THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: Senior Congress leader and Thiruvananthapuram MP Shashi Tharoor is someone who stands out among Indian politicians. Since his entry into politics close to two decades ago, the UN diplomat-turned-politician has never shied away from openly expressing his views, irrespective of his political affiliation.
Speculations often place him on the verge of a political shift, triggering debates on whether Tharoor will switch sides and move to the BJP. In an exclusive interaction with TNIE, Tharoor explains why such a campaign is born out of both ignorance and malevolence, while reiterating that his secular credentials are beyond doubt.
Read what Shashi Tharoor says on all such wool-gathering speculations:
“It unfortunately reflects both the ignorance and malevolence of my critics. Ignorance, because I have a paper trail as long as your arm. I have been publishing books since 1981, and thousands of articles across various media outlets. My views have been consistent for 45 years. It’s a bit late for me to change now, right?
My core views are these, I am a strong believer in a robust foreign policy and national security. I am uncompromisingly secular. I believe that India is a country shaped by people of every background, every religion, every language, and every region. Therefore, all are equal stakeholders in India, and no one’s rights can be compromised.
The reason I oppose the CAA is not because someone is Muslim, but because everyone is Indian, and no one has the right to compromise another’s citizenship rights.
My secularism is beyond dispute. I have been committed to social welfare, while also supporting free enterprise and liberalism. I was a supporter of liberalization and a critic of the license-permit-quota raj. These positions may be difficult to reconcile for those who have a black-and-white ideological approach.
Within the Congress Party, on economic matters, I would have been on the right wing of the party alongside Manmohan Singh and Montek Singh Ahluwalia, very much pro-liberalization. On social matters, I was on the left wing. I was the one who introduced the bill to decriminalize homosexuality, because I believe that people’s personal lives are not the government’s business.
People should be free to live their own lives, as long as they do not harm others. That stance placed me in a somewhat extreme position within the party as well.
On foreign policy, regarding Operation Sindhoor after the Pahalgam incident, I wrote an op-ed stating that a kinetic response was necessary. However, I also emphasized that we cannot afford a war with Pakistan, as our focus must remain on development. Investors do not favor war zones.
We should target only terrorist elements and signal clearly that we are not interested in escalating conflict with Pakistan as a whole, but only with terrorist groups. When, two or three weeks later, the government did exactly what I had recommended, how could I respond except by praising them?
On all these issues, my views have been consistent. Where they have evolved, they have done so for valid reasons. I was once a strong advocate for peace with Pakistan. I explained, including in a speech at the Jinnah Institute, how my views changed due to repeated betrayals by Pakistan, including 26/11, where to this day no one has been prosecuted or punished.
Thus, my views on Pakistan evolved from seeking peace to adopting a more hawkish stance, driven by reality. Similarly, during 26/11, I supported Manmohan Singh’s decision to pursue diplomatic routes. When diplomacy failed, I became open to supporting kinetic action.
There are rational reasons behind each of my positions, but they remain within a consistent framework.
My foreign policy views have been largely stable since my first book, Reasons of State (1981), which was based on my PhD thesis. My economic views are outlined in India: From Midnight to the Millennium, where I criticized the license-permit-quota raj for empowering bureaucrats over entrepreneurs, leading to stagnation and widespread poverty.
I strongly opposed that model of state-controlled economics. Today, I believe liberalization has benefited India, and I support it. However, I also argue that markets alone are not enough, we must support those on the margins. Helping them today creates consumers for tomorrow, which ultimately benefits businesses as well.
These are coherent views. I did not acquire my politics by joining the Congress Party; I brought my political ideas and writings with me.
I do not apologize for having criticized the Emergency. I cannot suddenly recant those views. When challenged about this during my first election campaign, I clarified that I was not contesting the 1977 elections but those of 2009. Today’s Congress is a strong democratic force, unlike during the Emergency.
I stand by all my views. They have not changed, except where there were rational reasons for evolution, such as in the case of Pakistan. I do not see how anyone can accuse me of being a BJP sympathizer.
If the government’s economic views align with mine, I will applaud them. Where they do not, such as in the case of demonetization, I have been, and remain, one of their strongest critics.
Similarly, on foreign policy, if the government acts in the national interest, I will acknowledge it. But I always make it clear that these are my individual views.
That does not mean I have to join the BJP. As you have seen during this election campaign, I have been a firm critic of both the BJP and the LDF while campaigning for the Congress Party.”
