Malegaon Verdict Met with Caution, Not Commentary, by Congress Leaders

The recent developments surrounding the Malegaon blast case have once again thrust the issue into the national spotlight. But in stark contrast to earlier occasions where the Congress was vocal in its criticism and commentary, this time, the party's top brass has adopted a studied silence. Behind closed doors, this silence is not indifference, but a calculated strategy shaped by political caution, electoral optics, and lessons from the past.

The decision of senior Congress leaders to remain silent on the latest Malegaon order is not accidental. It is a response shaped by past political fallout, legal entanglements, and the explosive sensitivity surrounding religious identity and terrorism narratives in India’s charged political landscape.

The Background: A Case That Changed Political Vocabulary

The Malegaon blast of 2008, which killed six and injured over 100 in the town of Malegaon, Maharashtra, was a watershed moment in India's internal security discourse. The involvement of individuals associated with Hindu extremist groups disrupted the prevailing narrative of terror being exclusively linked to Islamic fundamentalism. This shift gave rise to the controversial term “saffron terror,” used by some in the Congress at the time, most notably by then Home Minister Sushil Kumar Shinde and party leader Digvijaya Singh.

The backlash from this terminology was intense and far-reaching. The BJP and Sangh Parivar accused the Congress of maligning Hindus and politicising national security. The Congress, already on the defensive on multiple fronts, suffered reputational damage and began to retreat from the aggressive posturing that had initially marked its approach to such cases.

What Has Changed Now

Fast forward to the present: the legal landscape has evolved, key accused individuals have been discharged or granted bail, and the case itself has slowed down, with questions being raised about the strength of evidence and the conduct of investigative agencies. Yet, instead of seizing the moment to reassert its earlier claims or demand accountability, senior Congress leaders have refrained from issuing strong public statements.

This silence is not just a sign of restraint; it is a symptom of strategic reorientation.

As a senior Congress functionary noted in private, “We were made to look like we were anti-Hindu. That label stuck during 2014 and hurt us electorally. We will not walk into that trap again.”

Fear of Political Backfire

The Congress leadership is keenly aware that any statement on Malegaon today would be instantly weaponised by political opponents. With the BJP dominating the narrative around national security, religious identity, and terrorism, the Congress has little to gain and much to lose from reigniting a discourse that could once again brand the party as sympathetic to one community or biased against another.

Moreover, with elections in key states approaching and the broader narrative of the 2024 general elections still shaping up, the Congress seems to be prioritising issues of economic hardship, unemployment, and constitutional values, rather than wading into divisive communal territory.

This doesn’t mean the party has abandoned the victims or forgotten the case, but its approach is now low-key, legalistic, and devoid of rhetorical flourish.

Internal Divisions and Tactical Restraint

Another reason for the silence is the lack of internal consensus. While some leaders, particularly from Maharashtra, have deep emotional and political investments in the Malegaon case, the central leadership prefers to avoid any statement that could derail the party's broader strategy of inclusive messaging and economic justice.

Even within the party’s legal and media cells, there is a debate over how much to engage publicly. Some argue that silence could be interpreted as weakness or betrayal of secular values, while others insist that any reactive comment would only feed into the BJP’s long-standing campaign to portray the Congress as “soft on terror.”

What the Silence Means

In many ways, this silence is a mirror of the changed political times. In the past, the Congress might have held press conferences, demanded resignations, or accused the BJP of shielding extremist elements. But today, the Congress is more likely to rely on procedural legal developments, statements by human rights activists, or journalistic exposés to do the heavy lifting—all while keeping its top leaders out of the direct line of fire.

This form of passive engagement, critics argue, risks reducing the Congress’s moral clarity and ideological spine. However, supporters claim it reflects political maturity and an understanding of the new rules of engagement in a highly polarised polity.

Impact on Public Discourse

The absence of strong opposition voices on the Malegaon order has led to a somewhat muted national conversation. With civil society groups, a few independent politicians, and the families of the victims speaking out, there is a sense that institutional critique has moved beyond the political arena.

This is both a symptom and a consequence of the Congress’s strategic retreat. Whether this will benefit the party electorally remains to be seen, but it certainly leaves a vacuum in the articulation of secular, rights-based arguments against communal violence and terrorism of all hues.

Reading the Public Mood

Congress insiders suggest that public sentiment has become less responsive to older ideological binaries, and more focused on bread-and-butter issues. “People care more about inflation, price of gas, and jobs,” said one strategist. “Malegaon doesn’t move the needle anymore, not in terms of votes.”

In this context, the silence from Congress leaders is being seen less as surrender and more as realpolitik—an acknowledgment that the court of public opinion is now governed by new priorities, new fears, and a vastly altered media ecosystem.

Silence as Survival

The Malegaon case may still have legal legs, but politically, it is no longer a battlefield the Congress wants to fight on. Burned by the experience of 2014 and scarred by the weaponisation of its own rhetoric, the party has chosen to withdraw its voice, if not its concern.

In the world of high-stakes politics, sometimes silence is not just golden—it is strategic. For the Congress, this silence over Malegaon is an act of self-preservation, even if it costs them the moral high ground.