Shashi Tharoor says ‘didn't get a missed call' for Kerala bypoll; Congress star campaigners list tells a different story
Congress Member of Parliament (MP) Shashi Tharoor on June 19 claimed he was not invited by the party to campaign for its candidate in the Nilambur Assembly byelection in Kerala. Tharoor even said that even got a missed call to campaign for the party's candidate in the bypolls held on June 19.
'It is true that I was not invited (to campaign). As you know, I was abroad for around 16 days. Even then, I did not get an invite or even a missed call...," Tharoor, the Congress MP from Thiruvananthapuram in Kerala, told reporters when asked why he was absent from the party's campaign in Nilambur.
Tharoor's remarks come on a day when Kerala's Nilambur seat is voting in the by-election. Tharoor was conspicuous by his absence during the campaigning while senior Congress leaders, including Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, drummed up support for the party candidate.
"But regardless of whether I campaigned or not, I want the Congress to win in Nilambur. We have a good candidate there, and our workers have worked very hard,' he said.
Tharoor was, however, among the list of star campaigners submitted to the Election Commission by the Congress party. According to the list of star campaigners submitted by the Congress to the Election Commission, Tharoor's name is in eighth place among the 40 people, including KC Venugopal, Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, VD Satheesan and Ramesh Chennithala. According to the list of star campaigners submitted by the Congress to the Election Commission, Tharoor's name is in eighth place among the 40 people, including KC Venugopal, Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, VD Satheesan and Ramesh Chennithala.
Congress General Secretary Mukul Wasnik submitted the list to the Election Commission of India through an official letter dated June 2. The Election Commission officially communicated this list to the Chief Electoral Officer, Kerala, on June 5 for circulation to relevant authorities. The list is available on the Election Commission of India website.
The bypoll was necessitated after the seat fell vacant since the two-time MLA PV Anvar, previously supported by the Left, switched allegiance to the Congress party. Anvar contested the election as an Independent.
The Congress nominated Aryadan Shoukath, the son of former MLA Aryadan Mohammed, while the ruling LDF backed M Swaraj.
'Some differences of opinion' with Congress
In the same conversation with reporters, Tharoor admitted that he has some differences of opinion with the party. Tharoor, however, said that he will discuss these differences privately when someone from the party approaches him.
'I have been working in Congress for the past 16 years. I have some differences of opinion with the party, and I will discuss them inside the party...Today I don't want to speak it. I need to meet and talk, let the time come, and I will discuss it,' Tharoor said.
Tharoor, who took the India case post Operation Sindoor in foreign countries while heading an all-party delegation earlier this month, has, with his remarks, seemingly riled his party for showing support for the Narendra Modi government over recent military actions across the border in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK).
Some Congress leaders even accused Tharoor of being a 'super spokesperson' for the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party.
I was not invited (to campaign). Even then, I did not get an invite or even a missed call.
On June 10, Tharoor called his meeting with Prime Minister Modi 'good, lively and informal'. PM Modi met the members of the all-party delegations of Operation Sindoor at his residence, 7 Lok Kalyan Marg, in New Delhi.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
26 minutes ago
- Mint
America is making a dangerous bet by trading principles for short-term expediency in its engagement with Pakistan
Srinath Sridharan Washington under Trump opting to engage with Pakistan's military chief despite Rawalpindi's record on terror undermines the values the US champions. Transactional geopolitics may serve the short-term interests of some, but cannot shape the destiny of nations that seek dignity, stability and peace. The US–Pakistan relationship has long been a case study in diplomatic cynicism. Gift this article 'I love Pakistan," said US President Donald Trump this week, quickly following up with another flourish: 'I stopped the war." He was referring to the ceasefire that followed India's Operation Sindoor, implying that his intervention averted an escalation between two nuclear powers. 'I love Pakistan," said US President Donald Trump this week, quickly following up with another flourish: 'I stopped the war." He was referring to the ceasefire that followed India's Operation Sindoor, implying that his intervention averted an escalation between two nuclear powers. In a country where 'I love New York" or 'I love Boston" merchandise is part of pop-cultural retail tradition, it is perhaps the first time that a sitting American president has publicly professed such open affection—not for a US city but for a foreign nation, and one long entangled with terror networks and given to military overreach. Also Read: Pakistan's economy must escape the clutches of its armed forces Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi promptly corrected the record the same day, clarifying (yet another time) that it was Islamabad that had sought de-escalation unilaterally. But Trump's insistence on claiming credit for a crisis he neither resolved nor influenced reveals a deeper, far more disturbing pattern: America's habitual romanticism of tactical deals with regimes entangled in terrorism while ignoring the long-term consequences for regional stability. This is not just bad optics. It is bad policy. The US, once considered the torchbearer of democratic values, seems increasingly willing to bypass elected governments in favour of military establishments and shadow power centres. Nowhere