Few student leaders in contemporary India have experienced as dramatic a rise as Kanhaiya Kumar. Emerging from Jawaharlal Nehru University in 2016 as President of the JNUSU, he quickly became the national face of assertive left-wing student politics. His speeches following his arrest that year turned him into a symbol of dissent, a sharp critic of the central government, and what many described as the poster boy of anti-government youth politics in India.
However, the transition from campus icon to mainstream political leader has proven far more complex than his meteoric rise suggested.
Electoral Politics: From Begusarai to North East Delhi
Kanhaiya Kumar first tested electoral waters in the 2019 Lok Sabha elections, contesting from Begusarai in Bihar against senior BJP leader Giriraj Singh. Though he lost, he secured approximately 22% of the vote, an impressive figure for a first-time parliamentary candidate backed by the Left.
In 2021, he made a decisive political shift by joining the Indian National Congress. The move was widely interpreted as strategic — a transition from ideological activism within the CPI to a broader national platform with greater electoral potential.
His second parliamentary contest came in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, where he challenged BJP MP and Bhojpuri actor-politician Manoj Tiwari from North East Delhi. This time, he significantly improved his vote share, polling around 44%, yet once again fell short of victory.
Two Lok Sabha defeats — from two different states — inevitably reshaped perceptions. While his vote share grew, the absence of an electoral breakthrough began to dilute the aura that once made him a dominant media figure.
Rise Within Congress: Responsibility and Expectations
In mid-2023, Congress elevated Kanhaiya Kumar to a significant organisational role by appointing him AICC In-charge of the National Students' Union of India (NSUI), the student wing of the party. He was also made a permanent invitee to the Congress Working Committee, the highest decision-making body of the party.
This appointment reflected the leadership’s confidence in his youth appeal, ideological clarity, and communication skills. It positioned him as a bridge between campus politics and mainstream party structure.
Yet, leadership in a national organisation requires more than rhetorical power — it demands consensus-building, organisational discipline, and conflict management.
Factionalism and Organisational Challenges
During his tenure as NSUI in-charge, internal tensions became unusually visible. After the appointment of a new national president in early 2024, reports of friction between the presidential camp and the in-charge’s camp surfaced repeatedly.
For perhaps the first time in recent NSUI history, a clear divide was perceived between organisational leadership and political supervision. Two identifiable blocs emerged, affecting coordination and morale across several states.
Critics argue that under this phase:
Factionalism deepened rather than reduced.
Strategic clarity in key university elections appeared inconsistent.
Organisational unity weakened in states like Punjab and parts of Uttar Pradesh.
The performance in the Delhi University Students’ Union elections — where the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) consolidated its position — further intensified scrutiny of NSUI’s direction and preparedness.
Controversy Over Leadership Selection
Another flashpoint during this period was the selection process for the post of NSUI National President.
Several prominent and staunch student leaders within the organisation — individuals with significant grassroots visibility — were reportedly not shortlisted. One particularly well-known student figure publicly posted on social media, indirectly raising concerns about possible favouritism in the shortlisting process.
While appointments in political organisations are ultimately strategic decisions taken in consultation with senior leadership of the Congress, the perception of partiality strengthened internal dissatisfaction. In student politics, where ambition and ideological identity intersect strongly, transparency in leadership elevation plays a crucial role in maintaining unity.
The episode reinforced the narrative that NSUI was experiencing a period of internal turbulence rather than consolidation.
Focus Beyond NSUI: Bihar and the Bigger Picture
Another critique that gained traction was that Kanhaiya Kumar appeared more invested in strengthening his political base in Bihar than in consistently overseeing student organisational rebuilding across states.
He actively campaigned during the 2025 Bihar electoral cycle, yet the Congress alliance faced a significant setback in the state. This added to the broader perception that while Kanhaiya remains a compelling campaigner, electoral conversion remains elusive.
Simultaneously, his media presence — once intense and constant between 2016 and 2019 — has noticeably declined. In contemporary politics, sustained visibility often depends on electoral victories or disruptive interventions. Without either, even prominent leaders face reduced spotlight.
Not a Fairy Tale — But Not a Collapse
Kanhaiya Kumar’s journey within the Congress is neither an outright success story nor a failure. It is better described as a phase of transition and recalibration.
He remains a powerful orator and a symbolic figure of left-leaning, anti-government politics. His ideological clarity and ability to connect with sections of youth still distinguish him within Congress ranks.
However, symbolism must align with structure. Organisational leadership demands not just inspiration but internal cohesion and measurable outcomes.
Conclusion: A Career at a Turning Point
From a fiery campus revolutionary at JNU to a national party office-bearer, Kanhaiya Kumar’s trajectory reflects both ambition and adaptation. Yet the Congress chapter has tested him in ways student politics never did.
Two parliamentary defeats, visible factional strains within NSUI, questions over leadership selection, and declining media centrality have all complicated his political narrative.
The coming years will determine whether this period is remembered as a temporary plateau before resurgence — or as a moment when ideological brilliance struggled to translate into sustained organisational and electoral success.
By Rehan Abdullah
