Senior Congress leader Salman Khurshid on Sunday moved swiftly to defend party veteran Digvijaya Singh following political controversy triggered by Singh’s remarks that were interpreted by critics as praising the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. Khurshid described Singh as a “pillar” of the Congress, arguing that the comments were being read out of context and insisting it was inconceivable that Singh would say anything that harmed either the party’s interests or the country.Khurshid’s intervention came amid mounting pressure within political circles, where opponents accused the Congress of mixed messaging on ideology and nationalism. Addressing reporters, Khurshid underlined Singh’s decades-long association with the party and said his ideological commitment should not be questioned on the basis of selective interpretations. He emphasised that Singh’s record reflected loyalty to the Congress’s foundational values and its secular framework.
Singh’s remarks, delivered during a public interaction, touched on organisational discipline and social outreach, themes that some commentators construed as an endorsement of the RSS. The comments drew sharp reactions from rival parties, which sought to frame them as evidence of ideological convergence. Within hours, Congress leaders sought to contain the fallout, stressing that the party’s position on the RSS had not shifted and remained rooted in long-held critiques of the organisation’s worldview.
Khurshid argued that political discourse had become prone to amplification and distortion, particularly when statements were lifted from their broader argument. He said Singh’s long career in public life offered ample evidence of where he stood ideologically, adding that internal debates within the Congress should not be misconstrued as a departure from core principles. According to Khurshid, Singh’s words were aimed at emphasising democratic engagement rather than legitimising any organisation the Congress has historically opposed.
The episode has once again highlighted the tightrope the Congress leadership is attempting to walk as it balances internal diversity of views with the need for clarity on ideological positioning. Party strategists acknowledge that senior leaders speaking off-script can create openings for adversaries, especially at a time when political narratives are tightly contested and amplified across digital platforms.
Singh, a former chief minister of Madhya Pradesh and a prominent face of the party for several decades, has often courted controversy with candid remarks on sensitive subjects. Supporters argue that his interventions reflect intellectual independence and a willingness to engage with complex realities, while critics within and outside the party contend that such statements risk diluting the Congress’s ideological message.
The Congress has historically positioned itself in opposition to the RSS, accusing it of promoting a majoritarian agenda incompatible with constitutional secularism. That stance has been reiterated repeatedly by the party leadership, particularly during election campaigns and parliamentary debates. Khurshid’s defence sought to reinforce this continuity, suggesting that isolated remarks should not be elevated to signal a strategic shift.
Political analysts note that the swift public backing of Singh by Khurshid indicates an attempt to prevent the controversy from deepening into an internal rift. Public disagreements among senior figures have previously proven costly for the party, often overshadowing policy positions and electoral strategies. By closing ranks early, the leadership appears keen to project unity and discipline.
Opposition parties, however, continued to press the issue, arguing that the remarks exposed contradictions within the Congress’s ideological narrative. They pointed to past statements by Congress leaders criticising the RSS and questioned how Singh’s comments aligned with those positions. The exchange has fed into a broader debate on ideological consistency in national politics, where historical rivalries intersect with evolving political rhetoric.
Within the Congress, voices have emerged urging senior leaders to exercise greater caution in public forums. While acknowledging the party’s tradition of internal debate, some leaders privately concede that ambiguous statements can be exploited by opponents to shift focus away from governance issues and policy critiques. Others argue that the party should articulate its ideological stance more assertively to avoid misinterpretation.