Two days after the deadly car explosion near Delhi’s Red Fort that claimed at least ten lives and left more than twenty people injured, senior Congress leader and former Union minister P. Chidambaram found himself at the centre of a major political controversy. His remarks on “home-grown terrorists,” made in a social media post, have provoked a furious backlash from the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and several other political leaders, who accused him of sympathising with terrorists and politicising a national tragedy.

Chidambaram, who has previously served as India’s Home Minister, reiterated on Wednesday a statement he had made earlier this year following the Pahalgam terror attack. Writing on X (formerly Twitter), he said, “I have maintained before and after the Pahalgam terror attack that there are two kinds of terrorists — foreign-trained infiltrated terrorists and home-grown terrorists.” The senior Congress leader argued that India must also look within to understand the conditions that push some of its own citizens toward extremism.

“When I made the same remarks in Parliament during the debate on Operation Sindoor, I was mocked and trolled for my reference to ‘home-grown terrorists’,” he wrote. “However, I must say that the government observed a discreet silence because the government knows that there are home-grown terrorists too. The point of this tweet is that we should ask ourselves what are the circumstances that turn Indian citizens — even educated persons — into terrorists.”

His comment came as the country continued to grapple with the horror of the November 10 explosion, which police have described as one of the most powerful blasts in the capital in recent years. The car, a Hyundai i20, had exploded near the Lal Qila Metro Station, killing and injuring several people in a crowded area. Investigations are ongoing, and authorities have not yet released full details of those responsible.

However, Chidambaram’s remarks drew an immediate and sharp response from BJP leaders, who accused him of attempting to rationalize terrorism and deflect blame from anti-national elements. Several ministers and party spokespersons described his statement as “shameful,” “irresponsible,” and “anti-national.”

Union Minister Giriraj Singh was among the first to respond, telling news agency PTI that Chidambaram had “crossed all the limits” with his remarks. “He is supporting terrorists. Chhi, chii,” Singh said, expressing disgust. He went on to allege that the Congress party’s long history of appeasement politics had emboldened terrorism in India. “You even took away (then Prime Minister) Manmohan Singh’s dharma. You brought terrorist Yasin Malik to sit with him. From Nehru to Manmohan Singh, the nation has faced the consequences of your party’s policies,” Singh said.

BJP MP Praveen Khandelwal echoed similar sentiments, arguing that Chidambaram was attempting to mislead the public. “Why does P. Chidambaram forget the time when he was the Union Home Minister? During his tenure, several terror attacks took place. Why did he not speak of ‘home-grown terrorists’ then? A terrorist has no religion or nationality,” he said.

BJP national spokesperson Nalin Kohli accused Chidambaram of trying to create a political narrative around the November 10 blast. He said that by introducing the concept of “home-grown terrorism” in this context, the Congress leader was effectively “painting victimhood on terrorists” and doing injustice to the real victims of terror. “These are excuses for trying to change the narrative or build one based on politics. We should desist from that. In the fight against terrorism, there are only two sides — those who are with terrorism and those who are against it. There is no middle path,” Kohli said.

Adding to the criticism, BJP leader RP Singh said that terrorists across the world were united by ideology, not circumstance, and urged Chidambaram to “decide if he wants to give cover fire to such ideology or face it strongly.”

Leaders from other political parties also weighed in. JD(U) leader Neeraj Kumar questioned the Congress party’s attempt to categorize terrorism. “What has happened to the Congress Party? Now there’s a new definition of terrorism — ‘home-grown terrorist’ and ‘foreign terrorist’? A terrorist is a terrorist. What religion or community he belongs to is not important. What matters is the inhuman act he has committed,” Kumar said. He further criticized the notion that social or political circumstances could justify terrorism, arguing that India’s democratic framework ensures equality and justice for all. “We have a Constitution drafted by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. People of every religion and caste live together in this country. So how can any circumstance justify becoming a terrorist?”

BJP leader Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi called Chidambaram’s remarks “unfortunate” and accused him of undermining national unity. “It is unfortunate that people who have held top posts in the country are issuing such non-serious statements. When the nation is speaking in one voice over the issue of national security, they are speaking in another language. Such statements raise questions about their intent,” he said.

BJP spokesperson Jaiveer Shergill went even further, accusing the Congress of “defending Pakistan” and trying to tarnish India’s image. “The Congress seems to have an allergy and a compulsion to defame India and the Indian Army. Even during the Pahalgam incident, it was the Congress, especially Chidambaram, who questioned what evidence there was that the terrorists came from Pakistan. Today, questions are being raised even about the Delhi blast,” Shergill told PTI.

He argued that Congress’s stance on national security had historically been weak, particularly in its dealings with Pakistan. “The Congress party adopted a soft stance toward Pakistan during its regime. It has no right to question the Modi government on national security. This is unfortunate, and because of such statements, the Indian Army and the country continue to face the consequences of the Congress’s failures,” Shergill added.

As the backlash intensified, the Congress party came to Chidambaram’s defence. Bhai Jagtap, a senior Congress leader, said that the former finance and home minister’s comments should be viewed seriously and not dismissed as political rhetoric. “Whatever Chidambaram ji says, he says it responsibly. If he is pointing toward something, then it is a serious matter. Whenever a terrorist incident happens anywhere in the world, some organization takes responsibility. But after Operation Sindoor and now after the Red Fort blast, no group has claimed responsibility. So what Chidambaram said must be investigated,” Jagtap said.

He also suggested that the timing of such incidents during election periods raised important questions that the government must answer. “The government should find out why such incidents happen during elections and should inform the people. If the government cannot address these issues, then it is their failure. We want to know who these ‘home-grown terrorists’ are,” Jagtap added.

The controversy has reignited an old debate in India’s political and security circles — whether terrorism in the country is solely imported from across the border or also has indigenous roots. While the BJP and its allies insist that all acts of terror stem from foreign-backed networks, some analysts have long maintained that domestic radicalization, social alienation, and extremist ideologies can also play a role in fostering violence.

Chidambaram’s critics, however, argue that the timing and tone of his statement — coming just after a major terror attack — were deeply insensitive and risked sending the wrong message at a time when the nation should be united. His supporters counter that introspection about the causes of terrorism is not the same as justification, and that identifying “home-grown” radical elements is crucial to preventing future attacks.

As investigations into the Red Fort blast continue, the political fallout from Chidambaram’s remarks shows no sign of abating. The issue has become yet another flashpoint in the ongoing rivalry between the Congress and the BJP, highlighting how questions of terrorism and national security remain among the most politically charged subjects in India’s public discourse.

At its heart, the controversy reflects a larger question — how India should confront the complex realities of terrorism without blurring the line between accountability, empathy, and politics. For now, both sides remain entrenched in their positions, even as the nation mourns the victims of one of its deadliest attacks in recent years.