By Suresh Unnithan
In the ongoing Budget Session of Parliament in February 2026, the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and its NDA allies find themselves entangled in a deepening predicament of their own making. What began as an attempt by Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi to raise concerns from former Army Chief General M.M. Naravane’s memoir—specifically excerpts published in a magazine article about the Prime Minister’s reported reaction to the 2020 Eastern Ladakh conflict with China—has spiralled into a full-blown political storm. The treasury benches’ decision to repeatedly shout down Gandhi, leading to multiple disruptions, adjournments, and even suspensions of opposition MPs, has handed the Congress leader a platform to unleash explosive allegations outside the House. This mishandling, both inside Parliament and in public responses, is exacerbating perceptions of defensiveness and opacity around Prime Minister Narendra Modi, at a time when his government can least afford unnecessary controversies.
The events unfolded dramatically over two days. On February 2 and 3, 2026, Rahul Gandhi sought to authenticate and discuss an article quoting Naravane’s unpublished memoir, which reportedly detailed internal deliberations on national security and India’s response to Chinese aggression. Gandhi argued that this tied directly to the President’s Address, emphasising India’s direction in global affairs amid the U.S.-China rivalry. However, treasury bench members vociferously interrupted him, citing parliamentary rules against referencing unpublished material (Rule 349 and related provisions). The Speaker adjourned the House multiple times, and chaos ensued, with eight Congress MPs eventually suspended for sloganeering.
This aggressive disruption was a tactical error of significant proportions. As a seasoned observer of parliamentary proceedings might note, allowing the Leader of Opposition to articulate his points—however provocative—and then rebutting them decisively would have demonstrated confidence and transparency. The Prime Minister himself, known for his oratorical prowess, could have delivered a pointed response dismantling the opposition’s narrative on national security. Instead, the relentless interruptions created the optics of suppression, reinforcing Gandhi’s claim that he was being denied his “right” to speak as LoP—a historic first during a discussion on the Motion of Thanks on the President’s Address.
Worse, this parliamentary shutdown propelled Gandhi straight to the media gallery outside the House, where he held an impromptu press interaction that has since dominated headlines and social media discourse. In his remarks, Gandhi escalated dramatically: he alleged that PM Modi is “ghabraaye hue” (rattled) and “compromise kar diya gaya hai” (compromised). He linked the sudden signing of a long-stalled Indo-U.S. trade deal—announced just days earlier after a phone call between Modi and U.S. President Donald Trump—to external pressures. Specifically, Gandhi pointed to two “pressure points”: ongoing U.S. legal cases against the Adani Group (which he framed as targeting Modi’s “financial structure”) and unreleased portions of the Jeffrey Epstein files, implying potential blackmail by the Trump administration.
Gandhi claimed the trade deal, which reportedly involves the U.S. reducing reciprocal tariffs on Indian goods from higher levels to 18% in exchange for India curbing Russian oil purchases and opening markets further, was signed hastily under duress. He accused Modi of “selling the blood and sweat of Indian farmers” and the nation itself to protect his image—a balloon “built with thousands of crores” that could now burst. These are grave, unsubstantiated allegations, blending known facts (like the Adani probes in the U.S.) with sensational speculation (Epstein links, which government sources and the MEA have dismissed as baseless or manipulated misinformation).
Yet, the BJP’s response has been remarkably inept, allowing these claims to fester unchecked in the public domain. Inside the House, the focus on procedural objections rather than substantive rebuttals played into the opposition’s hands. Outside, union ministers and BJP spokespersons have largely resorted to deflection—accusing Congress of editing Epstein-related emails or spreading falsehoods—without a coordinated, aggressive counter-narrative. Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju and others have defended the disruptions on rule-based grounds, but this technical defence fails to address the broader perceptual damage. No senior leader has yet held a detailed press conference to systematically debunk the allegations, highlight the trade deal’s benefits (such as market access for Indian exports), or reaffirm India’s sovereign decision-making.
This vacuum has been filled by opposition amplification on social media and sympathetic outlets. Clips of Gandhi’s presser have gone viral, with hashtags and posts questioning Modi’s “compromise” gaining traction among anti-BJP circles. While pro-government accounts dismiss it as desperation from a resurgent Rahul Gandhi, the episode underscores a recurring BJP weakness: over-reliance on disruption tactics in Parliament, which backfire spectacularly when the opposition has a compelling outside platform.
The timing compounds the dilemma. The Indo-U.S. trade deal, hailed by Modi as a win for “Made in India” products, comes amid Trump’s aggressive “America First” policies. Critics, including within India, question if concessions on energy purchases (potentially shifting from discounted Russian oil) disadvantage farmers and consumers. By preventing debate inside Parliament—where the government holds a majority and could shape the record—the BJP allowed Gandhi to frame the deal as a “surrender” born of personal vulnerability. This fuels conspiracy theories, even if lacking evidence, and erodes the narrative of Modi as an unassailable strongman.
On public perception, recent surveys paint a picture of resilience for Modi and the BJP-NDA. The January 2026 India Today-CVoter Mood of the Nation poll showed Modi’s approval rising to 55%, with him far ahead as the preferred Prime Minister choice. Rahul Gandhi has gained ground but remains distant. This suggests no immediate “dwindling” of core support—the BJP’s base remains loyal, viewing such attacks as routine opposition mudslinging.
However, the longer-term risk is real and self-inflicted. Modi’s brand has been meticulously crafted around invincibility, decisiveness, and national pride. Episodes like this chip away at that aura, creating impressions of defensiveness and hidden vulnerabilities. Social media buzz around “Epstein files” and “compromised PM,” even if confined to echo chambers, reaches wider audiences through shares and discussions. Farmers’ groups and economic critics may latch onto the trade deal narrative, amplifying discontent over agrarian issues. Internationally, it projects instability in India’s leadership at a delicate geopolitical juncture.
The BJP’s inept handling extends beyond Parliament. Ministers’ public utterances—often reactive and dismissive rather than proactive and fact-based—worsen the optics. For instance, accusing Congress of forgery without irrefutable proof shown publicly invites scepticism. A more astute approach would involve the Prime Minister addressing the nation directly, reaffirming national security decisions post-Ladakh, celebrating the trade deal’s gains, and challenging opposition claims head-on.
In essence, the ruling coalition’s predicament stems from a failure to adapt parliamentary strategy to the modern media ecosystem. Shouting down opponents may win short-term procedural battles but loses the war for public narrative. As the situation escalates from bad to worse, the BJP risks turning a minor opposition ploy into a lingering cloud over Modi’s leadership. Confidence, not cacophony, should be the treasury benches’ weapon.
*Inputs from Nanditha Subhadra