is this more evident than in its dealings with Pakistan. A nation that has harboured extremist groups, undermined civilian authority and used terror as statecraft continues to enjoy relevance in Washington's foreign policy playbook. The White House praises the arrest of a single militant as evidence of cooperation, even as Pakistan's terror infrastructure remains intact—undisturbed, deliberate, and institutional. Also Read: Nitin Pai: How to dissuade Pakistan from deploying terrorism It is hard to ignore the irony. America claims to lead the free world, yet chooses to transact with regimes that represent the antithesis of the values it espouses. The consequence is moral abdication. This dynamic plays out repeatedly: from the resurgence of Taliban in Afghanistan to the safe haven for Osama bin Laden near a military cantonment in Abbottabad in Pakistan; from cross-border attacks in Mumbai, Pathankot, Pulwama and Uri to the continued radicalization in Pakistan's heartlands. The fingerprints are clear. So is the complicity. Yet, the US persists in treating Islamabad as a necessary partner—sometimes to broker influence in Kabul, other times to play the middleman in Kashmir, and often just to retain access and leverage in the region. It would be naïve to believe that the US-Pakistan relationship incentivizes reform. In truth, it legitimizes impunity. The Pakistani military, emboldened by its transactional value to Washington, continues to weaken democratic institutions at home and fund destabilizing proxies abroad. Every such engagement strengthens the perception that terrorism can be bartered for aid and extremism for arms. The contradiction becomes even sharper when viewed in the context of the Indo-Pacific. The US claims to rely on India as a democratic counterweight to China. It deepens defense ties, invests in the Quad and speaks of a free and open Indo-Pacific. Yet, it simultaneously chooses to ignore the very forces that threaten that vision by rewarding a regime that profits from regional unrest. This inconsistency is not lost on New Delhi. The US–Pakistan relationship has long been a case study in diplomatic cynicism. From selective partnerships to a repeated pattern of 'doing more" without consequence, Washington is an expert in the language of strategic necessity while turning a blind eye to long-term costs. But tactical flexibility cannot replace principled engagement. It does not produce allies; it breeds dependencies. Pakistan, meanwhile, has mastered the art of offering just enough cooperation to keep US interest alive while maintaining its core strategy of plausible deniability and proxy warfare. Credibility, not convenience, must now become the real currency of global order. Especially in a world grappling with great-power tensions—from Ukraine to the Taiwan Strait to West Asia—the US must ask itself a fundamental question: Can it afford to keep trading principles for short-term proximity? The answer becomes clearer when we examine Washington's recent diplomatic posturing over multiple global flashpoints—Ukraine-Russia, Israel-Iran and India-Pakistan. In each, the pattern is strikingly similar: choreographed pronouncements of peacemaking, fleeting moments of engagement and self-congratulatory claims of having 'brokered peace." For India, the implications are significant. A natural partner to the US, India must now calibrate its engagement with clarity and conviction. If the foundation of partnership is shared democratic values, then New Delhi must insist on consistency, not just in defence or economics but in principle. A rules-based international order cannot be built on selective amnesia or political expedience. It requires holding rule-breakers accountable. And it demands that peace not be sacrificed at the altar of tactical diplomacy. Affection in diplomacy is not measured by slogans, but by the values one chooses to embrace—and the silences one is willing to overlook. India, with its civilizational depth and global aspirations, must engage the world on its own terms. Our diplomacy must be grounded in self-respect, not shaped by shifting Washington moods. Because, at the end of the day, transactional geopolitics may serve the short-term interests of some, but cannot shape the destiny of nations that seek dignity, stability and real peace. The author is a corporate advisor and author of 'Family and Dhanda' Topics You May Be Interested In
Hindustan Times
28 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
BJP, RSS discouraging English learning to deny poor opportunities: Rahul Gandhi
Congress leader Rahul Gandhi on Friday attacked the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and its ideological fount, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), for discouraging the learning of English to deny India's poor the tools to question authority and access opportunity. 'English is not a dam, but a bridge. English is not a shame, but power. English is not a chain, but a tool to break the chains. The BJP and RSS do not want poor kids of India to learn English because they do not want you to ask questions, move ahead and become equal,' Gandhi wrote on X as he posted a video criticising the RSS for opposing the widespread use of English. '[RSS chief] Mohan Bhagwat says every day to not speak in English but in Hindi. But, if you look at the kids of those in the RSS and the BJP, everyone goes to England for studies… What is the thought behind it? Because they do not want you to enter the board rooms, or for you to get high-paying jobs. They want to go to English schools, carry on with their contracts… They want to keep the doors closed for you.' Gandhi underlined the role of English and native languages as a means of empowerment. He argued English plays a crucial role in instilling confidence and enhancing employment prospects, just like one's mother tongue. 'Every language of India has soul, culture, and knowledge. We have to cherish them, and at the same time, teach English to every child. This is the path to an India that competes with the world and gives every child an equal opportunity.'
