Tharoor admits to ‘difference of opinion' with Congress, says not asked to campaign in Nilambur
'You know that I have had some differences of opinion with the current Congress leadership. Many of these things are public,' the Thiruvananthapuram MP told reporters Thursday.
Thiruvananthapuram: Breaking his silence on the growing rift, Congress Lok Sabha MP Shashi Tharoor went public with his 'differences of opinion with the current party leadership', stating that he was kept away from campaigning during the Nilambur bypoll in Kerala.
Tharoor said he had been working with party workers for the past 15-16 years, adding there should be no doubts regarding the love and camaraderie he feels for the Congress party and its workers.
The bypoll was necessitated after Left Democratic Front-backed Independent MLA P.V. Anvar resigned from his post following disagreements with the LDF leadership. More importantly, it comes just months before Kerala heads to the assembly elections. A victory in the bypoll and the assembly polls is necessary for the Congress, which has been in opposition since 2016.
A seat where the Congress and its key ally the Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) have held sway, Nilambur has seen the entire state Congress leadership actively campaigning. Wayanad MP Priyanka Gandhi was also seen in the campaign for party candidate Aryadan Shoukath. Polling is being held in Nilambur on Thursday, while results will be out 23 June.
Tharoor told the media that he wasn't invited by the party to campaign in Nilambur.
'During a busy time, usually they call and ask when we'll be coming. Usually, there will be a schedule. For example, when we had elections in Wayanad with Priyanka Gandhi, an invitation came, and then we planned. We also looked for convenience. But once we reach there, there should be a programme,' he said, adding that the campaign programmes are typically prepared by the local leadership and communicated to leaders, something that did not happen in Nilambur.
'I will go where I am invited,' the four-time MP said, adding that wished the Congress candidate's victory.
Regarding his recent meeting with the Prime Minister and the speculation that he may be getting closer to the BJP, Tharoor clarified that the meeting pertained only to an all-party delegation's visit to nations and discussions after Operation Sindoor. It was not an occasion to discuss domestic politics, he added.
Tharoor's relationship with the Congress party has deteriorated in recent weeks due to his public divergence from the party's official positions. He has repeatedly praised Prime Minister Narendra Modi, most recently endorsing Operation Sindoor.
However, Congress leadership including Jairam Ramesh quickly clarified that Tharoor's statements 'did not reflect the party's stance.' Ramesh also accused the Centre of indulging in 'cheap political games' by selecting Tharoor to lead an all-party delegation to explain India's position on the conflict with Pakistan, especially when the Congress had submitted four other MP names for consideration, none of whom were chosen.
Similarly, a senior Congress leader close to the high command had accused Tharoor of crossing Lakshman Rekha in variance with the party line.
On Thursday, Tharoor explained his stand regarding his role in the all-party delegation.
'I'm telling you now—when Operation Sindoor was happening, what I said was my own opinion. No one from the government called and asked me to say anything. I simply expressed what I felt. Those were the opinions of an Indian. That's how I spoke. That's how I served. I had also told you before leaving that if the government asks, when the country needs my service, I'm always ready for it,' he said, adding that it was the government, not the party, that had asked him to lead the delegation.
The Lok Sabha MP recalled that when he first became chairman of the External Affairs Committee in 2014, he had stated that there is no such thing as a Congress foreign policy or a BJP foreign policy, and emphasised that his views on this have not changed.
He also noted that nobody in the party has asked him for any clarifications. 'If they have any questions about what I said, they can ask me directly. So far, no such questions have come. I also saw that there were some misunderstandings. It's unfortunate that sometimes things escalate so quickly.'
Leader of Opposition V.D. Satheesan and Kerala state party president Sunny Joseph were unavailable for comment. Meanwhile, Kerala Pradesh Congress Committee general secretary M.Liju said it was inappropriate for state leaders to respond, as Tharoor is a member of the Congress Working Committee.
(Edited by Tony Rai)
Also Read: Shashi Tharoor is hot property for everyone but Rahul Gandhi
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
a few seconds ago
- Business Standard
Over ₹44 crore released under MGNREGS so far: Centre tells Lok Sabha
The Centre has released ₹44,323 crore to states and union territories under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS) so far, Rural Development Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan informed the Lok Sabha on Tuesday. In a written reply, the minister gave the figures of disbursements of wages, material and admin components till July 17, 2025. According to the revelation, the amount disbursed is almost half of the total allocation of ₹86,000 crore earmarked for the financial year 2025-26. In a written reply to a separate question, MoS Rural Development Kamlesh Paswan said the allocation included full pending wage liabilities and 50 per cent of Material Liabilities of the previous financial year. "Regarding budget allocation for Mahatma Gandhi NREGS it is submitted that, for the financial year 2024-25, budget allocation of Rs. 86,000 crore has been made, which was the highest ever allocation for the scheme at the Budget Estimate (BE) stage since inception. In the financial year 2025-26, the Government has retained this allocation at ₹86,000 crore, ensuring continued support for rural employment," Chouhan said. He said that keeping in view the demand-driven nature of the scheme, the rural development ministry closely monitors demand for employment at the ground level and seeks additional funds from the Finance as and when required.
