Thiruvananthapuram, Jan 24 (NationPress) Senior Congress figure and MP for Thiruvananthapuram, Shashi Tharoor, asserted on Saturday that there is no alteration in his stance regarding “Operation Sindoor”. He expressed that he holds no regrets for articulating a principled divergence of opinion, firmly dismissing any insinuations that he acted contrary to the party’s directive in Parliament.

While speaking at the Kerala Literature Festival (KLF) in Kozhikode, Tharoor emphasized that throughout his tenure in Parliament, he has consistently aligned with the Congress’s official stance. He noted, however, that the solitary instance of principled disagreement was tied to Operation Sindoor, which he framed as a matter of national security rather than mere political rivalry.

Tharoor’s comments surfaced amidst rumors of discord between him and the party leadership, particularly following his absence from a significant Congress meeting in Delhi.

Delving into broader issues, he stressed that national security matters should be approached with clarity, responsibility, and a focus on national interest.

In reference to a column he penned after the Pahalgam terror assault, Tharoor reiterated that such incidents should not go unanswered and that India is justified in responding decisively. Nonetheless, he cautioned against getting embroiled in a lengthy conflict with Pakistan.

He remarked that India should prioritize development and steer clear of prolonged military commitments, advocating instead for targeted military actions against terrorist camps. He noted that the government later adopted a similar stance, reinforcing the validity of his core argument.

Quoting Jawaharlal Nehru’s profound inquiry -- “If India dies, who will live?” -- Tharoor emphasized that when national security and the country's international standing are at risk, national interest must supersede all other considerations.

Tharoor also refrained from commenting on the controversies regarding his absence from the Delhi meeting, reiterating that party discussions should not be held in public forums. “This is a literary festival, not a venue for political statements,” he remarked, indicating that any issues would be conveyed directly to the party leadership within the appropriate setting.

He acknowledged the media speculations surrounding his absence, noting that while some reports may hold truth, others may not. However, he reiterated that he had communicated with the leadership beforehand and would not provide a public rationale, drawing a distinct boundary between internal party affairs and public discussions.