgarh Assembly, political parties often submit more than one nomination in crucial elections to ensure that an alternate candidate remains in the race if the primary nominee’s papers are rejected. Had Congress nominated a backup candidate, the substitute could have withdrawn later if not required. With Natarajan’s nomination invalidated and no alternative candidate in place, the election effectively ended, allowing all three BJP candidates to be elected unopposed. 2. Delay in the nomination process Congress sources indicate that delays in selecting the candidate affected the nomination timeline. Meenakshi Natarajan’s name was announced on the night of June 4. After that, the party selected proposers in a legislators’ meeting, completed formalities on June 7, and filed the nomination on June 8. While Devendra Verma believes preparations should have been completed much earlier, Congress leader J.P. Dhanopia has denied that any delay occurred. 3. Inadequate assessment of BJP’s strategy Following the announcement of Natarajan’s candidature, the BJP fielded Mahesh Kewat as its third Rajya Sabha candidate on June 7. Senior journalist Ashish Dubey believes the BJP acted swiftly with a clear strategy. He argues that once the third BJP candidate entered the race, Congress shifted its focus toward preventing cross-voting and keeping its MLAs united, potentially diverting attention from technical aspects of the nomination process. 4. Questions over leak of Telangana case information Another issue raised by Dubey concerns how information related to a Telangana case allegedly reached the BJP. He noted that during scrutiny of the nomination papers, the BJP objected to the alleged non-disclosure of the case in the affidavit, suggesting that the information may have been leaked from within Congress. BJP leaders have claimed the leak originated from the Congress camp, while the Congress has rejected the allegation. Kamal Nath had reportedly completed preparations After Digvijaya Singh opted not to contest the Rajya Sabha election, speculation grew that former Chief Minister Kamal Nath would be nominated. According to Congress sources, Kamal Nath had already prepared the necessary documents, including the required No Objection Certificate (NOC). Ashish Dubey believes that had Kamal Nath been the party’s nominee, the BJP might not have fielded a third candidate. He also suggests that the party organization and legislators would likely have been more energized, reducing the chances of procedural errors during the nomination process. Who gained and who lost? According to Dubey, the biggest setback from the episode was suffered by Congress and Meenakshi Natarajan. However, he also argues that if the election had proceeded, the party could have faced risks of cross-voting and defections among legislators, potentially creating further political embarrassment and raising questions about the state leadership’s ability to manage its legislative ranks.