S Jaishankar Tears Into Congress Over Foreign Policy Blunders, China Ties and Terror Handling During Operation Sindoor Debate

Operation Sindoor Debate: During the Operation Sindoor debate in the Rajya Sabha on Wednesday, External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar launched a searing attack on the Congress party, accusing it of decades of weak-kneed diplomacy, questionable closeness with China, and repeated capitulation to Pakistan-sponsored terror. Drawing from historical facts, personal diplomatic experiences, and UPA-era decisions, Jaishankar systematically laid out what he called a long record of strategic missteps and national security compromises by the Congress governments.  

A Legacy of Strategic Miscalculations

Jaishankar ridiculed senior Congress leaders for posturing as China experts, sarcastically calling them “China gurus” whose deep affection for Beijing shaped India’s compromised strategic posture during the UPA years. He recalled how one leader, in his enthusiasm, had even promoted a “partnership” with China, brushing aside growing threats.

Referring to his own four-decade-long diplomatic career, including his tenure as India’s longest-serving ambassador to China, Jaishankar said, “I did not get China teaching by going to the Olympics. No one invited me. I was not a special person.” He accused certain Congress figures of “taking private tuition from the Chinese ambassador,” pointing to closed-door engagements that raised serious questions about policy alignment.

Highlighting how the China-Pakistan nexus wasn’t a sudden development but one nurtured over decades, he traced its origins back to 1963 when Pakistan handed over the Shaksgam Valley to China. He noted that the Karakoram Highway planning began in 1960 and nuclear collaboration between the two nations took off in 1976, well before the Modi government came to power.

The ‘Strategic Partner’ Paradox

Jaishankar recalled a moment of diplomatic disbelief when, as India’s ambassador to China, a top general from the Eastern Command asked him how a hostile neighbour, with whom India had fought a war and still had ongoing border tensions, could be declared a “strategic partner.” “I didn’t have an explanation either,” Jaishankar admitted, suggesting that such decisions came from political compulsions rather than strategic clarity.

The Minister didn’t stop at diplomacy. He exposed how Chinese telecom firms were invited to set up India’s 3G and 4G infrastructure under the UPA, raising long-term national security concerns. Even more damaging, he argued, was Congress's dismissive attitude toward the construction of Hambantota Port in Sri Lanka,  a key maritime project later acquired by China. 

“This port was built between 2005 and 2008, and at that time, the government said this is not a matter of concern for us,” he said, emphasizing how Congress failed to foresee the strategic consequences of Chinese expansion in India’s neighbourhood.

Soft on Pakistan, Hard on Indian Farmers?

Jaishankar took aim at Congress’s handling of the Indus Waters Treaty, accusing it of putting Pakistani interests above Indian farmers. “He was concerned about Pakistani Punjab. He was not concerned about the farmers of Jammu and Kashmir, Rajasthan, or Himachal Pradesh,” he said, accusing the party of treating the treaty as the “price of peace,” when in fact, it was a symbol of exploitation.

He added that while earlier governments believed nothing could be done about the treaty, the Modi government had shown that even historical wrongs could be addressed. “Blood and water will not flow together,” he asserted, reiterating the government's decision to hold the treaty in abeyance until Pakistan ceases support for terrorism.

“They Routinely Equated Victims With Perpetrators”: A Grim Recap of Congress’s Terror Response

Recalling a string of devastating terrorist attacks that rocked India during the UPA years, Jaishankar listed out one horrific incident after another:
“In 2007, 44 people died in Hyderabad. In 2008, the Mumbai attacks of 26/11, the world still remembers it, 246 people died. In Jaipur, 64 people died. In Ahmedabad, 57 people. In Delhi, there was a bomb blast. I’m from Delhi, I remember it. We went through a series of attacks.”

And yet, he said, the Congress-led government continued to downplay terrorism and prioritised dialogue with Pakistan even after grave provocations.

“After the Mumbai train bombings in July 2006, within just three months, there was a meeting in Havana. What came out of it? Instead of holding Pakistan responsible, the Prime Ministers agreed that terrorism is a scourge to be jointly tackled, and by the way, we will resume composite dialogue.”

Jaishankar said the message sent out was disastrous.
“You are actually equating the victim and the perpetrator. This was a move away from the 2004 Vajpayee-Musharraf agreement where Pakistan had assured their territory would not be used to harm India. Now, we were saying yes, terrorism happened, people died in Mumbai, but let’s resume talks.”

“Sharm al-Sheikh: After Mumbai, We Handed Them Balochistan”

Turning to 26/11, the most brutal terror attack in India’s modern history, Jaishankar expressed his outrage over how India responded diplomatically.

“No one in this House, no one in this country, will ever forget or forgive 26/11. But by July 2009, there was a meeting in Sharm al-Sheikh where it was agreed terrorism is the main threat to both countries. Action on terror would not be linked to the dialogue process. And of all things, there was an astounding reference to Balochistan.”

He said the Congress government effectively allowed Pakistan to portray India as a wrongdoer, despite being the victim of an unprovoked attack.

He accused Congress of normalizing terror: “They had routineised it. Yes, terrorism happened, but let’s go for dialogue, that was their line.”

The Shift Under Modi: From Silence to Action

Contrasting the Modi government’s approach, Jaishankar underlined how India has placed terrorism firmly on the global agenda. “We have raised it at every forum,  BRICS, QUAD, SCO, bilaterals,  and secured UN sanctions against terrorists like Masood Azhar and Abdul Rehman Maki.”

He recounted how India hosted the UN Security Council at the site of the 26/11 attacks, the Taj Hotel in Mumbai, and used bilateral arrangements to extradite wanted terrorists like Tahawwur Rana. “We have put enormous pressure on Pakistan via the FATF process and launched the 'No Money for Terror' conference.”

Jaishankar also highlighted the latest diplomatic win,  getting the Resistance Front (TRF) officially named as a proxy of Lashkar-e-Taiba in the 36th UN report. “Today, we have UN recognition that TRF is a front for LET, responsible for recent attacks like the one in Pahalgam.”

Jaishankar’s address wasn’t just a defence of current policy,  it was a sharp indictment of the Congress’s 60-year rule, calling out misplaced priorities, ignored warnings, and a legacy of appeasement. From China to Pakistan, from telecom policy to terrorism, he painted a picture of a government that had normalized danger and compromised national security.