Congress’s Missteps on National Security: A Critique of Political Opportunism

The Indian National Congress, once a dominant force in Indian politics, is increasingly entangled in contradictions and political posturing that erode its credibility on national security matters. The recent parliamentary debates surrounding the April 22, 2025, Pahalgam terror attack and the subsequent Operation Sindoor expose a party struggling to articulate a coherent stance, prioritizing partisan point-scoring over national interest. The Congress’s handling of these issues—marked by controversial statements, internal discord, and a propensity for chaos—reveals a troubling lack of vision and a focus on selfish political goals.

Chidambaram’s Reckless Claims: A Pattern of Denial

Former Home Minister P. Chidambaram’s remarks questioning the origins of the Pahalgam attackers, suggesting they could be “homegrown” rather than Pakistani, are emblematic of Congress’s muddled approach. In an interview, Chidambaram demanded evidence of the terrorists’ Pakistani links, dismissing tangible proof like voter IDs and Pakistani-manufactured items found at the scene as insufficient. This skepticism is not an isolated incident but part of a disturbing pattern. During the 26/11 Mumbai attacks in 2008, as Home Minister, Chidambaram faced criticism for initially downplaying Pakistan’s role, with some Congress leaders questioning the evidence linking the attackers to Pakistan despite clear proof, such as intercepted communications and the captured terrorist Ajmal Kasab’s confessions. His recent dismissal of evidence in the Pahalgam case mirrors this earlier reluctance to unequivocally acknowledge Pakistan-sponsored terrorism.

Such statements are not mere rhetorical missteps; they reflect a deeper malaise within Congress—a tendency to question established facts for political leverage, even at the cost of national unity. By casting doubt on the government’s narrative without offering a substantive alternative, Chidambaram and his party risk diluting the gravity of cross-border terrorism and aligning with narratives that India’s adversaries might exploit. As a former Home Minister, Chidambaram’s repeated skepticism undermines the nation’s unified stance against Pakistan-sponsored terror, raising questions about whether his remarks serve India’s interests or merely fuel political controversy.

Rahul Gandhi’s Trump Obsession: A Misguided Critique

Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi’s fixation on US President Donald Trump’s claims of mediating a ceasefire between India and Pakistan further highlights Congress’s disconnect from strategic priorities. Gandhi has repeatedly challenged Prime Minister Narendra Modi to publicly denounce Trump as a “liar” for asserting that he brokered a ceasefire during Operation Sindoor. This demand, while dramatic, is a distraction from the core issues of the Pahalgam attack and India’s military response. External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar has already clarified that no call took place between Modi and Trump between April 22 and June 17, and that the ceasefire was an internal decision initiated by Pakistan’s military. Gandhi’s insistence on this point, despite India’s official rebuttal, suggests an attempt to manufacture a diplomatic controversy rather than engage with the substantive outcomes of Operation Sindoor.

Gandhi’s rhetoric also betrays a selective focus. He accuses the government of compromising national security by allegedly restricting the military’s actions during Operation Sindoor, yet fails to acknowledge the operation’s success in neutralizing terror infrastructure in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir and Pakistan. His claim that India lacked international support is contradicted by Jaishankar’s assertion that only three UN member states opposed the operation, with global forums like the Quad and BRICS condemning the Pahalgam attack. By amplifying Trump’s claims while ignoring India’s diplomatic achievements, Gandhi risks projecting weakness on the global stage, serving Congress’s political narrative over the nation’s strategic interests.

The Tharoor Conundrum: Silencing a Voice of Reason

Perhaps the most telling example of Congress’s internal dysfunction is its treatment of Shashi Tharoor, a seasoned parliamentarian and diplomat who led a multi-party delegation to the US to present India’s case post-Operation Sindoor. Tharoor’s enthusiastic endorsement of the operation as a “brilliantly chosen” response to the Pahalgam attack has reportedly strained his ties with the party leadership. Despite his role in garnering international support—a rare instance of bipartisan cooperation—Congress appears reluctant to let him speak during the Lok Sabha debates on the issue.

This decision is baffling and revealing. Tharoor’s global outreach strengthened India’s position against terrorism, yet his sidelining suggests that Congress prioritizes ideological conformity over recognizing contributions that align with national interest. By muzzling a voice that could bridge partisan divides, the party exposes its insecurity and inability to tolerate dissent, even when it serves the greater good. This internal rift underscores a broader failure to present a unified front, leaving Congress vulnerable to accusations of prioritizing factionalism over patriotism.

Stirring Chaos in Parliament: A Tactic Without Vision

The Congress-led opposition’s conduct during the Monsoon Session further illustrates its lack of constructive ideas. After a week of disruptions over unrelated issues like the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in Bihar, the opposition agreed to a 16-hour debate on the Pahalgam attack and Operation Sindoor. Yet, the debates were marked by ruckus and protests, with opposition leaders like Rahul Gandhi and Priyanka Gandhi Vadra alleging government suppression while failing to offer actionable solutions. Their focus on alleged intelligence failures and Trump’s claims, while ignoring the military’s decisive action, suggests a strategy of obstruction rather than engagement.

This approach is not new. Congress’s history of prioritizing vote-bank politics over national security—evident in its opposition to the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) in 2002 and its repeal in 2004—continues to cast a shadow. By framing Operation Sindoor as a government failure rather than a national success, the party risks alienating a public that values decisive action against terrorism. The opposition’s insistence on creating a spectacle, rather than contributing to policy discourse, reveals a paucity of ideas and a reliance on divisive tactics.

A Path Forward: National Interest Over Partisan Games

The Congress’s current trajectory is unsustainable. Its leaders must recognize that national security is not a playground for political one-upmanship. Instead of questioning the origins of terrorists without evidence, amplifying foreign leaders’ unsubstantiated claims, or silencing voices like Tharoor’s, the party should focus on constructive criticism—proposing robust counter-terrorism measures, advocating for intelligence reforms, or supporting diplomatic efforts to isolate terror sponsors. A party that aspires to lead India cannot afford to appear soft on terrorism or disconnected from the nation’s pulse.

The Pahalgam attack and Operation Sindoor are moments of national reckoning, not opportunities for partisan bickering. Congress must shed its obsession with scoring political points and embrace a vision that prioritizes India’s security and sovereignty. Until it does, the party will remain a shadow of its former self, relegated to the margins by its own lack of ideas and selfish political goals.