Hans India
34 minutes ago
- Hans India
Prime Minister Modi Targets Opposition Dynasty Politics During Major Bihar Rally
Prime Minister Narendra Modi launched a scathing attack on the RJD-Congress alliance during a major political rally in Bihar's Siwan district, accusing the opposition parties of prioritizing family advancement over public welfare. Speaking to a large gathering during his fifth visit to the state in just five months, Modi drew sharp contrasts between his government's inclusive development approach and what he characterized as the opposition's dynastic political culture. The Prime Minister used the occasion to dedicate development projects worth Rs 10,000 crore to the people of Bihar while simultaneously launching a pointed critique of his political opponents. Modi's choice of Siwan as the venue was strategically significant, given that this district and surrounding areas like Gopalganj and Chapra represent traditional strongholds of the Rashtriya Janata Dal, making it crucial battleground territory for the upcoming electoral contest. Modi's central message revolved around contrasting political philosophies, emphasizing his government's commitment to "Sabka saath, sabka vikas" (together with all, development for all) against what he termed the opposition's focus on "parivaar ka saath, parivaar ka vikas" (family support, family development). This wordplay effectively highlighted his accusation that RJD and Congress leaders have consistently placed their family interests above broader public welfare concerns. The Prime Minister specifically targeted the historical impact of Congress policies on India's economic development, claiming that the party's "licence raj" system was fundamentally responsible for perpetuating poverty across the nation. He argued that while ordinary citizens remained trapped in economic hardship, the families of Congress leaders accumulated substantial wealth and political influence through these restrictive economic policies. Modi's critique extended to the social justice implications of dynasty politics, asserting that Dalit and backward communities have suffered the most under systems that prioritize family connections over merit and genuine representation. This argument was clearly designed to appeal to Bihar's significant Dalit population, which comprises nearly 20 percent of the state's voters and represents a crucial electoral demographic. The rally also served as a platform for Modi to address recent controversies surrounding the RJD's alleged treatment of constitutional symbols. He specifically referenced claims that RJD leader Lalu Prasad Yadav had shown disrespect toward a portrait of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the chief architect of India's Constitution. Modi declared that the people of Bihar would never forgive such insults to Ambedkar's legacy, attempting to position his party as the true defender of constitutional values and Dalit dignity. These remarks appeared calculated to counter ongoing criticism from RJD leader Tejashwi Yadav, who has repeatedly highlighted instances of alleged nepotism within the ruling BJP-JD(U) alliance. Tejashwi has focused attention on appointments of relatives of various NDA leaders to important state commissions and positions, creating a potential vulnerability that Modi sought to neutralize through his offensive against opposition dynasty politics. The Prime Minister's appeal to voters included direct references to Bihar's turbulent political history, specifically invoking memories of the "jungle raj" period associated with previous RJD governments. He characterized this era as one of lawlessness and systematic looting of state resources, urging voters to reject political forces that he claimed had brought chaos and corruption to Bihar's governance. Modi's frequent visits to Bihar reflect the high stakes involved in the state's political future for both the ruling alliance and the opposition coalition. The BJP-JD(U) combine faces a direct challenge from the RJD-led Mahagathbandhan (grand alliance), making every public appearance and development announcement politically significant in the lead-up to elections. The development projects announced during the rally represent a substantial investment in Bihar's infrastructure and economic growth, potentially serving dual purposes as both genuine development initiatives and campaign tools designed to demonstrate the ruling alliance's commitment to the state's progress. These announcements allow Modi to present concrete achievements while simultaneously criticizing opposition parties for their alleged failures during previous tenures. The timing and location of Modi's rally underscore the intensifying political competition in Bihar, where control of state government carries implications for national politics given Bihar's significant representation in Parliament. The state's complex social demographics, including substantial populations of various caste groups, require careful political messaging that balances development promises with appeals to identity-based loyalties. Modi's strategy of combining development announcements with sharp political attacks reflects a broader approach of positioning his party as both a deliverer of progress and a defender against political dynasties that allegedly exploit public resources for private gain. This dual messaging aims to consolidate support among voters who prioritize both economic development and political accountability in their electoral choices.
