Did Rajnath Singh Criticize UPA for Its 26/11 Response and Sharm-el-Sheikh Agreement?
Click to start listening
Synopsis
In a recent address, Defence Minister Rajnath Singh fiercely criticized the UPA government for its inadequate response to the 26/11 Mumbai attacks and its controversial Sharm-el-Sheikh agreement. Singh’s remarks highlight a significant debate over India’s strategic decisions in the face of terrorism and international relations.
Key Takeaways
- Rajnath Singh strongly critiques the UPA over its handling of India-Pakistan relations.
- The Sharm-el-Sheikh agreement is described as a strategic blunder.
- Singh emphasizes the need for decisive action against terrorism.
- The former NDA government is praised for its hardline approach.
- International diplomatic failures post-26/11 are highlighted.
New Delhi, July 28 (NationPress) Defence Minister Rajnath Singh delivered a harsh critique of the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) regarding its management of India-Pakistan relations following the 26/11 Mumbai terrorist attacks, labeling it a significant blunder during the 2009 Sharm-el-Sheikh agreement.
In his address to the Lok Sabha on Monday, Singh stated, "In 2009, the then-government committed an error with the Sharm-el-Sheikh agreement."
He referenced the joint statement released on July 16, 2009, post a meeting between then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Pakistan’s Prime Minister Syed Yusuf Raza Gilani during the NAM Summit in Sharm-el-Sheikh.
Defence Minister Rajnath Singh initiated the discussion on Operation Sindoor in the Lok Sabha.
Singh pointed out that the agreement undermined India’s previously firm stance on cross-border terrorism. "This weakened the commitment that Pakistan would not use its territory for terrorism," he remarked, contrasting it with the more assertive approach taken by the former BJP-led NDA government under Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee.
Singh emphasized that Vajpayee had clearly stated that any dialogue with Pakistan would depend on a commitment to cease terrorism originating from its land.
He further criticized the UPA for not seizing the international momentum following the 26/11 attacks, accusing the Congress-led government of compromising “India's strategic positioning” by not responding robustly to the Mumbai terror attack that claimed over 170 lives.
Quoting from former President and UPA’s External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee’s memoir, ‘The Coalition Years’, Singh recounted: "Mukherjee noted that during the Mumbai attacks, India had evidence linking the terrorists to Karachi port. The international community did not accept Pakistan’s claim of ‘non-state actors’. He mentioned that amidst intense Cabinet debates, there was a call for military intervention which I turned down."
The Defence Minister also cited a senior Indian Foreign Service officer’s account of a high-level meeting that occurred immediately after the Mumbai attacks.
According to Singh, Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon had suggested a cruise missile strike on the Lashkar-e-Toiba headquarters in Muridke, Pakistan.
Singh described: "Upon hearing this, Mukherjee removed his glasses, cleaned them, and thanked all the officers before concluding the meeting."
Rajnath Singh contended that such indecisiveness conveyed the wrong message to Pakistan. He contrasted the UPA's approach with the NDA government’s decisive retaliation following the Uri and Pulwama attacks, asserting: "If the government back then had taken prompt and strong actions, like the 2016 surgical strike and the 2019 airstrike, Pakistan’s strategic calculations might have changed. A robust and decisive action could have served as a significant deterrent for Pakistan and its military-backed terrorist groups."
He further criticized the UPA's international diplomatic repercussions, pointing out the absence of strong global condemnation following the 26/11 attacks.
"If you examine the BRICS summit documents after the incident, there is no mention of the Mumbai terrorist attacks anywhere," Singh remarked, suggesting a lost chance to isolate Pakistan on the global platform.
Point of View
Rajnath Singh's comments reflect a crucial examination of India's historical diplomatic choices. While criticisms of past governments are commonplace, it's imperative to analyze these events within the broader context of national security and international relations. The narrative surrounding the UPA's response to terrorism remains significant, prompting ongoing discussions about the importance of decisive action in safeguarding national interests.
NationPress
31/07/2025
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the Sharm-el-Sheikh agreement?
The Sharm-el-Sheikh agreement was a joint statement made in 2009 between India and Pakistan, aimed at improving bilateral relations but criticized for allegedly undermining India's stance on terrorism.
Why did Rajnath Singh criticize the UPA government?
Rajnath Singh criticized the UPA government for its lack of a strong response to the 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks and for the perceived diplomatic missteps in the Sharm-el-Sheikh agreement.
What did Singh say about Vajpayee's government?
Singh highlighted that under Vajpayee's leadership, India maintained a firm position that any dialogue with Pakistan would depend on its commitment to halting terrorism from its territory.
How did Singh compare the UPA's and NDA's approaches to terrorism?
He compared the UPA's restrained response to the more aggressive actions taken by the NDA government, specifically referencing the surgical strikes and airstrikes following terror attacks.
What was the international reaction to the Mumbai attacks according to Singh?
Singh stated that there was a lack of strong international condemnation following the 26/11 attacks, which he saw as a failure of the UPA's diplomatic strategy.
