Cannot Suppress Our Voices: Congress Responds to PM Modi’s ‘Naked’ Politics Remark

The political temperature rose sharply on Sunday after the congress party issued a strong rebuttal to Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s criticism of its protest during the India AI Impact Summit. The ruling party accused Congress of turning an international event into a stage for what he described as “gandi aur nangi” (dirty and shameless) politics. In response, Congress leaders asserted that raising questions is their constitutional right and that their voices cannot be silenced.

Speaking at a public rally following the inauguration of major development projects — including the Namo Bharat rail and the Meerut Metro Rail expansion — the Prime Minister accused Congress of being “ideologically bankrupt and impoverished.” He said the party’s conduct at the AI summit reflected political desperation rather than constructive opposition.

PM Modi Criticizes Congress Over Protest at AI Summit

During his address, PM Modi sharply criticized what he described as a “shirtless” protest staged by Congress members at the India AI Impact Summit. He alleged that the opposition had used India’s hosting of a significant international gathering as a platform for disruptive political messaging.

“The country already knows you are ‘nange’ (exposed), so why was there any need to strip further?” the Prime Minister remarked in a pointed attack, suggesting that the protest crossed acceptable political boundaries.

He further stated that the incident had angered citizens across the country and accused Congress leaders of glorifying actions that, in his view, insulted India’s image on a global stage.

Congress Hits Back: ‘We Have the Right to Ask Questions’

Congress responded swiftly through a series of statements and social media posts. In a post on X, the party declared that questioning the government is a democratic responsibility, especially when issues concerning youth and national interest are at stake.

“We have the right to ask questions. The youth of this nation have responsibility for it. Narendra Modi has been compromised. He cannot suppress our voices to protect himself,” the party wrote.

The Indian Youth Congress (IYC) also weighed in, alleging that the government must address concerns rather than deflect criticism. In a separate post, the IYC stated that those implicated in controversial matters should respond to the nation instead of attacking the opposition.

Political Exchange Intensifies Online

Former IYC president and Congress leader Srinivas BV shared an undated image of Haryana minister Anil Vij appearing shirtless at a public gathering. In his caption, he questioned whether removing a T-shirt during a protest should be labeled as “nudity,” asking critics to apply consistent standards.

This exchange further fueled the online debate, with supporters from both sides amplifying their arguments across social media platforms.

Opposition Reactions and Broader Political Context

In his speech, PM Modi thanked several opposition parties that condemned the incident, saying their response demonstrated commitment to truth and patriotism. He emphasized that while citizens are working to transform India into a developed nation, some political forces are unable to accept the country’s progress.

“While citizens are working day and night to make India a developed nation, some political parties cannot digest the country’s success,” he said.

Key Points of the Controversy

Democracy, Dissent, and Political Messaging

The controversy highlights the continuing tension between the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the Congress party, especially in the run-up to major political milestones. Public protests, rhetorical clashes, and social media exchanges have become central features of India’s political discourse.

While the Prime Minister framed the protest as an embarrassment to the nation during an international summit, Congress maintained that dissent is a legitimate tool of democracy. The party argued that raising uncomfortable questions should not be equated with undermining national pride.

As political rhetoric intensifies, the episode underscores the broader debate over the limits of protest, the tone of public discourse, and the role of opposition parties in a parliamentary democracy.