Is There a Battle Over Op Sindoor? Congress Equips 140 Spokespersons to Challenge BJP

Synopsis
Key Takeaways
- Congress mobilizes 140 spokespersons to address issues surrounding Operation Sindoor.
- Focus on government accountability regarding military actions.
- Debate over prior notifications to Pakistan raises serious concerns.
- Congress highlights the importance of national security and foreign policy.
- Senior leaders mentor spokespersons for a unified strategy.
New Delhi, May 23 (NationPress) In a bid to push back against the BJP’s assertions regarding the success of Operation Sindoor, the Congress has mobilized its 140 spokespersons to effectively challenge the government on critical matters of military strategy and diplomacy.
The discussions aimed to scrutinize the government’s foreign policy, delve into the role of the US President in the ceasefire with Pakistan, and advocate for a special session of Parliament to address the military’s counter-terror Operation Sindoor.
As part of their tactic, the Congress is striving for coherence among spokespersons across various platforms, preparing to launch a counteroffensive in tandem with the government’s diplomatic efforts, which include visits by seven all-party delegations to several countries to clarify India’s anti-terrorism stance.
Congress has enlisted its prominent spokespersons, such as Jairam Ramesh, Pawan Khera, and Supriya Shrinate, to mentor ‘Team-140’ under the leadership of Opposition Leader Rahul Gandhi and party President Mallikarjun Kharge.
Congress spokesperson Supriya Shrinate remarked that BJP MP Nishikant Dubey’s comment indicates the BJP is acknowledging that EAM S. Jaishankar provided prior notice of Operation Sindoor to Pakistan. “This confirms the position taken by Rahul Gandhi on this issue,” she stated in an interview.
“The BJP is jeopardizing national security by releasing new documents daily. Such actions only highlight their own foolishness and will not deceive the public,” she emphasized.
Congress spokesperson Abhay Dubey pointed out that the entire country is demanding answers regarding why the government informed Pakistan ahead of Operation Sindoor.
“The act of notifying Pakistan cannot be overlooked,” he asserted, labeling it as betrayal against the populace and the military.
Party spokesman Madhu Goud Yaskhi stated that BJP MP Nishikant Dubey’s assertions support Congress’s belief that prior notice was given to Pakistan.
“His tweet corroborates what the External Affairs Minister has been denying, following a confession that he informed Pakistani forces about the impending attack. This is indisputable,” Yaskhi stated.
He described it as the most significant crime committed by the Modi government against the citizens of India and its armed forces.
Yaskhi questioned why, even with a supposed India-Pakistan military agreement on information sharing, the Modi government has not modified it in over eleven years.
“You hold power. You have the capability to change anything. There are no constraints on the Indian government now,” he argued.
Yaskhi credited the Congress-led UPA government under Prime Minister Manmohan Singh for responding to Pakistan post-26/11 by isolating it and halting international aid, successfully revealing its links to terrorism.
He also inquired why the perpetrators of the Pahalgam attack have yet to be apprehended a month after the tragic event.
Earlier, BJP MP Nishikant Dubey referenced a document concerning the 1991 India-Pakistan military pact, sharing a message on the social media platform X, highlighting how the previous government agreed to share information with the enemy nation in advance.
Dubey criticized Rahul Gandhi and the Congress for their perceived hypocrisy regarding the ceasefire ‘understanding’ reached after Operation Sindoor.
Dubey’s shocking statements arise amid ongoing debates over EAM Jaishankar’s alleged comments suggesting that India notified Pakistan prior to Operation Sindoor.
Since then, Congress has vigorously attacked the government, arguing that informing Pakistan beforehand constitutes a crime and asserting that the pact referenced by Dubey was not established under their administration.