Operation Sindoor, diplomatic outreach: Congress' contradictions reveal disconnect between rank and file

After assuring the Centre of unconditional support, the Congress appears to have shifted it stance on Operation Sindoor. (File/PTI)

Having pledged unflinching and unconditional support to the government and its actions against Pakistan and the terror it facilitates against India, the Congress seems to have recalibrated its approach - only to be trapped, as if by design, in the lure of discrediting Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the measures being undertaken by the Centre in the aftermath of the Pahalgam attack.

The approach stems from two primary factors — asking questions it believes are necessary, and not allowing the BJP to run away with the credit for "having taught Pakistan a lesson" — with the latter overshadowing the other.

This, perhaps, explains why the Congress has ended up speaking in two voices on key issues of national importance, causing it embarrassment, and possible political damage. The shift in the party's response to Operation Sindoor is the latest case in point.

Also Read: Congress divided over Rahul Gandhi's line of attack on Jaishankar: 'Problematic...stretching it too far'

On India's diplomatic outreach on Operation Sindoor

On May 17, the Centre announced the formation of seven multi-party delegations to visit different countries to convey India's message on Operation Sindoor, the military operation the nation took in response to the Pahalgam terror attack. Four leaders from the Congress were picked by the government to be part of these delegations, including one that is to be led by Shashi Tharoor, the head of the Parliament's Standing Committee on External Affairs and a seasoned diplomat-turned politician.

The other Congress leaders on these delegations included seasoned names like former ministers Salman Khurshid and Manish Tewari and former diplomat Amar Singh. However, the Congress leadership, instead of taking pride in the fact that some its most experienced and articulate voices were being included in the delegations set to travel to 32 countries and the European Union to mobilise global opinion in India’s favour, chose otherwise.

Also Read: Crossing the 'Lakshman Rekha': The curious case of Congress' misplaced fury over Shashi Tharoor

On Wednesday, the eve of the visit by the first delegation abroad, Congress general secretary in-charge of communications Jairam Ramesh termed the entire exercise a "diversion", claiming that the government was running away from convening a joint session of Parliament to discuss crucial issues pertaining to the Pahalgam attack, including China.

"...he (Modi) is desperate and his image globally has been shattered...He suddenly thought of such all-party delegations of MPs to visit different countries to divert attention from the tough questions he is being called to answer," Jairam Ramesh said.

Ironically, the remarks stood in stark contrast to how Anand Sharma, a member of one of these diplomatic delegations, viewed the Centre's outreach. Hailing the Centre's move to send all-party delegations to foreign capitals to explain India’s position on terrorism as “an important initiative”, Sharma said it is "important to sensitise global public opinion about the situation in our region created because of decades of cross-border terrorism, terrorist groups which are funded, nurtured and sheltered by the Pakistani military establishment and, in particular, the ISI."

"It is important that the leadership of countries where our groups would be going are fully informed as to what the situation is," he added. Notably, Anand Sharma was the only name that featured on the list of nominees to these delegations sent by the Congress and the one chosen by the Centre.

Composition of multi-party delegations

The Congress' attempt to discredit the multi-party delegations, which included some prominent names from its INDIA bloc allies, was preceded by the objections raised by the party on their very composition. While not articulated in as many words, the inclusion of Congress MP Shashi Tharoor as the head of one of these delegations left the party leadership peeved.

Also Read: 'Honoured': Shashi Tharoor on leading delegation on India’s anti-terror stand after Operation Sindoor

Tharoor, a leader who has possibly surpassed even leaders of the BJP in articulating India's stand on Pakistan-sponsored terror and Operation Sindoor, has not lately seen eye to eye with the Congress leadership on several issues. However, his articulation of the India-Pakistan conflict and US President Donald Trump's claims of mediating a ceasefire became an instant hit on social media, even among his critics and detractors.

The Congress Working Committee, however, asserted that Shashi Tharoor had crossed the "Lakshman Rekha" with his repeated comments on the India-Pakistan conflict. Tharoor had been making comments on the India-Pakistan conflict that were at variance with the party’s stand, which has been questioning the government over US President Donald Trump’s claims of mediating a ceasefire between India and Pakistan.

On remarks against S Jaishankar

On Friday, May 16, External Affiars Minister S Jaishankar said that India had sent a message to Pakistan at the start of Operation Sindoor, saying we are striking at terrorists' infrastructure and that its military had the option of standing out and not interfering in the process. Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, however, chose to twist these remarks to suggest that Jaishankar just admitted to informing Pakistan beforehand about its military operation.

Also Read: Shashi Tharoor: Suitors aplenty but no great options

Informing Pakistan at the start of our attack was a crime. EAM has publicly admitted that GOI did it. Who authorised it? How many aircraft did our air force lose as a result?" Rahul said in a social media post on Saturday. The MEA responded that Jaishankar's remark was clearly alluding to the early phase after Operation Sindoor’s commencement and not before it, as was being suggested.

However, Rahul Gandhi continued with his offensive and party spokesperson Pawan Khera took it a notch up. "Prime Minister Modi and the Foreign Minister will have to answer why this was done...The government should answer how many aircraft did the country lose. What losses did the country suffer? How many terrorists escaped? What does it mean that you informed them? Do you trust the terrorists so much that they will stay there once you inform them? What is your relationship with them? Do you call this strategy? I am sorry, but in village language, it is called mukhbiri (acting as an informant). This is spying, a crime and betrayal," Khera said taking cue from Rahul's statements over the past two days.

The remarks exposed a clear divide within the Congress party with a section of senior party leaders claiming that Rahul's argument was too "problematic" and that Khera referring to EAM Jaishankar as a "mukhbir (informer)" for Pakistan was "stretching it too far".

"To call Jaishankar an informer is stretching it a bit too far. Every issue has a certain elasticity… you don’t stretch it to the bone. In politics, you try to make a point but don’t stretch it too far which hurts the original point," a party leader told The Indian Express.

A clear disconnect

Having borne the brunt of raising questions on the Uri and Balakot strikes on Pakistan, one would have expected the Congress to tread cautiously on Operation Sindoor -- an attack that was several notches higher in scale and intensity that the past two occasions. However, the party, which is learnt to have decided not to fall for the lure of raising questions of the government till an opportune time, happened to do just that.

The contradictions within the Congress on the articulation of key issues have revealed that there was a disconnect not just between the thinking of the party leadership and the larger public sentiment on ground but also between its own rank and file.

The public airing of disagreements on key issues only amplifies a perception that the Congress can easily do without.