Amit Shah Slams Congress in Rajya Sabha: “Who Coined the Hindu Terror Theory?”

In a high-voltage debate over Operation Sindoor in the Rajya Sabha, Union Home Minister Amit Shah launched a blistering attack on the Congress party, accusing it of politicizing terrorism by coining the controversial term "Hindu terror." The discussion came in the wake of India’s bold retaliatory military operations against Pakistan-backed terrorists responsible for the recent Pahalgam terror attack in Jammu & Kashmir.

Shah’s remarks were part of a broader narrative presented by the Modi government, portraying the current administration as one that has ended the era of soft responses and is now delivering strong counterstrikes against terrorism, both militarily and diplomatically. Operation Sindoor, which involved coordinated military and intelligence actions, has become emblematic of this new approach.

Union Home Minister Amit Shah continued his attack against the Congress and UPA government during his address in the Rajya Sabha on Wednesday.(Sansad TV) | Hindustan Times

“No Hindu Can Be a Terrorist,” Declares Shah

Taking aim at the Congress, Shah questioned its alleged role in promoting what he described as a “false and dangerous narrative” that equated terrorism with the Hindu faith. Referring to the previous UPA regime’s handling of terror cases, he asked, “Who floated this theory of Hindu terror? Who tried to defame an entire civilization to cater to vote bank politics?” Shah asserted unequivocally that “No Hindu can ever be a terrorist,” drawing applause from BJP benches and sparking a walkout from opposition leaders.

The Home Minister claimed that several innocent individuals, including Hindu seers, were wrongly implicated in terror cases under the Congress-led government. Many of these cases, he noted, had collapsed in court due to lack of evidence. Shah criticized the opposition for pushing this narrative despite legal outcomes, claiming it permanently damaged India's internal unity and global image.

From "Saffron Terror" to Strategic Clarity

The phrase “saffron terror” first gained traction during the late 2000s, in the aftermath of incidents like the 2007 Samjhauta Express blast and the 2008 Malegaon bombing. During this period, leaders like Sushil Kumar Shinde and Digvijaya Singh from Congress were accused of using the term to target nationalist Hindu organizations such as the RSS. Shah cited these instances as evidence of the Congress’s alleged attempt to frame a religious community as terroristic to appease certain vote banks.

According to Shah, the Modi government has reversed that narrative by not only clearing the names of those wrongfully accused but also showing the international community that terrorism in India is driven by ideology and foreign-backed jihadist networks—not by religion. The success of operations like Sindoor and Mahadev underlines this clarity, he argued.

Operation Sindoor: A Shift in India’s Counterterrorism Doctrine

At the heart of the debate was Operation Sindoor, India’s robust retaliation to the Pahalgam terrorist attack which targeted a convoy carrying mostly Indian pilgrims and tourists. Shah praised the armed forces and intelligence agencies for swiftly identifying and eliminating the perpetrators, including high-ranking Lashkar-e-Taiba operatives. He emphasized that such missions represent India’s new doctrine of preemptive and proportionate force, unlike previous governments that relied on “dossier diplomacy.”

Shah also dismissed opposition criticism that the Modi government was acting unilaterally or without concern for global opinion. “India today does not act under pressure. We act with purpose,” he said, reiterating Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s earlier statement that India’s actions on May 9—when it intercepted nearly 1,000 Pakistani drones and missiles—were executed on India’s terms, without foreign influence.

Opposition Walkout and the Political Flashpoint

The debate in Parliament was marked by sharp exchanges and deep political polarization. Several opposition members from the INDIA bloc walked out of the House, protesting the Prime Minister’s absence during the session. Shah, however, accused them of avoiding tough questions and reminded them that the Prime Minister had already addressed the nation on the issue.

Outside the House, criticism continued from both sides. While BJP leaders accused Congress of undermining national security in the past, the Congress party refuted the accusations, stating that no official UPA policy or government document ever used the phrase “Hindu terror.” They also pointed out that the judicial process had taken its course during their tenure and that invoking religion in terrorism debates was not productive.

Conclusion: A New Chapter or the Same Divide?

Amit Shah’s strong remarks in the Rajya Sabha represent more than just a response to the Pahalgam attack—they reveal a deep ideological fault line that continues to shape India’s politics. By revisiting the "Hindu terror" debate, the BJP is not only seeking to defend its counterterrorism policies but also reframe national identity through a religious and cultural lens. The Congress, on the other hand, stands accused of past missteps that, according to the BJP, demoralized law enforcement and divided public opinion during a critical phase in India’s fight against terrorism.

Whether Operation Sindoor marks a decisive turn in India's anti-terror framework or becomes yet another political flashpoint will depend on what follows—on the ground, in the courts, and in the corridors of power.

(Sources: Hindustan Times, Money Control, Times of India)