The author thinks Congress should not have been a cohesive and disciplined party because such a structure would have prevented it from performing its eclectic role as a government. The Congress had a coalition-like character that gave it unusual strength by accommodating diverse groups and avoiding extreme positions. Its tolerance of internal factions allowed it to function as a grand centrist party that could act both as the ruling party and the opposition. This 'Congress system' enabled the party to balance various interests and maintain inclusiveness, which would have been impossible with strict discipline and a single ideology.

Examples of Congress's eclectic role include: it functioned as a coalition that accommodated all groups that joined it; it avoided extreme positions and maintained compromise and inclusiveness as hallmarks; it tolerated internal differences and accommodated ambitions of various leaders and groups; different factions within Congress took varying ideological positions making it appear as a centrist party; it acted both as the ruling party and opposition simultaneously; and other parties could influence policy through these factions from the margins rather than becoming direct alternatives.

The author describes Gandhi's view as romantic because he wanted to "carry on the movement" after Independence. This was an idealistic approach that did not recognize the practical reality that Congress needed to transform from a freedom movement into a governing body. Just as Patel's vision of a strictly disciplined party showed lack of understanding of Congress's eclectic role, Gandhi's view was equally unrealistic about continuing the movement character. Both approaches failed to comprehend that Congress, as a government, would need to perform an eclectic role in the decades to follow.