Did Odisha Minister Accuse Congress Over 26/11 Attack Response?
Click to start listening
Synopsis
Odisha Law Minister Prithiviraj Harichandan has called out the Congress party over its handling of the 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks, following revelations from former Union Minister P. Chidambaram regarding military retaliation considerations. This highlights a significant moment in political accountability.
Key Takeaways
- Chidambaram's revelation highlights past governmental weaknesses.
- The Congress party faces scrutiny over its response to national security threats.
- Political accountability is crucial for public trust.
- The BJP seizes the opportunity to critique Congress amidst these revelations.
- Diplomatic pressure played a role in the UPA's decision-making.
Bhubaneswar, Sep 30 (NationPress) Following the disclosure by former Union Minister P. Chidambaram that the then United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government contemplated military action after the 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks but chose to abstain due to pressure from the US and diplomatic counsel, Odisha Law Minister Prithiviraj Harichandan took a jab at the Congress party on Tuesday. He emphasized that it is now crucial for Congress leader Rahul Gandhi to acknowledge this revelation as well, similar to what the former Union Home Minister did.
In statements to the press, Harichandan pointed out that Chidambaram's remarks highlight the vulnerabilities of the Congress-led administration during that period.
He further noted that throughout the decade-long rule of the UPA, decisions that were detrimental to the nation's security were influenced by unseen pressures.
Harichandan stated that Chidambaram has finally come to terms with this issue, urging Rahul Gandhi to also step forward and admit the truth.
In a parallel development, the BJP-led government in the state has launched a vehement critique of the Congress, demanding apologies from both Chidambaram and Sonia Gandhi.
In response to Chidambaram's statements, senior BJP leader and former Union Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad remarked, "This isn't surprising at all. We have been asserting this for a long time. This exemplifies their weakness. Why did Chidambaram suddenly recall all this after so many years?"
Chidambaram, in a recent interview, revealed, "A few days after I assumed the role of Union Home Minister, the then US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice visited me and the Prime Minister, urging us, 'Please refrain from reacting.' I expressed that it should be a decision made by the government. However, thoughts of retribution did cross my mind."
He also mentioned that the then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had deliberated potential retaliation while the attacks were still in progress.
Ultimately, the UPA government was advised by the Ministry of External Affairs and senior diplomats against a military response.
Point of View
It is essential to approach this discussion with a balanced perspective. While the revelations highlight significant issues within the UPA government's decision-making processes, it is also imperative to engage in constructive dialogue about national security and the responsibilities of all political entities in such crucial matters.
NationPress
30/09/2025
Frequently Asked Questions
What did P. Chidambaram reveal about the UPA government's response?
Chidambaram disclosed that the UPA government considered military retaliation after the 26/11 attacks but was advised against it due to US pressure.
What was Prithiviraj Harichandan's stance on Chidambaram's statement?
Harichandan criticized the Congress party, urging Rahul Gandhi to acknowledge the same points made by Chidambaram regarding the government's weaknesses.
How has the BJP reacted to these revelations?
The BJP has strongly condemned the Congress party and has called for apologies from both Chidambaram and Sonia Gandhi.
What was the advice given to the UPA government regarding military action?
The Ministry of External Affairs and senior diplomats advised the UPA against any military response to the 26/11 attacks.
Why is this discussion significant?
This discussion is significant as it raises questions about political accountability and decision-making during critical national security incidents.
