Anurag Thakur, a BJP MP, has sharply criticized the Congress party, accusing it of continually yielding and making compromises in the face of threats from Pakistan and terrorist organizations.
In a recent parliamentary debate, Thakur said that Congress’s historical and current positions undermine India’s counter-terrorism efforts. He notably referred to the 1971 India-Pakistan conflict, querying why Prime Minister Indira Gandhi did not restore control of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK), despite India securing the surrender of 93,000 Pakistani troops.
According to Thakur, this was an important act of capitulation that revealed a pattern of concessions made by Congress regimes.
Thakur expanded on this critique by recalling policy decisions such as the establishment of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) by Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, which was eventually overturned by the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government.
He claimed that the repeal demonstrated Congress’s unwillingness to take a harsh stand on terrorism. Thakur further accused Congress and certain of its leaders, including Rahul Gandhi, of sympathizing with Pakistan’s narratives and challenging government assertions regarding cross-border terrorism, particularly in the aftermath of the recent Pahalgam terror attack.
He even went so far as to refer to the current Congress as the “Rahul-Occupied Congress” and compared its speech to that of Pakistan, claiming that its criticisms frequently match Islamabad propaganda.
The immediate context for Thakur’s words was a controversial remark by senior Congress politician P Chidambaram, who questioned the Indian government’s attribution of the Pahalgam attack to Pakistani terrorists and speculated that the assailants could have been domestic.
Chidambaram chastised the administration for its lack of transparency regarding the attackers’ names and the state of the inquiry. This prompted BJP leaders, notably Thakur, to accuse Congress of protecting terror sponsors and putting terrorists’ human rights ahead of national security.
Thakur honed his assault in Parliament, claiming that Congress, particularly Rahul Gandhi, had become the “poster boy of Pakistan’s propaganda” and that their critiques not only harmed morale but also supplied fodder for hostile foreign narratives.
He accused the party of asking questions that Pakistan would ask and failed to clearly condemn acts of terrorism against Indian nationals, reinforcing his claim that Congress had a history of political “surrender.”
Thakur’s words were part of a larger, highly tense debate in Parliament, in which BJP leaders defended the government’s harsh reactions, including recent military actions during Operation Sindoor, and compared them with the Congress’ perceived softness on national security problems. In turn, Congress questioned the government’s handling of the aftermath, transparency regarding casualties, and international diplomacy.
The conversation highlights India’s significant political disagreements about the appropriate response to terrorism and the relationship between national security and political speech.
Thakur’s words are indicative of the BJP’s election-time rhetoric, which seeks to paint Congress as weak on national security concerns and to attribute motives that undermine India’s sovereignty and public trust in state institutions.
