This is a metamorphosis that never happened. It's a mere reappraisal; partly driven by situational logic, partly caused by the puncturing of propaganda.

Rahul Gandhi hasn't sprung anew. He is flowering, a natural progression. A raw product of rare personal advantages and disabling adversities is evolving. As he prepares to assume the reins of India's Grand Old Party on a back of hard barnstorming in Gujarat, a palpa- ble hubbub has risen about the "new" Rahul, Rahul 2.0. Is there one really? Or is this only the real man emerging from the fracture of false perceptions?

Rahul is today what he ever was in all intents and purposes. His psyche, his philosophy, his commitments remain every inch the same as they were when he entered the political scene 13 years ago. Only, the reluctant politician has now been adequately politicised. There is no new substance here; what is probably beginning to happen is that that some of the deliberately crafted prejudice that was cast around him has begun to peel off. Many people acted against their better judgement to internalise the sponsored "Pappu narrative" without objective scrutiny or flatly rejected him for belonging to the family he does.

The truth is that if Rahul was born with the astonishingly rare legacy of having three prime ministers as immediate ancestry, he also has had to face accumulated, and probably the strongest, anti-dynasty grudge. Motilal Nehru became the Congress president 98 years before Rahul takes over the reins of the party. But it is also true that Congress had 31 presidents before Motilal Nehru and 19 after him who were not from the family.

That the RSS and the BJP went out single-mindedly to discredit Rahul not only on the question of dynasty but his suitability as a leader - describing him as the Pappu of a privileged family - reveals that they understand the enduring strength of his legacy as well as his own potential. The seriousness with which they pursued this project was actually the most powerful rebuttal of their Pappu propaganda. Rahul was raw and not canny as a typical politician. He lacked oratorical flourish, made the occasional gaffe, and had the tendency to run away from the battlefield. But he also demonstrated he neither lusted for power nor was enamoured of it. He demonstrated a detachment from conspiratorial politicking.

But just that would no longer do. The luxuries of 2004, when Sonia Gandhi guided the Congress back to power and it ruled the nation for the next decade - were brutally snatched in 2014. Sonia had by then largely withdrawn herself from active politics because of her illness and the Congress had received the worst-ever rejection by the people. Rahul faced an adversary who threatened to wipe out the Congress. His ears burned hearing the cry of Congress- mukt Bharat. And now, he is girded for battle.

A young leader, who had the wisdom of seeing the writing on the wall and telling leaders in his party that 2014 would be a disastrous election, was declared a Pappu. A young leader, who demonstrated the honesty of telling veterans in party forums that the UPA lost its way around 2012 and created an image crisis despite the good work, was condemned as Pappu. A young leader who refused to become prime minister resisting enormous pressure from the party and the family between 2009 and 2014 because he felt the need to earn his credentials was ridiculed as Pappu. Those who knew him insisted he was sincere, showed deep curiosity about politics and society and didn't want to grab power by hook or by crook. Even his critics didn't suspect him to be a crooked, power-hungry, scheming politician who would stoop to conquer. They painted him as Pappu, not Gabbar.

Brand Rahul is yet to fully reveal itself or be understood. His political persona is being judged in bits and pieces. His aides reveal he is very inquisitive, likes to debate and is not shy of correcting himself. Congress leaders say he often asks probing questions on politics, society, philosophy and religion. During one tour of Chhattisgarh, he surprised leaders by fiercely discussing Hinduism, demolishing stereotypes and delving into metaphysical analysis of religion. He has also approached religious leaders and political scientists with complex issues. The confusion this learning process is creating manifests frequently.

He spent years arguing that elected representatives should not hold party positions but ended up appointing MLAs and MPs as office-bearers in the organisation. He invested heavily in internal democratisation processes by holding elections in the Youth Congress and the NSUI only to realise later that the nomination system created lesser bitterness and prevented unwanted elements from capturing key positions. He publicly professed curbs on dynastic control over the party despite being a beneficiary of that system, but made a silly defence of dynasty during his interactions in the US, when he said this is how India functions. He does have problems with articulation. Addressing public meetings in Uttar Pradesh in 2012, he said, "I have abandoned my dreams to fight for yours." Didn't that mean his dreams are entirely different and those were sacrificed to accommodate the concerns of the poor?

Circumstances alter cases and Rahul is naturally being re-examined. While he was doubtless never as black as painted, ordinary people are now seeing him differently as Narendra Modi loses shine and the promise of " achhe din" stands substantially diminished. In the high tide of expectations Modi generated in 2013-14, people refused to listen to Rahul. The institutional wisdom of Congress rightly delayed Rahul's ascendance to command though critics saw it as his reluctance; as Modi mania ebbs, Congress leaders believe, Rahul has left himself enough time to build a credible challenge in 2019. Commenting on Rahul's Gujarat campaign, a senior Congress leader said: "Ban gaya leader. Solid hai, yehi bacha sakta hai party ko (He has become a leader. He is solid; only he can rejuvenate the party)." The same leader had said a few weeks after the rout in Uttar Pradesh: "This boy is mad. No fuss, no bother; he does not think UP is a jolt. He is not interested in politics. He will destroy the party."

That he had a mind of his own often created complexities within the Congress. Many leaders grudged privately that he can't be fooled. Even if he was making a wrong choice, he will stick to it. The entire party was opposed to his decision of visiting JNU to make common cause with Kanhaiya Kumar and other student leaders; the issues involved were "sensitive" the party felt, and JNU is anyway a Leftlist bastion. But Rahul went as he knew selectivity would harm his outreach to the youth on the plank of freedom of expression, and he must visit JNU and be seen as not supporting the harassment of students.

While this shows he has an independent mind, his obstinacy has often harmed the party too. While his initial insistence on generational shift created much unease in the party, his refusal to pay heed to the advice given by Sonia and her loyalists too caused some rifts. But Rahul kept his cool through provocation from within the party and insults from outside.

Some people today praise Rahul's courage when he rips into Amit Shah by his "Jay Shah -zada kha gaya" barb, but he has always been like this - piercing. He described demonetisation as the biggest scam of independent India in November 2016 and has been saying as much in December 2017: "Narendra Modi ne Hindustan ke sare choron ka kala paisa safed kar diya (Modi turned the entire black money belonging to thieves into white)."

This uncompromising temp- erament and perseverance have helped Rahul Gandhi emerge as the key challenger to Narendra Modi. Those who presume 2019 is a no-fight, keep watching.