Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Wednesday launched a sharp attack on Rahul Gandhi over the latter’s use of the word “traitor” to describe Union Minister of State for Railways Ravneet Singh Bittu, framing the remark as an affront to the Sikh community and a sign of what he called mounting political arrogance.Speaking to reporters outside Parliament, Modi accused the Congress leader of deliberately insulting a Sikh representative and attempting to provoke social divisions for political gain. He said the language used against Bittu went beyond routine political criticism and crossed into disrespect for a community that has played a central role in the country’s public life, security forces and democratic institutions.
The Prime Minister’s remarks followed an exchange earlier in the day in which Gandhi, while speaking to the media, described Bittu as a “traitor” in response to comments the minister had made about the Congress party and its historical record. The remark drew immediate protests from the treasury benches and triggered a broader confrontation between the two parties.
Modi, adopting an unusually personal tone, referred to Gandhi as the Congress party’s “shatir dimaag wale yuvraj”, a phrase suggesting political cunning combined with entitlement. He said such conduct reflected a sense of superiority that had reached its limit and warned that voters would judge leaders not only by their policies but also by their respect for social harmony and constitutional values. The Prime Minister argued that casual use of inflammatory labels diminished the quality of public discourse and weakened trust in democratic debate.
The ruling party’s leadership quickly rallied behind Modi’s statement. Senior figures said the episode underscored what they described as a pattern in which opposition leaders resort to provocative language to divert attention from substantive issues. They also stressed that Bittu, a Sikh politician from Punjab with a long electoral record, had been targeted in a way that carried broader cultural implications.
Congress leaders rejected the charge that Gandhi’s words constituted an insult to the Sikh community. They said the comment was directed solely at Bittu’s political stance and remarks, and accused the Prime Minister of attempting to communalise a political disagreement. Party spokespersons argued that strong language has long been part of parliamentary contestation and that the government was selectively amplifying outrage to put the opposition on the defensive.
The confrontation highlights the increasingly personal nature of exchanges in the current Parliament session, where debates have frequently spilled beyond the chamber into public sparring. Political analysts note that language once confined to campaign rallies is now being deployed in day-to-day legislative interactions, blurring the line between institutional debate and partisan theatre.
Bittu, who has been vocal in his criticism of the Congress leadership, said he stood by his earlier comments and welcomed the Prime Minister’s defence. He maintained that his remarks were rooted in his reading of political history and party positions, and that being labelled a traitor was both inaccurate and offensive. Supporters within the ruling alliance said the episode illustrated the risks faced by regional leaders when national rhetoric turns personal.
The exchange also feeds into a wider narrative around identity and representation. Sikh leaders across party lines have historically been sensitive to language that appears to question loyalty or patriotism, given the community’s experiences and contributions. While no major Sikh organisation issued a formal statement by late evening, several commentators said the Prime Minister’s framing was designed to resonate in Punjab and among Sikh voters nationally.