Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s recent address at the sixth Ramnath Goenka Lecture, organised by the Indian Express, has sparked contrasting responses from Congress leaders, highlighting the divide in political perceptions even within the same party. Delivered just days after the National Democratic Alliance’s resounding victory in the Bihar assembly elections, Modi’s speech has attracted attention not only for its content but also for the reactions it has elicited from political commentators and party leaders alike.

Congress spokesperson Supriya Shrinate, who is known for her forthright opinions, was among the first to voice strong criticism of the Prime Minister’s speech. She expressed her disappointment, stating that she did not find anything “praiseworthy” in the address. In an interview with news agency ANI, Shrinate remarked, “I didn’t find anything in the speech (of PM Modi) worth appreciating. I think the Prime Minister must answer a lot of things.” She went on to describe the address as “petty” and expressed bewilderment at how her party colleague, Shashi Tharoor, found merit in the same speech.

Shrinate’s criticism focused on what she perceived as repeated attacks on fair journalism and the Congress party. “He was at an event of a newspaper. He should tell us what his problem is with fair journalism. He should have told us why he is not happy with those who show and speak the truth,” she said. She emphasised that the speech contained nothing substantial that warranted appreciation and remarked that the Prime Minister appeared to be preoccupied with criticizing the Congress party. “He criticised Congress there too. PM thinks of Congress day and night. This is amazing,” Shrinate added, highlighting her view that the speech reflected a political preoccupation rather than constructive discourse.

In contrast, Shashi Tharoor, a senior Congress MP and noted author, offered a markedly different perspective on the same speech. Tharoor expressed admiration for several aspects of Modi’s address, noting that the Prime Minister highlighted India’s “constructive impatience” in pursuing development and strongly emphasised a post-colonial mindset. Tharoor wrote on X that Modi’s address underscored India’s emergence not merely as a market but as a model for the world, reflecting economic resilience and a vision for sustained national progress.

According to Tharoor, the speech conveyed a broader strategic message about India’s aspirations and its role on the global stage. He noted that PM Modi had addressed criticism regarding his frequent election-mode appearances, asserting instead that he was in an “emotional mode” to address the problems and concerns of the people. Tharoor highlighted the Prime Minister’s call for a 10-year national mission aimed at restoring pride in India’s heritage, languages, and knowledge systems. Tharoor appreciated Modi’s efforts to project a forward-looking vision that sought to blend India’s historical legacy with contemporary development goals.

While Tharoor found merit in the broader vision laid out by Modi, he also offered a nuanced critique, noting a missed opportunity in the speech. He expressed that he wished the Prime Minister had acknowledged the role of Ramnath Goenka, the founder of the Indian Express, in using the English language as a vehicle to voice Indian nationalism. Tharoor’s reflection suggested that while he valued the aspirational elements of Modi’s address, he also recognised gaps where historical and journalistic contributions could have been acknowledged more fully.

The stark difference between Shrinate and Tharoor’s reactions underscores a broader debate within political and journalistic circles regarding how political speeches should be evaluated. Shrinate’s criticism reflects a focus on what she perceives as the Prime Minister’s penchant for criticism and perceived preoccupation with political adversaries, particularly the Congress party. She implied that speeches that revolve around attacking opponents rather than articulating actionable policies or addressing national issues fail to offer substantive value to the public discourse.

Shrinate’s perspective also highlights concerns about freedom of the press and accountability in a democracy. By questioning why the Prime Minister focused on critiquing journalists and fair reporting, she drew attention to the delicate balance that political leaders must maintain between expressing criticism and respecting institutions of independent oversight. Her assessment positions the speech as politically motivated rather than issue-driven, suggesting that public addresses by the Prime Minister should engage more directly with policy, governance, and the concerns of citizens rather than relying heavily on political rhetoric.

Tharoor’s contrasting view, on the other hand, illustrates how political speeches can be interpreted through the lens of national vision and long-term goals. By emphasising India’s “emerging model” status and the proposed 10-year national mission, Tharoor acknowledged the aspirational and symbolic dimensions of Modi’s speech. His assessment implies that even if a speech contains elements of political rhetoric, it can still carry meaningful messages about national priorities, development strategies, and cultural identity. Tharoor’s response also underscores a willingness to recognise constructive elements across party lines, reflecting an approach that evaluates policy ideas and national narratives independently of partisan politics.

The timing of the speech, just after the NDA’s sweeping victory in Bihar, adds further layers of context. In a period where electoral success can amplify a leader’s confidence, speeches often serve multiple purposes: consolidating political gains, communicating policy directions, and projecting a vision to domestic and international audiences. Critics like Shrinate may interpret the speech primarily as a vehicle for political messaging and reinforcement of party dominance, whereas observers like Tharoor may focus on its aspirational content and long-term developmental messaging.

The Ramnath Goenka Lecture itself is a significant platform, historically associated with discussions on media freedom, democracy, and public accountability. That Modi chose this platform to deliver a speech that included criticisms of journalism and references to opposition parties naturally invites scrutiny and divergent interpretations. Shrinate’s critique can thus be seen as part of a broader discourse on the role of political leaders in respecting journalistic institutions while articulating their policy visions. Meanwhile, Tharoor’s appreciation suggests that the substance of the message—India’s development trajectory, global positioning, and heritage restoration—can resonate even with political opponents, provided it aligns with shared national interests.

Ultimately, the reactions of Shrinate and Tharoor reveal how political communication is subject to multiple interpretations. For some, the measure of a speech lies in its tone, focus, and adherence to democratic norms of accountability and civility. For others, it is the overarching vision, policy direction, and symbolic gestures that determine its significance. This divergence reflects the complex interplay between politics, governance, and public discourse in contemporary India, where a single speech can simultaneously draw sharp criticism and cautious commendation depending on the observer’s perspective.

As India continues to navigate political, economic, and social challenges, speeches like the Ramnath Goenka Lecture serve not only as communication tools but also as focal points for debate and analysis. They reveal the values and priorities of political leaders, invite public and expert scrutiny, and highlight differing expectations about the role of leadership in shaping national narratives. The contrasting responses of Shrinate and Tharoor thus offer valuable insight into how Indian political discourse accommodates both critique and acknowledgement, reflecting a vibrant and contested democratic space.

In conclusion, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Ramnath Goenka Lecture has highlighted the spectrum of political interpretation in India. While Supriya Shrinate criticised the speech as petty and politically focused, Shashi Tharoor appreciated its emphasis on India’s development, global positioning, and cultural heritage. The debate underscores the multifaceted nature of political communication, where tone, content, and context interact to shape public perception. As political leaders, commentators, and citizens continue to analyse and discuss such addresses, the interplay between criticism and recognition remains central to understanding India’s evolving democratic dialogue.