Oh My Lord: K C Venugopal Slams Indian Government for Dodging China Questions Amid Free Speech Row on National Security
Congress general secretary K.C. Venugopal on Monday issued a fiery rebuke of the Indian government, accusing it of evading serious questions about Chinese incursions and branding critics as “anti-national.”
His remarks follow an observation by the Supreme Court on LoP Rahul Gandhi, which asked whether a “true Indian” would suggest China had occupied Indian territory--prompting outrage from the opposition and celebration within the BJP.
 |
| Image Source: Anand Singh on X |
He condemned the government’s alleged failure to defend India’s territorial integrity and accused it of using nationalism as a shield for silence.
“In Modi’s India, asking questions is anti-national, silence is patriotism, and the badge of a ‘true Indian’ goes to the blind, the spineless, and the fearful,” Venugopal wrote.
The row erupted after Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi was questioned by the Supreme Court for publicly stating that China had occupied 2,000 sq km of Indian territory. The BJP seized on the court’s remark to brand Gandhi “anti-national,” with IT cell head Amit Malviya calling it official validation of his disloyalty.
Congress responded by accusing the government of deflecting from real security failures. Jairam Ramesh introduced the now-viral acronym DDLJ—Deny, Distract, Lie, and Justify—as the BJP’s guiding principle for handling China-related scrutiny.
He and other party leaders questioned the government's silence on the Galwan Valley clash, the alleged loss of patrolling points in Ladakh, and continued economic normalization with China.
Congress MP Karti Chidambaram criticized what he called a chilling effect on dissent, arguing that preventing opposition leaders from raising concerns “without providing valid proof” undermines democratic principles.
However, critics warn that while Congress may be raising legitimate questions, its communications strategy risks long-term perception damage, especially when national security intersects with political posturing.
The digital memory of claims around territorial loss and the visual framing of India’s opposition echoing adversarial narratives may prove politically costly--even if factually defensible.
The episode has become a flashpoint not only for political polarization but also for a deeper debate over democratic accountability, institutional independence, and the fragility of free speech in the age of optics.