“We can't be anyone’s lackey”: Salman Khurshid backs Rahul Gandhi, questions Modi govt’s foreign policy

Senior Congress leader and former Union Minister Salman Khurshid on Friday backed Lok Sabha Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi's remarks on India's foreign policy, saying diplomatic matters should be taken seriously and asserting that India cannot become a "subservient follower" of any country, regardless of its power or India's needs.

Senior Congress leader and former Union Minister Salman Khurshid on Friday backed Lok Sabha Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi's remarks on India's foreign policy, saying diplomatic matters should be taken seriously and asserting that India cannot become a "subservient follower" of any country, regardless of its power or India's needs. Speaking to ANI, Khurshid said Rahul Gandhi had raised significant questions about the importance of diplomatic symbolism, India's engagement with other countries and the need to safeguard the country's dignity and self-respect.

He also questioned the outcomes of the government's foreign policy, citing the absence of a trade deal, concerns over H-1B visas and the deportation of Indians in handcuffs. "Matters of foreign policy are serious. They should not be treated like a college debate competition," Khurshid said, adding that Rahul Gandhi's remarks deserved to be understood in their proper context rather than dismissed through counter-questions.

Explaining the significance of a country's capital in diplomatic engagements, Khurshid said the capital represents the broader political and institutional system of a nation. "If you truly take a nation seriously, you must recognise that its capital serves as a symbol of its entire system," he said, adding that while visitors could have different interests and destinations within a country, they would eventually seek engagement with its political centre to understand the broader context.

Using the example of visiting Jamnagar or Mumbai while bypassing Delhi, Khurshid said such an approach could create the impression that the country's capital and national system were not being accorded the seriousness they deserved. "It appears that engagement is being driven solely by specific, narrow interests. Rahul Gandhi ji has raised this point after giving it very serious thought," he said.

Khurshid urged people to understand the intention behind Rahul Gandhi's remarks and address the concerns raised rather than diverting the discussion through counter-questions. On the reference to diplomatic visits and the Prime Minister's travel, Khurshid said courtesy visits should not be confused with formal diplomatic engagements or summits. Referring to his own visit to meet the Prime Minister during a transit stop on the way to Ajmer, he said the visit was a gesture of courtesy and was not linked to any specific meeting scheduled in advance.

"I had to go; I didn't go because we had some specific meeting scheduled. He was passing through, on his way to Ajmer, so, as a matter of courtesy and to maintain good relations," Khurshid said. He added that the consensus had been to meet the Prime Minister, share a meal and see him off as a gesture of courtesy.

Khurshid then questioned External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar's decision-making and the advice he received from officials regarding diplomatic visits, asking who counsels ministers who do not come from the Foreign Service. "Someone must have suggested, 'Minister, it would be a good idea for you to go. It will help facilitate the efforts we are currently making.' They likely framed it as a brief, symbolic visit—a two- or three-hour trip to Jaipur, and offered to make the necessary arrangements," he said.

He questioned why the matter was subsequently raised in the public domain, arguing that it risked creating confusion. Referring to the 1972 Shimla Summit between India and Pakistan following the war between the two countries, Khurshid said such meetings required extensive preparation, consultations and the drafting of documents before a venue and format were finalised.

"When Indira Gandhi went to Shimla, that was for a summit," he said, adding that Pakistan's then Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto had been invited to the meeting, which was organised to facilitate dialogue and establish peace. He said summits were held across the world and that the Shimla meeting was not an isolated instance. Citing efforts by some countries to facilitate engagement with Iran, he said different venues could be proposed for diplomatic meetings.

Khurshid argued that the issue did not warrant the External Affairs Minister's intervention in the manner it had received, adding that diplomatic explanations sometimes served to deflect from the original concern. Asked whether he saw any problem with a courtesy visit to Mumbai and the meetings held there, Khurshid said there was no objection to such engagements in themselves.

"There is no concern whatsoever. If someone visits as a matter of courtesy, one cannot complain about it. What could possibly be objectionable about that?" he said. However, he stressed that symbolic gestures were an important component of diplomacy and that the choice of destination could convey a message about the seriousness of a country's engagement.

