In a fresh escalation of internal party tensions, senior Congress leader and Member of Parliament Shashi Tharoor has delivered a pointed retort to his critics within the party, stating he has “better things to do” than engage in prolonged debates over his remarks. The seasoned diplomat’s comments come amidst a growing rift, fueled by his recent statements seemingly diverging from the official Congress line, particularly concerning India’s cross-border actions against terrorism.
The latest controversy appears to have stemmed from Tharoor’s comments regarding the 2016 surgical strike, where he reportedly suggested that India had crossed the Line of Control (LoC) for the first time in such a retaliatory action against terror bases. This interpretation immediately drew fire from some Congress colleagues, most notably Udit Raj, who accused Tharoor of undermining the party’s historical legacy and acting as a “BJP lawyer.”
Tharoor, currently abroad leading one of several multi-party delegations to convey India’s stance against terrorism following recent events, took to social media to address the “zealots” within his party. He clarified that his remarks specifically pertained to retaliatory strikes for terrorist attacks, distinguishing them from previous wars. He emphasized that after a demanding day of national duty, he lacked the time to engage in such internal squabbles.
This isn’t the first instance of Tharoor’s independent views causing a stir within the Congress. In recent months, he has offered praise for the government’s diplomatic initiatives, particularly in the wake of “Operation Sindoor,” which targeted terror sites across the border. These pronouncements have led to speculation about his alignment, with some within the party expressing annoyance and a sense that he is providing “cover fire” for the ruling dispensation.
The Congress party’s official position has consistently maintained that several surgical strikes were conducted during the UPA regime, though these were not publicized. Therefore, Tharoor’s comments, implying a novel approach in 2016, have been met with swift rebuttal from party spokespersons who have cited past statements from senior officials to counter his narrative.
Despite the mounting criticism, Tharoor appears unperturbed. He has publicly stated his commitment to national service, asserting that when the country calls, he will not be found wanting. His confidence is palpable, as he has previously declared, “I cannot be insulted so easily. I know my worth,” in response to earlier snubs regarding his inclusion in government delegations.
The ongoing friction highlights a significant ideological and communication challenge for the Congress. While the party grapples with its internal dynamics, Tharoor’s ability to articulate nuanced positions and engage in high-level diplomatic outreach remains a key asset. The question remains how the Congress will navigate these internal divisions as it seeks to project a united front on critical national issues.