Senior Congress leader P. Chidambaram recently found himself at the center of a political controversy after his remarks questioning Pakistan's involvement in the Pahalgam terror attack. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) strongly criticized Chidambaram, accusing him of aligning with Pakistan's narrative and giving the country a free pass in the aftermath of a tragic incident that claimed the lives of 26 individuals, most of whom were civilians. Chidambaram, however, defended his stance and lashed out at what he described as a deliberate campaign of misinformation. He stated that his remarks had been taken out of context, deliberately edited, and distorted to malign his image and mislead the public about his true position.
Taking to the social media platform X, Chidambaram expressed frustration over how his interview with The Quint had been manipulated. He said that certain sections of his comments were clipped, muted, and presented selectively, painting him in a negative light. According to him, he merely raised questions about the lack of concrete evidence linking Pakistan directly to the attack, and emphasized the importance of identifying the attackers before making such assertions. In the interview, he had asked whether the terrorists had been identified and whether any clear information had emerged on their origins. He pointed out the possibility that they could be homegrown and questioned the automatic assumption of Pakistani involvement in the absence of solid proof.
The BJP reacted strongly to Chidambaram’s remarks. Amit Malviya, head of the BJP IT cell, criticized the Congress party, saying that every time India faces terrorism linked to Pakistan, Congress leaders sound more like representatives of Islamabad rather than a responsible opposition. He accused the Congress of repeatedly undermining the narrative of Indian security agencies and giving comfort to enemy propaganda. BJP MP Nishikant Dubey went a step further, branding Congress as a traitorous party and accusing its leaders of once being willing to compromise national interests. He also attacked Rahul Gandhi, referencing past dealings with the Chinese Communist Party and suggesting that Congress cannot handle the decisive leadership of Prime Minister Modi.
Other BJP leaders, such as MP Deepak Prakash, echoed similar sentiments. They accused the Congress party of standing with forces that endanger national unity and warned that the Indian people would not forgive such positions. In their view, Chidambaram’s comments betrayed a dangerous disregard for national security and the sacrifices made by Indian citizens and armed forces in the fight against terrorism.
Despite the backlash, Chidambaram found support from within his party. Congress leaders defended him and shifted focus back to the government's own shortcomings. Manickam Tagore, a Congress MP, suggested that the BJP was using the controversy to divert attention from the government’s failure in preventing the Pahalgam attack and lapses in the follow-up operations, such as Operation Sindoor. He insisted that Congress remains firmly committed to supporting the Indian armed forces in their fight against terrorism.
Another senior Congress leader, Pramod Tiwari, raised serious concerns about the fact that, even after several months, the identity of the attackers had not been established. He criticized the government for failing to deliver justice and described the current situation in Kashmir as dangerous for the country's long-term peace and security. Meanwhile, Shiv Sena (UBT) MP Priyanka Chaturvedi expressed disagreement with Chidambaram’s comments, stating that even though he is an experienced former Home Minister, the evidence of Pakistan's involvement in such attacks has been well-established over decades. She pointed out that groups like The Resistance Front (TRF) have previously claimed and then retracted responsibility, and Pakistan has often defended such entities in international forums, making their connection to such incidents quite clear.
This ongoing debate reflects the highly polarized political climate surrounding issues of national security. While one side insists on unquestioning alignment with official claims, the other demands greater transparency and evidence before accepting narratives that could potentially escalate international tensions.
