New Delhi, Nov 16, 2025: Congress MP Shashi Tharoor has weighed in on the controversy surrounding Assam minister Ashok Singhal’s widely criticized social media post, which referenced “Gobi farming” in Bihar. The post drew shock and outrage online for its alleged connection to a tragic historical incident, prompting a broader discussion about communal sensitivity, political accountability, and the role of social media in shaping public discourse.

The controversy erupted when Singhal, a cabinet minister in Assam, shared a post with the phrase “Bihar approves Gobi farming,” accompanied by a photograph. Social media users quickly linked the image to the so-called “cauliflower burial” or Logain massacre, which took place during the Bhagalpur communal riots of 1989. According to historical accounts, over 110 Muslims were killed in Logain village in Goradih block of Bhagalpur district. In an act that shocked many, cauliflower saplings were allegedly planted on the site where the victims’ bodies were buried, giving rise to the post’s disturbing reference to “gobi farming.”

The post generated immediate backlash online, with users condemning what they described as the normalization of one of the worst pogroms against Bihari Muslims. Many questioned the Assam minister’s judgment and the ethics of sharing such a post publicly, highlighting how political leaders’ online statements can reverberate far beyond their immediate circles.

Amid this outrage, a social media user, @isaifpatel, tagged Shashi Tharoor in a reply to Singhal’s post, urging the senior Congress MP to mobilize influential Hindu leaders to publicly condemn the message. The user specifically criticized the post for “glorifying the massacre of 116 Muslims to celebrate an election victory” and suggested that the silence of prominent figures risked normalizing communal violence.

In response, Tharoor clarified his position, emphasizing that while he is a committed advocate for Hinduism, he is not a community organizer, and issuing joint statements on behalf of faith groups is not his responsibility. However, speaking as an individual, he condemned the post unequivocally.

“But as a passionate advocate of #InclusiveIndia and a proud Hindu, I can speak for myself, and for most Hindus I know, in saying that neither our faith nor our nationalism requires, justifies, or condones such massacres, let alone applauds them,” Tharoor wrote. His response stressed that Hindu values, in his understanding, do not support communal violence or the celebration of atrocities against any community.

The MP’s statement also reflected his broader political stance advocating an inclusive and secular India, where national pride and religious identity coexist with respect for human rights and social harmony. By framing his condemnation in terms of both personal faith and civic responsibility, Tharoor highlighted the ethical imperative for leaders to speak against acts of hatred, even when they occur in distant historical contexts or are referenced flippantly online.

Several social media users continued to seek clarity, asking Tharoor directly whether he had formally condemned the Assam minister’s post. Responding to one such query, he reaffirmed, “That’s exactly what I did! I condemned it,” leaving no ambiguity about his stance on the issue.

The “Gobi farming” post controversy has reignited public discussion about political leaders’ accountability on social media, particularly regarding sensitive historical incidents with communal implications. Analysts note that in an era where online statements can reach millions instantly, a seemingly innocuous post can trigger significant public backlash and become a flashpoint for debate about communal harmony, historical memory, and political responsibility.

This incident also underscores the enduring impact of the Bhagalpur riots of 1989, which remain a deeply sensitive chapter in Bihar’s communal history. The Logain massacre, specifically, is remembered not only for the scale of the violence but also for the symbolic cruelty of planting crops over mass graves—a detail that has contributed to ongoing trauma and calls for justice. By referencing this episode, even indirectly, political figures risk reopening wounds and amplifying communal tensions.

For Tharoor, the response was consistent with his long-standing advocacy for secularism and minority rights. Throughout his career, he has repeatedly emphasized the importance of historical awareness, social inclusion, and moral responsibility in both politics and public life. His condemnation of Singhal’s post aligns with this broader philosophy, reinforcing that leadership entails ethical responsibility and vigilance against the normalization of violence.

The Assam minister, meanwhile, has faced criticism not only from opposition leaders and social media users but also from civic groups and historians who argue that trivializing such incidents erodes the collective understanding of historical atrocities. While the post’s intent remains unclear, its reception illustrates the heightened scrutiny political figures face online, where symbolic language and imagery are rapidly interpreted and debated by a diverse audience.

As of now, there has been no formal statement from the Assam government regarding the controversy. However, the public discourse highlights a broader expectation for elected officials to exercise caution in their communications, particularly on platforms like X (formerly Twitter), where content can quickly go viral and shape public perception.

Tharoor’s intervention has been widely noted for its emphasis on both faith and civic duty. By condemning the post as a proud Hindu and an advocate of inclusive India, he has sought to delineate a moral line: loyalty to one’s faith does not entail condoning atrocities, and national pride does not justify communal violence. In doing so, he reinforces the principle that historical memory and ethical responsibility should guide public discourse, particularly when sensitive issues intersect with political narratives.

The episode serves as a reminder of the enduring responsibility of public figures in managing the intersection of social media, historical memory, and communal sensitivity. It also underscores the critical role of ethical leadership in shaping discourse and setting standards for what is acceptable public communication. For Tharoor, the focus remains clear: speaking against injustice and intolerance, regardless of community or context, is a non-negotiable aspect of both his personal and political ethos.

In conclusion, Shashi Tharoor’s response to the Assam minister’s “Gobi farming” post is a notable example of principled political commentary in the digital age. By condemning the post while affirming his identity as a Hindu and an advocate of inclusive India, he has sought to reaffirm that neither religion nor nationalism provides moral cover for violence or the celebration of historical atrocities. The controversy serves as a cautionary tale for political leaders, highlighting the power and responsibility inherent in their social media presence, and the importance of ethical communication in preserving communal harmony and historical truth.