Indian Express
a few seconds ago
- Indian Express
Jagdeep Dhankhar accepting Opposition notice to impeach Justice Varma rubbed Govt ‘wrong way'
With no word from the government on the resignation of Jagdeep Dhankhar, barring an acknowledgement by Prime Minister Narendra Modi Tuesday noon, what precipitated his sudden move is being attributed to two signature-collection drives to move a motion to impeach Allahabad High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma for the alleged cash found in his premises. The first of these was by the Opposition which started two weeks ago but picked up momentum Sunday, to collect at least 50 signatures – the minimum needed to move a motion in the Rajya Sabha – to initiate the removal of Justice Varma. The government saw this as a move by the Opposition to undercut its own motion in this regard in the Lok Sabha, for which it had collected 145 signatures – the minimum for Lok Sabha is 100 – including those of the Opposition. Incidentally, in the run-up to the monsoon session, the Government had made it clear that it would move a motion to impeach the judge. The Modi government hoped that the removal of Justice Varma then would be by 'consensus' and not seen as partisan. (The motion to remove a judge can be initiated in either House.) An Opposition MP told The Indian Express that they were, however, determined to keep NDA members out of their Rajya Sabha initiative, to ensure that the ruling coalition didn't walk away with the anti-corruption plank on the matter. 'We did not want the government to have the moral high ground on the issue,' the MP said. Opposition sources said another reason was that they also wanted to raise the issue of Justice Shekhar Yadav, whose removal has been sought for controversial remarks at a VHP event, along with that of Justice Varma. As Monday morning came, and the Monsoon Session began, the Opposition was still trying to muster enough signatures to give a notice for the removal of Justice Varma. Around 1 pm, Dhankhar held a meeting of the Business Advisory Committee (BAC) to decide the time and nature of discussions to be held in the Rajya Sabha. The meeting was inconclusive, with the Opposition seeking more time to decide on the government's suggestions. Dhankhar then said that another BAC meeting would be held later in the day, at 4.30 pm. By 3 pm, the Opposition submitted its notice for removal of Justice Varma to Dhankhar. At 3.12 pm, Congress leader and Rajya Sabha MP Jairam Ramesh tweeted: 'Today 63 Rajya Sabha MPs belonging to various Opposition parties submitted a notice of motion to the Chairman, Rajya Sabha, for the removal of Justice Yashwant Varma under the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968. A similar motion for the removal of Justice Shekhar Yadav had been submitted to the Chairman, Rajya Sabha, way back on Dec 13, 2024.' According to sources, the government was not too happy about Dhankhar accepting the motion, upstaging its own initiative in the Rajya Sabha. A frantic exercise began allegedly then to rustle up signatures of NDA MPs. There was confusion about the purpose of the move. Several BJP MPs told The Indian Express that the signatures were taken for 'impeachment' of Justice Varma. However, two of their counterparts from the NDA underlined that they had signed on 'blank papers', suggesting that the intention was not clear. Three Cabinet members told The Indian Express that the signatures were meant for a notice against Justice Varma. A minister added that the proceedings, however, 'will be in the Lok Sabha only'. 'But since the Chair (Dhankhar) has taken up the matter in the Rajya Sabha also, the presiding officers of both will form a three-member committee to probe the matter.' Shortly after the Opposition submitted its notice, Dhankhar came to the Rajya Sabha and announced around 4.05 pm Monday that he had received it. 'A notice of motion under Article 271 (1) (b), read with Article 218 and Article 124, sub article 4 of the Constitution of India, along with Section 3 (1B) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, to constitute a statutory committee for removal of Justice Yashwant Varma, Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad' had been submitted, the Vice President said. Dhankhar added that according to the Judges (Inquiry) Act, when notices of a motion are submitted on the same day in both Houses of Parliament, a committee to examine the charges is to be constituted by the Lok Sabha Speaker and Rajya Sabha Chairman together. Incidentally, Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla is yet to inform the House about the Justice Varma notice. So this move from Dhankhar, sources in the BJP said, was 'unexpected, shocking and confusing'. A top source in the government said: 'He did not even wait for our notice on the matter.' Interestingly, Dhankhar went on to also refer to the Opposition notice on removal of Justice Yadav of the Allahabad High Court. Without mentioning Justice Yadav by name, Dhankhar