Three months since the terror attack in Pahalgam, and over two months since Operation Sindoor "paused" in a ceasefire between India and Pakistan, several critical questions remain unanswered, both about the terror attack as well as the aftermath of India's kinetic response. With the Monsoon Session of Parliament in motion, the Opposition parties, the Congress in particular, have been demanding answers.
Meanwhile, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led government has been in the eye of a political storm with the sudden resignation of Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar and the recently announced Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in Bihar by the Election Commission ahead of the Assembly Elections scheduled later this year.
Ahead of a discussion on Operation Sindoor during the Monsoon Session of Parliament, veteran Congress leader and former Union Minister P Chidambaram spoke to senior journalist Harinder Baweja on questions lingering in the wake of the Pahalgam tragedy, US President Donald Trump's role in the India-Pakistan ceasefire, Kashmir, and more.
Read the edited extracts below—and watch the video for the full interview.
The Congress initially lent full support to the Narendra Modi government on Operation Sindoor. What are the questions that you are now looking to ask?
There is no transparency at all. The nation has not been taken into confidence. It has been several weeks since Operation Sindoor, which, as the PM said, is merely paused and not concluded. If so, what are the follow-up steps? Has the Modi government taken any steps to prevent another attack like Pahalgam?
Second, where are the terrorist attackers? Why have you not apprehended them, or even identified them? A news item had emerged about the arrest of a few people who gave the attackers shelter. What happened to them?
There are so many questions. Why is the government ducking them? Why is the Prime Minister not speaking?
We get snatches and bits of information from different officers. The Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) goes to Singapore and makes a statement that give you bits of information. The deputy army chief makes a statement in Mumbai. In Indonesia, a junior officer of the Navy makes a statement. But why is the PM or the defence minister, or the foreign minister not making a comprehensive statement?
Why the reluctance? Do you think they are hiding something?
We asked for a special session; they evaded it. Now, the regular Monsoon Session has begun. They should have made a comprehensive statement on Day 1. It shows that they are reluctant to make a statement.
I think, and this is speculation, I think they are hiding the fact that we made tactical mistakes (during Operation Sindoor), and we re-strategised... The CDS hinted at that. What tactical mistakes were made? What was the re-strategising? Either the BJP government is incompetent to answer these questions, or it is unwilling to do so. They are also unwilling to disclose what the NIA done in these past few weeks...They are also hiding the losses India suffered.
They think they can put a large shroud on Operation Sindoor. It won't work.
PM Modi has said in a public meeting that the UPA government did nothing after the 26/11 Mumbai attacks, that he is the author of surgical strikes... Your thought? I ask you about this because you were made the Home Minister after the 2008 attack.
After the attack, when I visited Mumbai, I held a press conference in which I apologised for the intelligence failure. It was an intelligence failure, after all. We also know Pahalgam was an intelligence failure. Why doesn't the government admit or address like I did after 2008?
In 2008, it took us four days to deter the attack by eight terrorists. After one day of being Home Minister, I raised the issue internally about whether we can retaliate... the consensus at the time was that it was not the right stage to retaliate, maybe it could be done later. But then, every head of state flew into India. Condoleezza Rice, the then US Secretary of State, flew down to New Delhi and met me to convince the government not to retaliate. The global opinion was in support of India, and the entire world held Pakistan responsible for the terror attack...That did not happen after Pahalgam. This time, the world has condoled the victims, the Indian tourists. But not one country has named Pakistan as the aggressor and India the victim.
Though I had reservations about it, strategic restraint in 2008 was the government's decision, and it helped us identify the terrorists and the masterminds and bring (some of them) to book.
Do you think Trump had a role to play in the ceasefire? And what about Modi's call for 'Abki Baar Trump Sarkaar'?
I think Mr Modi regrets saying 'Abki Baar Trump Sarkar' now.
He has said it 25 times (that he was responsible for the ceasefire). We also know for certain that US Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio spoke to the Foreign Minister. Whether they spoke to Mr Modi directly, I can't say. But there are hints that Vance spoke to Modi briefly. The ceasefire comes the next day. Pakistan also says that Trump and the US brought about the ceasefire. Yet, we are obliquely saying that Trump had nothing to do with it. It takes two sides to ceasefire. If Trump had a role to play in the ceasefire, what is the shame in admitting it?
Your thoughts on Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar's sudden resignation, and SIR in Bihar?
I think Mr Dhankhar and the BJP leadership had grown apart over the last few months. His admonition of agriculture minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan in public, his statements on behalf of the kisans, and his criticism of the judiciary possibly made them drift apart. But the government was blindsided by the admission of the impeachment motion against Justice Yashwant Varma and the possibility that the impeachment motion against Justice Shekhar Yadav would also be admitted. It's established now that the government was keen to impeach Justice Varma but not Justice Yadav.
As far as the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in Bihar is concerned, I think it was a Machiavellian move by the Election Commission. Whether done on the behest of the ruling dispensation, I cannot say. But I am afraid that it will work more toward disenfranchising existing voters than enfranchising new ones.