Congress Calls Out Government’s Diplomatic Delegation Shuffle After Operation Sindoor: ‘Playing Games With Mischievous Mindset’
In the thick of political tensions following Operation Sindoor, the Congress party fired a fresh salvo at the government this Saturday, accusing it of “playing games” with a “mischievous mindset.” The issue? The government’s announcement of the heads of diplomatic outreach delegations to key partner countries did not align with the four nominees put forward by Congress.
Here’s the backdrop: The Congress was requested by the government to submit names of four MPs for all-party delegations tasked with conveying India’s firm stance of zero tolerance against terrorism. True to form, the party sent in the names of Anand Sharma, Gaurav Gogoi, Syed Naseer Hussain, and Amrinder Singh Raja Warring.
However, in a surprising twist, the government named Shashi Tharoor—a leader not among those four—as head of a delegation to key nations, sparking accusations of undercutting the Congress’s authority. The move was seen as an attempt to undermine the party’s control over the delegation process, and Congress wasn’t holding back on expressing its displeasure.
Congress Speaks Out: “Being In Congress vs. Being Of Congress”
Congress General Secretary Jairam Ramesh didn’t mince words in a media briefing held at 24, Akbar Road, hitting out directly at the government’s conduct. “There’s a world of difference between being in the Congress and being of the Congress,” he said, taking a clear jab at Shashi Tharoor’s unexpected appointment.
Ramesh went on to accuse the government of what he called “Narad Muni politics”—a reference to the mischievous mythological figure known for stirring trouble. According to him, the government’s decision to announce names without consulting the party was “dishonest” and “downright mischievous.”
He added, “We were asked for four names, we gave four names. But then the government goes ahead and picks names that suit them—even before asking us. That’s not honesty; that’s playing games.”
The Delegation Drama: A ‘Diversionary and Cosmetic Exercise’?
Beyond just the naming kerfuffle, Ramesh slammed the entire delegation exercise as a “diversionary and cosmetic” move by the government, implying it was more about optics than substance.
“Look, we aren’t going to rethink the four names we submitted,” he declared emphatically. “If the government doesn’t consider those names, it’s their dishonesty. We stand by the nominees we sent.”
Ramesh also used a cricket analogy to highlight what he sees as unfair play: “We’re playing with a straight bat, but the government? They’re deploying bodyline tactics. What can you say?”
This metaphor resonated widely in India’s cricket-obsessed culture, where “bodyline” refers to a controversial bowling tactic used to intimidate the batsman—suggesting the government is using underhanded tactics in politics.
Political Chessboard: Modi’s Silence, Delegations, and a Punctured Narrative
The opposition further pointed to Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s silence in response to letters from Rahul Gandhi (Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha) and Mallikarjun Kharge (Leader of Opposition in Rajya Sabha), which requested a special parliamentary session to discuss Operation Sindoor.
Suddenly, out of nowhere, the government announced multi-party delegations to take the message abroad. For Ramesh, this was a clear sign the government’s narrative is crumbling under pressure.
“The one who didn’t show up for all-party meetings, who didn’t call a special session, who remained silent on US leaders’ claims about cross-border terrorism, suddenly announces these delegations. It’s transparent political theater,” Ramesh remarked sharply.
Behind the Scenes: How Did This All Unfold?
According to Ramesh, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju called Rahul Gandhi and Mallikarjun Kharge on the morning of May 16, requesting four leader names. Gandhi promptly sent in the four names by 12:30 PM, after consultation with Kharge.
Yet, what happened next puzzled Congress leaders. Instead of a quiet, confidential process—common in diplomacy—the government publicly announced its own delegation list through a press release, which Ramesh said came as a surprise and felt “different.”
“In diplomacy, trust and confidentiality matter. But here, it looks like something else is going on,” Ramesh noted. “We were hoping the government genuinely wanted our input, not to play mischief.”
A Bipartisan Delegation: Bridging Political Divides
The government defended its move by saying it carefully selected delegation leaders from across the political spectrum, including both ruling alliance members and opposition figures.
The seven all-party delegations are said to represent “India’s national consensus and resolute approach to combating terrorism.” The leadership includes experienced lawmakers with long public service records, aiming to showcase unity beyond politics.
Interestingly, Shashi Tharoor, a former Union minister, has emerged as a vocal advocate for India’s strong response to terrorism following the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack, which tragically killed 26 people. His role in leading the outreach to the United States—a key global player—is seen by the government as strategically important.
Official Statements and Reactions
Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju posted on X (formerly Twitter), “In moments that matter most, Bharat stands united. Seven All-Party Delegations will soon visit key partner nations, carrying our shared message of zero-tolerance to terrorism.”
The official ministry statement echoed these sentiments, highlighting the delegations’ mission: “They will project India's national consensus and resolute approach to combating terrorism in all forms and manifestations, carrying forth the country’s strong message of zero tolerance against terrorism.”
While the government emphasized the delegations’ diplomatic heft—featuring distinguished diplomats and articulate voices—the opposition remained skeptical about the timing and transparency of the whole process.
Exciting Pointers to Note:
-
Operation Sindoor: The recent Indian military operation targeting terrorist camps, sparking intense political debate.
-
Delegation Controversy: Congress insists only their nominated four MPs should lead, while the government includes others, leading to accusations of bypassing party authority.
-
Political Tactics: Congress likens government actions to “Narad Muni politics” and “bodyline tactics” from cricket—both references to manipulation and unfair play.
-
Diplomatic Outreach: The delegations aim to send a unified message globally on India’s zero-tolerance stance against terrorism.
-
Leadership Split: While Congress nominated four leaders, government-appointed Shashi Tharoor—a vocal defender of military actions—to head the U.S. outreach delegation.
-
Modi’s Silence: Opposition criticizes the Prime Minister for ignoring parliamentary requests for a special session on Operation Sindoor.
-
Cross-Party Unity Claim: Government highlights delegations’ bipartisan makeup as proof of national unity above politics.
Breaking It Down: Why Does This Matter?
This saga isn’t just about names on a list. It reflects deeper issues of political control, transparency, and messaging strategy in India’s handling of terrorism and international diplomacy.
Congress feels sidelined and views the government’s unilateral announcements as a breach of trust and an insult to their parliamentary authority. The government, meanwhile, portrays itself as inclusive and focused on projecting a united front abroad.
The cricket metaphors underline just how heated and tactical the political battlefield has become. It’s more than just politics—it’s a game of strategy, influence, and power play, with the global image of India at stake.
For ordinary citizens and observers, these developments highlight the complex interplay between domestic politics and international diplomacy, reminding us that in times of national crisis, unity—or the lack thereof—can send powerful signals to the world.
Login