Congress and INDIA bloc MPs staged a dramatic walkout from the Rajya Sabha, demanding PM Modi’s presence during the Operation Sindoor debate. Home Minister Amit Shah slammed the move as political evasion, continuing with his sharp critique and defending the government’s counter-terror strategy. Here’s what unfolded in Parliament.
In a stormy session of the Rajya Sabha on Wednesday, tensions peaked as the Congress party, supported by members of the INDIA bloc, staged a dramatic walkout, demanding the presence of Prime Minister Narendra Modi to respond to their questions about Operation Sindoor. The walkout occurred moments after Union Home Minister Amit Shah began addressing the concerns raised by the Opposition.
The session, expected to focus on critical national security discussions, turned into a political face-off as Opposition MPs began chanting slogans like “PM ko bulao (Call the Prime Minister)”, effectively stalling the House proceedings. Despite Amit Shah’s assurance that he would comprehensively address every question raised, the opposition benches refused to relent.
“You have to deal with me first. Why do you want to call the PM? You will have more difficulty,” Shah shot back at the protesting MPs, underscoring that Prime Minister Modi is “very much in office.” Shah questioned the logic behind insisting on the Prime Minister’s presence if the Home Minister was fully equipped to provide the required responses.
Mallikarjun Kharge, Leader of the Opposition in the Rajya Sabha, stood up and defended the Opposition’s stance. He said, “The questions pertain to PM Modi. I’m not saying you (Shah) are not capable of answering. But if PM Modi, being in Delhi, does not come here, this is disrespect of the Rajya Sabha.” His statement was followed by a coordinated walkout by all Opposition members.
Undeterred, Amit Shah pressed on with his response, calling the walkout a “tactical evasion” to avoid confronting the truth about years of “appeasement politics” allegedly practiced by Congress. He accused the party of dodging accountability and using the walkout as a political ploy to shield its track record on national security.
Shah also cited procedural fairness, explaining that the Business Advisory Committee (BAC) had decided that the government would respond to the debate on Operation Sindoor and left it to the government to choose the speaker. “It was agreed that the discussion will happen for as long as the Opposition wanted, but the response would be given as per the government’s decision. You agreed to the debate, now you walk out because you don’t want to hear the truth,” he added.
Hitting out further, Shah reiterated his earlier claims made in the Lok Sabha that Congress-led governments had weakened India’s anti-terror framework for vote-bank politics. “This is the same party that sought proof of surgical strikes and airstrikes. And now, they are unwilling to even sit through a discussion on Operation Sindoor, which was a powerful response to terrorism,” Shah said.
Despite the Opposition’s exit, Shah continued outlining the strategic success and planning behind Operation Sindoor, which he described as a decisive counter-terror mission that demonstrated India’s resolve to neutralise threats even across the border. He emphasized that the operation signified a shift in India’s security doctrine, one that prioritizes offensive capabilities and preemptive strikes against terror outfits.
The Opposition walkout has further widened the rift between the ruling BJP and INDIA bloc parties ahead of crucial legislative sessions. While Congress insists that the Prime Minister must answer questions of national importance directly in Parliament, the government maintains that procedural integrity and ministerial authority are sufficient to address such debates.
| Also Read: Tipra Motha attack: BJP Janajati delegation demands stern action |
With national security becoming a flashpoint for political contestation, the Rajya Sabha episode underscores the challenges of achieving bipartisan consensus on issues where both accountability and strategic secrecy are vital. The question remains: was the walkout a principled stand or a political manoeuvre to avoid uncomfortable truths?
