“Shame on You!”: Senior Congress Leader Mani Shankar Aiyar Pens Open Letter to Shashi Tharoor With Scathing Remarks on Tharoor’s ‘Amoral and Transactional’ Foreign Policy and Moral Stance

Key Points

In an open letter published on 10 March 2026 in Frontline Magazine, Veteran Congress leader and former Union minister Mani Shankar Aiyar launched a sharp critique against fellow party leader Shashi Tharoor, accusing him of abandoning India’s moral and independent foreign policy traditions in favour of an “amoral and transactional” approach to global politics.

The letter, addressed to Tharoor in his capacity as Chairman of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on External Affairs, was written after the Thiruvananthapuram MP appeared on India Today TV on 6 March 2026 to discuss the ongoing war involving the United States, Israel and Iran.

In the interview with journalist Rajdeep Sardesai, Tharoor said India should prioritise diplomacy and de-escalation while recognising the practical constraints governments face when dealing with global powers.

He added that the conflict already has consequences for India – “We are a country with nine to ten million of our nationals in the Gulf… this really does affect their lives and their ability to do well, send remittances home,” he said, emphasising that India “can’t be indifferent” to developments in the region.

However, Aiyar said Tharoor’s remarks revealed what he called a troubling willingness to accept American power as a constraint on India’s foreign policy choices. “I was shocked to the core by your answers,” Aiyar wrote in the letter. “Your shameful espousal of ‘might is right’ has horrified me.”

Aiyar objected particularly to Tharoor’s suggestion that the government must weigh the economic consequences of antagonising the United States. During the interview, Tharoor had acknowledged the pressures created by Washington’s sanctions on India while discussing the recent 30-day waiver granted by the US, allowing India to continue purchasing Russian oil amidst the ongoing Middle East conflict.

“The problem is the consequences if we don’t,” Tharoor said, explaining that without the waiver Indian companies buying Russian oil could face sanctions affecting all their businesses. “There is, to my mind, a choice that has to be made.”

He also defended the government’s cautious stance on the war, noting that India has neither endorsed nor openly condemned the US Israeli military action. “I think you really have to respect the choices the government has made as choices that they deem at that point to be in the best interests of India,” Tharoor said.

For Aiyar, such arguments represent a retreat from the moral principles that historically shaped India’s diplomatic posture. “You argue for ‘realism’ to recognise American clout,” he wrote. “You seem never to have heard of, let alone heeded, Gurudev Rabindranath Tagore’s call to never ‘bend your knees before insolent might’.”

Aiyar invoked India’s non-aligned tradition under Jawaharlal Nehru, arguing that the country should be willing to speak out against powerful nations if international law is violated. “You want India to be silent on this crime just because the Americans have a stronger military than us?” he asked. “Shame on you!”

See Also: Congress MP Shashi Tharoor slams EAM Jaishankar for saying "China is a bigger economy"

Aiyar also framed the disagreement as a generational divide in political outlook. Born fifteen years before Tharoor, he suggested that his worldview and moral outlook had been shaped more directly by the influence of India’s freedom movement leaders.

“When I was just six, I was actually picked up by Mahatma Gandhi… a couple of weeks before his martyrdom,” he wrote. “I was six when Nehru became India’s first Prime Minister… and 23 when he died. All through my growing years I was sheltered under the ethical shadow Panditji cast over our new nation.”

According to Aiyar, Tharoor’s critique of Nehru’s foreign policy in earlier writings already hinted at a more pragmatic approach to diplomacy. “You were actually presenting an alternative and thoroughly amoral and transactional perspective on foreign policy,” he wrote.

Aiyar laments how he voted for Tharoor during the Congress Party Elections and argued for Mallikarjun Kharge to grant him a high post in the party. “In consequence, the Gandhis and Kharge have refused to meet me ever since,” he wrote. “Nevertheless, I felt vindicated on moral grounds.”

The letter also raises political questions about Tharoor’s public positioning. Aiyar asks whether Tharoor’s approach is influenced by a desire to maintain favourable relations with the Modi government, though he says he does not fully subscribe to that interpretation.

Tharoor had also criticised some of the arguments used to justify the war on Iran during his interview. “The logic of pre-emptive self-defence… doesn’t really hold up,” he said, noting that mediators had indicated Iran had already agreed to measures limiting its nuclear programme.

At the same time, he warned against dismissing international institutions entirely despite their limitations. “The fact is international law is now being buffeted about by those who have the power to disregard its consequences, but that doesn’t mean the UN is out of the window,” he said.

Aiyar’s letter is the latest in a series of public disagreements between the veteran Congress leader and members of his own party. Earlier, in August 2025, he had criticised Tharoor’s foreign policy positions and questioned the outcomes of India’s international outreach after the Pahalgam terror attack.

In February 2026, he again criticized Tharoor for his “anti-Pakistan” stance on the Pahalgam attack. In the aftermath of Operation Sindoor, Tharoor had then moved for members of the UN to condemn Pakistan for ‘facilitating’ the terrorist attack, but all countries except Israel refused to endorse that view. Aiyar said that this was Tharoor’s way of positioning to be the next Foreign Minister.

The latest exchange highlights India’s tumultuous position internationally – balancing diplomatic relations with warring nations – and domestic conflicts arising from its ‘strategic’ foreign policy, which directly contradicts the nation’s stance on such issues across its history.

[DS]

Suggested Reading: