Rahul Gandhi and the Shadow of Regime Change ?

Poonam Sharma
The recent comments by Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma against outside forces in Assam and the FIR against maverick journalist Abhisar Sharma have rekindled a controversy in India regarding “deep state” intervention and foreign regime-change agendas. What appears on the surface to be a series of isolated events in Assam, Delhi, or Washington is actually part of a broader pattern where political opposition, civil society activism, and foreign think tanks intersect in ways that raise disquieting questions about sovereignty.

Assam, Deep State, and the First Sparks

Himanta Biswa Sarma’s words were not an aside. His suggestion that someone like Harsh Mander might be included in destabilisation attempts in Assam is part of a larger narrative: India, and especially its politically charged areas, could be the frontline of a global effort to destabilise New Delhi. Abhisar Sharma’s alleged crime of anti-national propaganda becomes emblematic here—media personalities are also increasingly viewed as weapons on a larger game of influence.

The Chief Minister’s caution is an implied recognition that India’s enemies no longer give much credence to traditional warfare; rather, they weaponize narratives, rally activists, and foment discontent, particularly in areas already rent with ethnic, cultural, or religious fault lines. To Sarma and other nationalists, Assam is not merely a state—it is a potential point of entry for the destabilisation of India’s northeastern border.

Rahul Gandhi Abroad: The Timeline of Alarm

The most sensational claims revolve around Rahul Gandhi’s foreign trips, especially his June 2023 visit to the United States, where he addressed the National Press Club in Washington. His sharp criticism of the Modi government—alleging democratic backsliding, minority insecurity, and political violence—was seen as providing ammunition to India’s critics abroad. But what raised eyebrows further was not the speech itself, but the closed-door meetings that followed.

Rahul Gandhi, reports nationalist media, met three significant times after this episode:

With Sunita Vishwanathan, who has been named as a senior leader associated with George Soros’s circles. Soros is well-known in nationalist circles for bankrolling liberal activist groups charged with anti-government movements globally. The purpose of such a meeting, as leaked, indicates strategic planning for internationalisation of domestic discontent.

With the Indian Union Muslim League’s associates in the U.S., an organization reportedly connected with Islamist circles overseas, as well as those sympathetic to Hamas. This meeting, if true, introduces a perilous element—linking domestic political opposition with radical global Islamist circles.

A secret White House meeting with Samantha Power, referred to widely as the “Regime Change Lady.” Power, who chaired the Atrocities Prevention Board during Obama’s presidency, played a crucial role in rationalizing interventions in Libya and other places. Her image as an interventionist policy champion makes her reported meeting with Rahul Gandhi highly controversial.

The likelihood of Rahul meeting Samantha Power once more, in Uzbekistan prior to the previous Lok Sabha elections, only adds to the intrigue. Should the story be true, the symbolism is striking: an Indian opposition leader meeting with an American official who has been connected with destabilizing foreign regimes.

The Legacy of Sam Pitroda and NGO Networks

The story deepens with Rahul Gandhi’s long-time mentor, Sam Pitroda. During the UPA years, Pitroda established the Global Knowledge Initiative, funded by the Rockefeller Foundation and supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. These connections brought in figures like Leena Frederoff and Sara Farley, both with long-standing links to Western philanthropic and policy circles.

Such NGOs, critics contend, were not merely about development or knowledge transfer—they were about internalizing Western influence into Indian policy networks. The intersection of global pharma lobbies, defense contractors, and Indian political networks produced what nationalists regard as a perilous dependency. As soon as the BJP was brought to power in 2014, this network became frayed, blocking access for these lobbies. But the suspicion lingers: foreign funding channels to NGOs tend to correlate with political maneuvers to undermine nationalist governments.

The Twin Global Games: Defense and Pharma

This account puts the present crisis into sharp perspective. In the view of critics, the world nowadays is ruled by two profit-making engines—weapons sales and pharma. For both to survive, crises and instability need to abound. Wars stoke weapons sales; pandemics or health crises fuel the pharma lobby. In this vicious cycle, compliant governments are required—”puppet regimes” ready to follow Western lines.

Viewed in this context, the foreign travels of Rahul Gandhi and the networks of Pitroda’s NGOs do not seem like disconnected incidents but as part of a chain. India, in not fitting neatly into this Western-conceived grid, becomes a target for regime-change schemes. The case of Bangladesh, where regime change played out under Samantha Power’s direction, is brought up as a threat to India.

Why This Matters for India

The issue is not so much Rahul Gandhi per se. The issue is really about how external influence overlaps with domestic politics. The fear is that Indian democracy itself is being hijacked as an instrument—where activists, intellectuals, journalists, and even mainstream politicians inadvertently or intentionally play parts in an external script.

The timing too is important. With U.S.–India ties becoming more transactional under Donald Trump and India not willing to fully fall in line with Western foreign policy, the chances of a “deep state-engineered correction” cannot be written off so lightly. A beleaguered Modi government—or worse, a change of regime—would provide windows of opportunity for Western lobbies to regain their lost ground, both in India’s defense acquisitions and in its pharmaceutical industries.

Conclusion: Not Just “Pappu Politics”

Dismissing Rahul Gandhi as “Pappu” may be politically convenient, but it risks underestimating the seriousness of these alleged connections. Whether it is Soros’s networks, Islamist groups, or Samantha Power, the pattern suggests that India’s opposition is not only engaging abroad but doing so with figures long associated with regime-change operations worldwide.

For the government and for the Indian people, the test is double: to distinguish fact from conspiracy as well as to protect against real vulnerabilities. India cannot risk becoming the next Bangladesh or Libya, where outside interference remade the political establishment.

The stakes are high. If these trends are correct, they are not about Rahul Gandhi but about India’s sovereignty in a world where defense and pharma lobbies alike compete for control not only of markets but of governments themselves.