The Congress leadership has expressed its displeasure over the statements of Chidambaram and Aiyar,
Chidambaram's statements about 1984 are not wrong Editorial: History does not disappear; it keeps on coming up from time to time. Attempts to bury it have often failed. This is what is happening in the context of the Blue Star incident. The statements of two former Union Ministers about this incident in the last two days have trapped the Congress party in a critical situation.
During the Khushwant Singh Literary Festival (Khushwant Singh Litfest) in Kasauli on Saturday, former Union Finance and Home Minister P. Chidambaram said that "resorting to military action to remove terrorists from Darbar Sahib in 1984 was the wrong way to go."
Although this decision was not that of Mrs. Indira Gandhi alone and the army, police, intelligence agencies and government officials were involved in taking this decision and implementing it, still only Mrs. Gandhi had to bear the consequences. He was killed.’’ He also said that he did not want to discredit any military officer, but the fact was that the type of operation that was carried out to free the Darbar Sahib complex from terrorists was wrong. A few years later, another operation (Black Thunder) proved that the work could have been done without military action.
Another former Union Minister and former Congress leader Mani Shankar Aiyar claims that the losses incurred during the Blue Star (or Operation Blue Star in military terminology) atrocity were the result of poor planning and incompetent execution by senior military officers.
Aiyar, who was a former diplomat and a close political aide of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, said in a separate discussion during the Khushwant Singh Litfest that if senior military officers had properly guided and advised the political leadership, the tragedy that has happened would not have happened.
Both Chidambaram and Aiyar are Tamils. Both are ‘brainy’ type of leaders. The qualities of both are also reflected in their personalities. The difference is that Chidambaram speaks with moderation while Aiyar speaks with moderation. Aiyar’s statements have often trapped the Congress party in a politically precarious situation. He was considered close to the Gandhi family, but for the last three years, the Congress has distanced itself from him.
On the other hand, Chidambaram has been known to bail out the Congress party from difficult situations through his bold and mature vocabulary. But his statements twice in the last two weeks have not only put the Congress party leadership in a difficult position, but these statements have also proven to be politically and socially helpful for the Bharatiya Janata Party.
A week ago, he had said that America has often interfered in the mutual affairs of India and Pakistan. During the 26/11 Mumbai terror attack in 2008, he (Chidambaram) himself was in favor of taking action against Pakistan, but the then Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh and the Ministry of External Affairs did not allow this to happen due to pressure from the US and other powers.
He had admitted that he had also received a call from US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that he should not take retaliatory action against Pakistan. Chidambaram's statement shattered the Congress' campaign against Prime Minister Modi that Modi cannot raise his head in front of Trump.
The Congress leadership has expressed its displeasure over the statements of Chidambaram and Aiyar, saying that senior leaders are being asked not to say anything that would be in the BJP’s favour. According to Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge, “on issues on which the party has been taking a clear stand for two-three decades, subtle means of undermining that stand should be avoided as much as possible.” Aiyar is not in the party; no disciplinary action can be taken against him. Yes, the possibility of action against Chidambaram cannot be ruled out. But will it be possible to do so?
He himself is a Rajya Sabha member and his son Karti Chidambaram is a Lok Sabha member from Tamil Nadu. Action against one can also become an excuse for the displeasure and resentment of the other. However, the way the party has insisted on the silence of senior leaders is regrettable from the point of view of adhering to democratic principles. However, when senior leaders like Chidambaram also start going outside the ideological lines set by the party, this step is an indication of the fact that they are feeling suffocated and frustrated. Therefore, they should be heard on party platforms. The good of democracy lies in this.
