As India faces one of its most critical security challenges in recent times, the Congress party finds itself embroiled in internal rift not for leading a united front against terrorism, but for its apparent pettiness and political maneuvering over a national security initiative. The Indian government’s launch of Operation Sindoor on May 7, following the horrifying Pahalgam terror attack, demanded a unified global diplomatic response. Instead of rising to the occasion, Congress has chosen to indulge in internal squabbles and sulk over selections, revealing a disconcerting lack of maturity and national commitment. The Pahalgam attack on April 22, carried out by The Resistance Force (TRF), a Lashkar-e-Taiba proxy shocked the nation. In a gruesome act of religiously motivated violence, 27 innocent Hindus were killed after being forced to prove their faith. India responded swiftly and resolutely with targeted strikes across the Line of Control, reportedly killing over 100 terrorists. This decisive military action, dubbed Operation Sindoor, marked a new phase in India’s counter-terrorism doctrine one that combines strategic clarity with international outreach.
To that end, the government formed all-party delegations to explain India’s position to global stakeholders. It was a move of rare bipartisan unity, an invitation to present India’s resolute stance on terrorism beyond political boundaries. However, what should have been a moment of solidarity quickly became a stage for Congress to expose its internal dissonance and ideological confusion. The government approached the Congress to nominate four MPs for these delegations. The party obliged by naming Anand Sharma, Gaurav Gogoi, Raja Brar, and Dr. Syed Naseer Hussain. But glaringly missing from the list was perhaps the most internationally articulate and experienced voice in the Congress party, Shashi Tharoor. Instead, it was the government, in a remarkable show of bipartisanship, that independently included Tharoor in its seven-member delegation. Others on the list included BJP’s Ravi Shankar Prasad and Baijayant Panda, DMK’s Kanimozhi, JDU’s Sanjay Kumar Jha, NCP(SP)’s Supriya Sule, and Shiv Sena’s Shrikant Shinde.
Rather than expressing gratitude for this gesture of inclusion, Congress leaders, especially Jairam Ramesh, chose to cry foul. Accusing the government of “dishonesty” for not sticking to their submitted names, the party revealed more about its internal friction than any supposed betrayal by the Centre. The issue wasn’t that Tharoor had been excluded, it was that he had been included by the Modi government and not by his own party. BJP spokespersons were quick to point out this hypocrisy. Pradeep Bhandari raised a pointed question “Why does Rahul Gandhi hate every individual who speaks for India, even in his own party?” This question stings, especially when one considers Tharoor’s past stands: a statesman who has consistently supported India’s diplomatic priorities, whether it was calling out Pakistan’s duplicity or explaining deportation cases with nuance.
In February, when the opposition was trying to blame the Modi government for deportations of undocumented Indians from the U.S., Tharoor clarified that such actions were not new and had occurred under previous administrations too. “If they are citizens of India, we have an obligation to take them back. There is no debate about it,” he had said, standing against his party’s narrative. More recently, following the Pahalgam attack, Tharoor gave a balanced and mature response, acknowledging intelligence failures but urging unity. Citing the October 7 attack on Israel—widely seen as an intelligence catastrophe, Shashi Tharoor reminded the nation that no country can have perfect surveillance. He argued for accountability after India had delivered its counter-response. In other words, he chose statesmanship over sensationalism, a stance that seems to irk the Congress ecosystem.
It is no secret that within Congress, Tharoor’s growing credibility and ability to connect with urban, educated, and international audiences has often made the old guard uncomfortable. His exclusion from the Congress-nominated list seems less like an oversight and more like a calculated snub. By sidelining one of its most capable leaders from an international mission, the Congress has once again shown its tendency to prioritize factional loyalty over national interest. Making matters worse is the inclusion of controversial names. BJP leader Amit Malviya questioned the Congress decision to nominate Dr. Syed Naseer Hussain, citing past incidents involving his supporters shouting “Pakistan Zindabad” slogans in Vidhana Soudha after his Rajya Sabha win. While Dr. Hussain himself may deny involvement, optics matter, especially on an issue like cross-border terrorism. Why would the Congress risk the country’s diplomatic credibility by fielding such names?
Even Gaurav Gogoi’s nomination has been questioned. Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma alleged that Gogoi had spent 15 days in Pakistan, raising suspicions over his political judgement. While the Congress has not responded substantively to these claims, such baggage weakens India’s diplomatic posture at a time when unity and credibility are paramount. Jairam Ramesh’s complaint that the government should have accepted only the four names submitted by the Congress exposes a party obsessed with control and credit, even at the cost of coherence. Why does it matter who selects the names, as long as the MPs representing India do so effectively and responsibly?
Instead of celebrating that one of their own, Shashi Tharoor was trusted by the government to speak for India on the world stage, the Congress has turned the issue into a petty political drama. Worse still, this tantrum plays right into the hands of India’s adversaries. At a time when global opinion needs to be shaped decisively in India’s favor, Congress’s public airing of grievances weakens the country’s hand. This is not the first time the Congress has faltered at critical junctures. Whether it was hesitating to call out China, indulging in appeasement politics domestically, or flip-flopping on Article 370, the party has often failed to stand with India’s core interests. Its reaction to Operation Sindoor is another addition to this growing list.
The government’s initiative to include MPs from across the political spectrum despite ideological differences is an example of true democratic maturity. That Congress couldn’t match this spirit is a tragedy for the party and a disservice to the nation. As India repositions itself as a global leader in counter-terrorism, it needs voices that are credible, rational, and committed to national interest above party politics. Shashi Tharoor is one such voice. Ironically, it is not the BJP that tried to silence him but his own party. And that, perhaps, is the greatest indictment of the Congress today.
