Updated on: Nov 09, 2025

The Indian National Congress has formally distanced itself from statements made by its senior leader and Thiruvananthapuram MP, Shashi Tharoor, in which he defended veteran BJP leader LK Advani’s Rath Yatra of the early 1990s. The development comes after Tharoor, on the occasion of Advani’s 98th birthday, praised the BJP stalwart for his decades-long service to public life, which led to renewed discussions and questions about Tharoor’s stance and ideological leanings.

The Congress, through its Media and Publicity department chairman Pawan Khera, clarified that Tharoor was speaking in his personal capacity and that his comments do not represent the party’s position. Khera emphasized that Tharoor’s freedom to voice his views reflects the Congress party’s liberal and democratic ethos. In a statement posted on the social media platform X, Khera said, “Like always, Dr Shashi Tharoor speaks for himself, and the Indian National Congress outrightly dissociates itself from his most recent statement. That he continues to do so as a Congress MP and CWC member reflects the essential democratic and liberal spirit unique to INC.”

Shashi Tharoor had, on Advani’s birthday, shared a photograph of the veteran BJP leader with himself and hailed Advani for his “unwavering commitment to public service, his modesty and decency, and his role in shaping the trajectory of modern India.” Tharoor described Advani as “a true statesman” whose “life of service has been exemplary.” While Tharoor’s remarks were largely celebratory and focused on Advani’s political career and contributions, the comments inevitably drew attention to Advani’s Rath Yatra, a highly controversial event in India’s political history.

The Rath Yatra, launched in 1990, was a nationwide campaign led by LK Advani, then a senior leader of the Bharatiya Janata Party, to mobilize public sentiment around the Ram Janmabhoomi issue in Ayodhya. The Yatra, which involved Advani traveling on a chariot across several states, became a defining moment in Indian politics. It helped propel the BJP into national prominence, consolidating the party’s Hindutva-based ideological platform and playing a critical role in its electoral expansion in the early 1990s. However, the Yatra also sparked widespread communal tensions, culminating in the demolition of the Babri Masjid in 1992, an event that left an indelible mark on India’s political landscape. Although Advani and other leaders were later cleared by the courts of direct involvement in the demolition, the episode remains a sensitive and polarizing chapter in India’s recent history.

Following Tharoor’s statements, several political commentators and observers questioned his rationale, given the long-standing history of the Rath Yatra and its association with communal discord. In response, Tharoor elaborated on his perspective, drawing historical parallels with the careers of other prominent national leaders. He argued that reducing a long and multifaceted political career to a single episode, regardless of its significance, was inherently unfair. Tharoor cited examples of Jawaharlal Nehru and Indira Gandhi, whose contributions to India’s development and democratic evolution are widely acknowledged, while also pointing out specific controversial incidents in their careers—the China setback for Nehru and the Emergency declared under Indira Gandhi—to illustrate his argument. “The totality of Nehruji’s career cannot be judged by the China setback, nor Indira Gandhi’s by the Emergency alone. I believe we should extend the same courtesy to Advaniji,” he stated.

Tharoor’s defence reflects a broader philosophical standpoint emphasizing a nuanced evaluation of political leaders, suggesting that singular events should not eclipse decades of public service. He stressed that Advani’s broader contributions to parliamentary democracy, governance, and political mobilization in India should be weighed alongside isolated controversies. This position, while academically defensible, generated immediate political reactions, given the enduring sensitivities surrounding the Rath Yatra and the Ayodhya dispute.

The Congress’s response to Tharoor’s comments underscores the party’s efforts to maintain its ideological distance from the BJP, particularly when senior leaders publicly praise figures associated with highly contentious political episodes. By clarifying that Tharoor speaks for himself, the Congress has attempted to preserve its official narrative while simultaneously highlighting the liberal space it provides its senior leaders to express independent views. Khera’s statement framed this autonomy as a reflection of the party’s core democratic values, emphasizing that individual expression within the party does not equate to institutional endorsement.

Political analysts note that Tharoor’s remarks and the subsequent clarification by the Congress highlight the challenges of balancing personal viewpoints and party messaging in a polarized political environment. While Tharoor’s comments were couched in terms of respect for a political veteran, the historical context of the Rath Yatra, which is often cited as a catalyst for communal polarization and the demolition of a religious structure, made it difficult for any party to fully embrace such a narrative without attracting criticism. The Congress’s distancing, therefore, reflects a strategic approach aimed at mitigating potential political fallout while upholding the party’s professed liberal ethos.

The debate around Tharoor’s comments also illuminates the enduring influence of LK Advani in India’s political consciousness. Advani’s Rath Yatra is widely regarded as a seminal moment that reshaped the country’s political discourse, consolidating Hindu nationalist sentiment and strengthening the BJP’s organizational and electoral base. While cleared of legal culpability in the Babri Masjid demolition, Advani’s political legacy remains intertwined with the episode. Tharoor’s attempt to contextualize Advani’s contributions within the broader scope of his public service highlights the tension between evaluating political figures on the entirety of their careers versus singular, controversial events.

Furthermore, Tharoor’s remarks open up a wider discussion on how historical narratives are constructed and interpreted in Indian politics. By invoking comparisons to Nehru and Indira Gandhi, Tharoor encouraged a more holistic assessment of leadership that transcends isolated events. However, critics argue that such comparisons risk oversimplifying the unique impact and consequences of each leader’s actions, particularly in contexts where communal tensions and societal divisions were directly influenced by political mobilization.

The incident also underscores the complex role of individual expression in modern politics. Tharoor, known for his eloquence and historical perspective, often blends academic insight with political commentary. While this approach allows for nuanced discourse, it also exposes leaders to criticism when their personal views intersect with emotive historical episodes. The Congress’s clarification serves both to reaffirm the party’s official stance and to protect its broader ideological coherence in an era of heightened political sensitivities.

In conclusion, the controversy surrounding Shashi Tharoor’s defence of LK Advani’s Rath Yatra illustrates the delicate balance between personal expression, historical interpretation, and party messaging. While Tharoor emphasized the totality of Advani’s decades-long public service, the Congress has made it clear that these statements are his own and do not represent the party’s views. Pawan Khera’s statement reinforced the party’s commitment to democratic freedom of expression within its ranks, highlighting the liberal spirit that allows leaders to voice individual opinions, even when they diverge from mainstream party narratives.

As India continues to grapple with the legacies of its political past and the complexities of communal memory, such debates are likely to persist, reflecting the challenges inherent in reconciling personal expression, historical judgment, and political responsibility. Tharoor’s comments, the Congress’s distancing, and the broader discourse around Advani’s Rath Yatra exemplify the ongoing negotiation between individual perspective and institutional ideology in contemporary Indian politics, emphasizing that political narratives are rarely linear and are often shaped by competing interpretations of history, leadership, and legacy.