A sharp exchange over comments likening the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh to extremist groups has opened a fresh fault line within the Congress, exposing ideological unease and tactical differences as the party seeks to sharpen its opposition pitch while avoiding internal discord.The controversy gathered pace after senior Congress leader Digvijaya Singh questioned whether the party should engage with or learn from the RSS, remarks that drew swift reactions across the political spectrum. The debate intensified on Sunday when Congress MP Manickam Tagore escalated the rhetoric by equating the RSS with Al-Qaeda, arguing that organisations built on hatred offered nothing of value to a plural society.
Speaking in a televised interaction, Tagore said the RSS spread hatred and intolerance, adding that such ideologies could not be a source of learning. His comparison with Al-Qaeda, framed as an argument about the nature of hatred-driven movements, triggered immediate backlash from political opponents and prompted unease among sections of his own party who worry about the electoral and institutional consequences of such language.
The RSS, founded in 1925 and widely regarded as the ideological parent of the Bharatiya Janata Party, has long been a focal point of Congress criticism. The organisation rejects allegations of promoting hatred, describing itself as a cultural body committed to national service and social cohesion. BJP leaders accused the Congress of indulging in irresponsible rhetoric and attempting to stigmatise a mass organisation with a broad social footprint.
Within the Congress, reactions have been more complex. Some leaders privately acknowledged that the comparison crossed a line and risked alienating moderate voters, while others defended Tagore’s comments as an expression of frustration over what they see as the shrinking of democratic space and the normalisation of polarising narratives. The divergence reflects a larger strategic debate inside the party over how aggressively it should confront the ideological foundations of its principal rival.
Digvijaya Singh’s earlier remarks had already stirred discussion at party forums, with aides clarifying that his comments were intended to question engagement with an organisation whose worldview the Congress has historically opposed. Singh, a former chief minister and long-time party ideologue, has often argued that the Congress must confront the RSS’s ideas head-on rather than seek accommodation. His intervention, however, reopened memories of past internal disputes over whether attacking the RSS galvanises the Congress base or hands an emotive rallying point to the BJP.
Senior party functionaries have sought to contain the fallout by stressing that individual opinions do not necessarily reflect official party positions. There has been no formal disciplinary action announced, but leaders indicated that internal discussions were underway to ensure messaging discipline, especially with multiple state elections approaching and national polls on the horizon.
Political analysts note that the episode underscores the Congress’s enduring challenge: balancing a principled critique of majoritarian politics with the need to project itself as a unifying alternative. While strong statements energise core supporters and dominate media cycles, they also risk reinforcing the BJP’s narrative that the Congress is out of touch with grassroots sentiment.
The BJP has seized on Tagore’s remarks to accuse the Congress of disrespecting cultural institutions and trivialising global terrorism. Party spokespersons demanded an apology, arguing that equating a domestic organisation with an internationally proscribed terror network was offensive and misleading. The government side also used the controversy to reiterate its claim that the Congress harbours hostility towards nationalist organisations.
Beyond immediate political sparring, the debate has revived broader questions about freedom of speech, responsible political discourse, and the boundaries of analogy in public life. Legal experts pointed out that while sharp criticism is protected in a democracy, comparisons involving terrorism can carry reputational and social consequences, particularly in a polarised environment.
For Congress leaders attempting to reset the party’s image after electoral setbacks, the timing is delicate. Efforts are underway to project unity and policy focus on issues such as employment, inflation, and social justice. Episodes that spotlight internal disagreement risk distracting from that agenda and complicating outreach to undecided voters.