Drawing a comparison with the United States, Khurshid said a person seeking to build a relationship with the President and discuss broader bilateral ties would not be expected to visit Texas while completely bypassing Washington. "If the goal is to strengthen the overall framework of the relationship, yet one merely visits Texas, shares a few meals, and returns, it would hardly be perceived as a serious approach. By all means, visit Texas—especially if there is specific business to attend to there—but one must, at the very least, make an initial stop in Washington," he said.

Khurshid said Rahul Gandhi's remarks should be understood in this context rather than becoming the subject of a debate over the use of the word "summons". "When specific terminology is chosen, the intent is to use a word that conveys the message clearly. I believe the reaction that has followed proves that the point Rahul ji intended to make—or the message he sought to convey -- was successful," he said.

On India's relationship with the United States and other major powers, Khurshid said the Congress supported good relations with Washington but maintained that India must preserve its autonomy and self-respect. "We should have good relations with America; we have always maintained that. But we should have good relations with America, as well as with Russia, China, and Europe. However, any such relationship must be maintained while safeguarding our self-respect," he said.

He said India's foreign policy since Independence had been based on the principle that the country should not become subservient to any power. "Regardless of how powerful another nation may be, or how great our own needs might be, we cannot be anyone's lackey; we are capable of making our own decisions, and we will continue to do so," Khurshid said.

He added that all countries engaging with India should understand that the country could not be taken for granted under any circumstances. "If Rahul Gandhi is pointing this out, then why should there be any objection? If these are the signals Rahul Gandhi has received, and if they are indeed positive signals, then the government should act upon them. This would demonstrate that India's dignity and self-respect remain secure," he said.

Responding to the government's assertion that India's foreign policy under the Modi administration was strong and beneficial, Khurshid challenged it to demonstrate tangible results. "Well, if it is so strong and beneficial, let them show the results on the ground. Why is it that, to this day, no trade deal has been concluded?" he asked.

He also questioned why there had not been a satisfactory resolution on H-1B visas and referred to instances in which Indians were sent back to the country in handcuffs aboard aircraft. "Anyone can praise themselves or boast about how excellent their foreign policy is. But unless we see its actual impact on the ground—unless we can observe some tangible results—how are we to accept that the foreign policy is any good?" he said.

Asked whether Rahul Gandhi, as a Member of Parliament and Leader of the Opposition, should disclose the details of his foreign travels amid allegations by the BJP that he meets anti-India forces abroad, Khurshid said a distinction must be made between official responsibilities and private life. He said public representatives had accountability obligations when travelling in an official capacity, including providing details required by the government when seeking permission to travel abroad.

"If a Member of Parliament wishes to travel abroad, they are required to seek permission. When obtaining this permission from the government, they must disclose where they are going, who they will be staying with, and who will be accompanying them—all these details must be provided because they hold a public office," he said. However, Khurshid said private travel and personal engagements were different and that individuals could decide how much information they wished to share publicly, subject to the law.

"A private citizen, on the other hand, is not accountable to anyone; they simply need to comply with the law. So, when Rahul Gandhi travels in his capacity as a private citizen and meets with others regarding private matters, that falls under his private life," he said. He added that the decision on what to disclose rested with the individual and their advisers, and that the government could not dictate a script for such disclosures.

Khurshid also referred to videos and footage of Rahul Gandhi's interactions abroad, saying that official engagements, such as meetings with university students, had defined programmes and publicly available recordings. At the same time, private moments could also be recorded and shared with the media. He said the Congress had not protested against such recordings or demanded explanations over every aspect of an individual's private life, adding that people were entitled to privacy and that it was inappropriate to intrude into every aspect of someone's life.

On allegations that Rahul Gandhi and other opposition leaders met "anti-national forces", Khurshid rejected the practice of branding people as traitors merely because of differing political opinions. "Regardless of whether someone receives our support or not, and whether or not we agree with their views, our Constitution grants individuals the right to hold their own opinions and to express their own thoughts. Just because we may disagree with someone, does that mean we should label them a 'traitor'?" he asked.

