The Congress on Tuesday launched a pointed political attack on Union Home Minister Amit Shah, remarking that he had managed what it described as a “miracle” by speaking for nearly 90 minutes in the Lok Sabha without resorting to the kind of language that has drawn criticism in the past. The comment was framed as a sarcastic observation on both the tone and content of his recent speech, which focused on the government’s efforts to curb Left-Wing Extremism and projected significant progress in tackling Naxalism.
This reaction came a day after Shah asserted in Parliament that the country is now largely free from the grip of Naxal violence, claiming that the top leadership and organisational backbone of Maoist groups have been effectively dismantled. He credited the government’s sustained security operations, policy measures, and coordination between agencies for achieving what he described as a near-complete rollback of insurgent influence across previously affected regions.
At the same time, Shah used the opportunity to sharply criticise the Congress, accusing it of failing to act decisively during the decades when Naxalism expanded across multiple states. He suggested that earlier governments had allowed the problem to grow unchecked and implied that ideological leniency had contributed to its spread. His remarks also included allegations directed at Rahul Gandhi, claiming that the Congress leader had interacted with or shown sympathy towards individuals associated with Naxal ideology, including through public appearances and online content.
In response, Congress general secretary Jairam Ramesh took to social media and public statements to counter Shah’s claims, focusing less on the substance of the speech and more on its tone. He highlighted that the Home Minister, known for aggressive rhetoric in parliamentary debates, had avoided using any controversial or abusive expressions during this address. The comment was a clear reference to earlier instances where Shah’s remarks had triggered uproar and required intervention from the Chair.
The Congress also brought up a previous episode from December 2025, when a heated debate in the Lok Sabha led to Shah using an offensive term that had to be officially removed from the proceedings. That incident had sparked widespread criticism from Opposition parties and raised concerns about maintaining decorum in Parliament, especially during sensitive discussions involving accountability and governance.
The current exchange quickly escalated into a broader political confrontation inside the House. Opposition members protested Shah’s remarks, particularly those targeting Rahul Gandhi and the Congress, and demanded an apology. Several members entered the Well of the House, raising slogans and disrupting proceedings as the debate drew to a close. The situation reflected the continuing friction between the ruling party and the Opposition over both policy claims and political narratives.
In his speech, Shah also attempted to place the issue of Naxalism within a historical and ideological framework. He argued that the roots of the movement were not merely linked to underdevelopment but were driven by a specific ideological orientation, which he associated with past political decisions. He suggested that the expansion of the Red Corridor across states such as Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Odisha, Maharashtra, and others could not have occurred without a degree of political tolerance or indirect support from those in power at the time.
The debate itself was significant because it came just ahead of the deadline set by the government to eliminate Naxal violence by March 31, 2026. Shah reiterated that this target was within reach and described the reduction in violence and the surrender of thousands of insurgents as evidence of success. He portrayed the government’s approach as both firm and comprehensive, combining security operations with development initiatives in affected regions.
However, the Opposition questioned these claims, arguing that the government was overstating its achievements and using the issue for political messaging. The Congress, in particular, sought to shift attention from the claims of success to the tone and conduct of the Home Minister, using satire to highlight what it sees as inconsistencies in his public statements.
Overall, the episode reflects a familiar pattern in parliamentary politics, where policy debates often become intertwined with personal attacks, historical narratives, and competing claims of credit and responsibility. While the government emphasised progress and decisive action, the Opposition focused on questioning both the substance and the style of that narrative, turning the discussion into a broader contest over credibility, accountability, and political messaging.