said that the confusion over the signatures in the notice submitted by the Opposition was the reason for the hold-up in the process, initiated in December. He added that he would get back to the House once the probe in the case was completed. This did not go down well with the government either, which has been trying to go easy on the Justice Yadav matter. Dhankhar then mentioned the case of the discovery of a wad of notes in the Rajya Sabha in February last year, allegedly from a seat belonging to MP Abhishek Manu Singhvi. Calling it a serious matter, Dhankhar said the matter would have to be dealt with, and that the floor leaders would have to help him in this. Around half-an-hour later, Dhankhar started the BAC meeting he had announced earlier in the day. But even as the Opposition came for it, no one from the government side – either J P Nadda, the Leader of the House, or Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju and MoS, Parliamentary Affairs, Arjun Ram Meghwal – turned up. On Tuesday, speaking to journalists at Parliament House, Nadda said Rijiju and he had informed Dhankhar in advance that they would not be able to attend the meeting as they had another engagement. A source from the government said: 'After we informed the Chairman that the ministers would not be able to be present, he said he would wait for some time and carry on with the meeting.' Nadda also gave a clarification regarding his remarks 'Nothing will go on record, only what I say will go on record' in the Rajya Sabha on Monday, saying these were directed at the 'interrupting' Opposition MPs and not the Chair. After Dhankhar's resignation, the Congress had cited this 'insult' to the Vice President as one of the reasons behind his sudden move. On Tuesday, Congress leader Ramesh speculated in a post on X that 'something very serious' occurred between 1 pm and 4.30 pm, which prompted Nadda and Rijiju to skip the BAC 'deliberately', and said Dhankhar had taken 'umbrage' at this. Six hours after government representatives did not turn up for the BAC meeting, at 9.25 pm Monday, Dhankar posted his resignation letter addressed to President Droupadi Murmu on the official X handle of the Vice President, saying he was stepping down due to medical reasons. The first official reaction from the BJP or the government was at 12.13 pm Tuesday, when PM Modi tweeted: 'Shri Jagdeep Dhankhar Ji has got many opportunities to serve our country in various capacities, including as the Vice President of India. Wishing him good health.'
The Hindu
a few seconds ago
- The Hindu
Manipur Congress seeks clarity from Governor on Assembly status
The Manipur Pradesh Congress Committee on Tuesday (July 22, 2025) sought clarification from Governor Ajay Kumar Bhalla regarding the constitutional status of the State's 60-member Legislative Assembly, which has not convened since August 2024. President's Rule was imposed in Manipur on February 13 this year, following the resignation of Nongthombam Biren Singh as Chief Minister on February 9, amid the ongoing ethnic conflict in the State. In a memorandum submitted to the Governor, State Congress president K. Meghachandra Singh questioned whether the 12th Manipur Legislative Assembly 'is still alive or already dead' or 'constitutionally deemed to be dissolved from midnight' of February 11, two days prior to the imposition of President's Rule. 'The last sitting of the 60-member House was held on August 12, 2024, and according to Article 174(1) of the Constitution of India, the next sitting ought to have been mandatorily held on or before February 11. However, Mr. Biren Singh resigned as the Chief Minister on February 9, and on that day, the Governor declared his January 24 order summoning the Assembly for February 11 to be null and void,' said Congress spokesperson and advocate Ningombam Bupenda Meitei. Mr. Meitei was part of a four-member delegation from the Congress's legal department that submitted the memorandum at the Raj Bhavan in Imphal. The other members included Wahidur Rahman, S. Shyamacharan, and L. Brojen Singh. The delegation noted that the Assembly was not in suspension at the time of the Chief Minister's resignation, and thus Article 174(1) — which mandates that no more than six months should elapse between two sittings of a Legislative Assembly — remained applicable. The Congress said the Governor's February 9 order effectively 'circumvented the rigours of Article 174(1)' and further delayed the Assembly's sitting beyond the constitutionally permitted time frame. The party asked the Governor to clarify whether the 12th Legislative Assembly has remained 'alive', 'dead', or 'dissolved' since February 12. It also sought to know whether the Governor would now be 'constitutionally barred from summoning the sitting for the next session' of the current Assembly's remaining term. The memorandum added that any gubernatorial action or order requiring a new Chief Minister to undergo a floor test 'would tantamount to the violation of Article 174(1)'.
