Chidambaram said he took over the Home Ministry immediately after the attacks, after Shivraj Patil resigned, and told Prime Minister Manmohan Singh he viewed retaliation as legitimate. He recalled seeking backing from top government leaders, including Sonia Gandhi as Congress president, but discovering that the Ministry of External Affairs and Indian Foreign Service officials were already convinced diplomacy must prevail.
He asserted that US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice flew to New Delhi shortly thereafter to urge restraint, as global diplomatic pressure mounted on the Indian government. Chidambaram said he had “no clear briefing” on India’s intelligence or military posture vis-à-vis Pakistan when he assumed the role.
His revelations have reignited debate over India’s counterterror policy in 2008. At the time, analysts and critics have long argued that the UPA government showed excessive caution in responding to Pakistan, citing shifting foreign-policy constraints and domestic political considerations.
Chidambaram’s narrative foregrounds a fault line between defence and diplomacy authorities. He described persistent resistance from MEA and IFS cadres, who convinced decision-makers that escalation would risk Iran-style regional escalation. That diplomatic cohort prevailed, he said, and the government opted against kinetic action.
BJP figures seized upon his remarks. Party leaders have accused the Congress of weakness in national security and questioned whether Sonia Gandhi or Manmohan Singh blocked action. They pointed to later doctrinal shifts, such as 2016’s surgical strikes and the 2019 Balakot air raid, as evidence that the UPA’s approach lacked firmness.
Chidambaram acknowledged he initially resisted the portfolio shift from Finance to Home, arguing he had already presented five budgets and preferred to remain in his economic role. He said that notwithstanding his unease, he accepted the move reluctantly. Once in charge, he proposed the establishment of a National Counter Terrorism Centre and the National Intelligence Grid to improve coordination among security agencies.
He defended the decision not to retaliate by claiming India “gained enormously in esteem in the world” by choosing restraint, a view he has voiced in prior public remarks. But his new disclosures underscore his divergence with peers on the internal government consensus in 2008.