He cited instances of young people gathering at Jantar Mantar and being labelled "traitors" or "communists", questioning the attitude behind such characterisations. "Our country is home to all kinds of people, communists, socialists, conservatives, those on the right, those on the left, everyone is here. There are also those who follow a middle path," he said.

Describing the Congress as a centrist party, Khurshid said its ideological approach sought to accommodate different political and intellectual viewpoints. "At times, one might see elements of the left or socialism, at other times, liberalism; but our endeavour is to be like a rainbow, where every colour is embraced and integrated into a single whole," he said.

He added that the party sought to move forward by bringing together India's diverse people and viewpoints within the limits of its ideology and intellectual framework. Responding to a question about allegations that protests in India were intended to replicate incidents of vandalism, arson and violence witnessed in France, Khurshid questioned whether the criticism implied that people should refrain from protesting against the government.

"So, are you suggesting that if something goes wrong, we shouldn't protest? Does this mean that those in power can do whatever they please, while the rest of us must remain silent and not protest?" he asked. He said the right to protest was linked to constitutional principles and referred to reports about objections raised by two members of the Election Commission regarding certain decisions.

Khurshid said the press had reported that the two members had indicated that decisions were being taken without their consent, and that the Supreme Court had issued a notice seeking clarification. He said the Supreme Court was exercising its constitutional authority by asking questions and that those required to respond should provide explanations.

"The Supreme Court is merely asking questions that it is empowered to ask under the Constitution of India, and those who are obligated to respond should provide an answer. That is why the Supreme Court has issued this notice," he said. When asked about opposition leaders approaching the Supreme Court over the issue and the criticism of protests near the court premises, Khurshid said the leaders had sought a meeting with the Chief Justice of India, who had indicated that such a meeting would not be appropriate.

According to Khurshid, the Chief Justice had advised them to communicate their concerns through email, which would be treated as a petition, or to file a petition in person. He said the leaders had therefore gone to submit a petition. On questions about possible investigations into the people opposition leaders met or spoke with, Khurshid said investigative agencies could not conduct arbitrary inquiries without a reasonable basis.

"Look, it is not the job of investigative agencies to conduct arbitrary investigations into just anyone," he said. He argued that investigations should be based on facts, credible complaints or information that provides a reasonable basis for action.

"There must be some basis for an investigation. There should be facts that come to light—what one might call a 'reasonable' basis -- such as a credible complaint or information reaching you; only then would you initiate an investigation, right?" he said. Questioning whether agencies should spend their time monitoring people's private interactions, Khurshid said investigations should not become a routine exercise in tracking whom people speak to, where they travel or what they do in their personal lives.

Khurshid also addressed the opposition's demand for the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, amid discussion of a possible impeachment motion and protests by opposition parties. Asked about the legal basis for the demand, he said decisions within the Election Commission must be supported either by consensus among all three Election Commissioners or by at least two of the three members, irrespective of whether the Chief Election Commissioner was among those supporting the decision.

"Regarding any decision or resolution made within the Election Commission, it must either have the consensus of all three Election Commissioners (the Chief Election Commissioner and the two other Election Commissioners), or it must be supported by at least two of the three regardless of whether the Chief Election Commissioner is among them or not," he said. Khurshid said a decision that did not meet this requirement would violate the applicable constitutional and legal provisions.

"However, the decision must be that of two out of the three; if it is not a decision reached by two out of the three, then you are in violation. You are violating the Constitution and the guidelines provided to you under the Constitution and the law," he said. He added that the central question was what consequences should follow if a violation had taken place and whether the legality of the decisions could be challenged.

"One possible course of action is to determine whether what you did is illegal," Khurshid said, as he continued explaining the possible legal course of action. The Congress leader's remarks came amid a political confrontation over Gandhi's overseas engagements and allegations by the ruling party that the Congress leader was associating with individuals whose positions, according to the BJP, were contrary to India's interests. (ANI)