Today, Rahul Gandhi told the media during the Bharat Jodo Yatra in Jammu and Kashmir that he does not agree with what Digvijay Singh said. Whatever our army does, they don't need to give evidence.
"We don't appreciate Digvijaya Singh's personal views. His views are outlying views. We are absolutely clear that the Armed Forces do their job exceptionally well and they do not need to provide proof of that," Gandhi told the media.
No proof of surgical strike: Singh
"They talk about surgical strike," the former MP CM said, adding, "They say they killed so many people, but there's no proof. They are just ruling with bundle of lies."
The Congress leader also raised questions on CRPF personnel killed in Pulwama attack not being airlifted. He said the Modi government has not presented a report on Pulwama attack in parliament.
BJP says Congress disrespecting army
The BJP, reacting to Digvijay Singh's comments, said the Congress is insulting the armed forces. BJP spokesperson Gaurav Bhatia said Congress' patriotism has vanished. Refrering to Rahul Gandhi's foot march, Bhatia said Congress was on path of 'Bharat Todo' (Break India).
BJP's social media head Amit Malviya also took swipe at the comment and wrote: "On a day, India honours Param Veers and Prime Minister Narendra Modi names 21 islands of Andaman and Nicobar after 21 Param Vir Chakra awardees, Congress and Digvijay Singh speak the language of Pakistan’s deep state, question the valour and integrity of our Armed Forces. Shame…"
Surgical strike 2016
In 2016, India conducted a military operation known as a "surgical strike" against militants in Pakistan-administered Kashmir. The strikes were in response to a terrorist attack on an Indian army base in Uri, India, in which 19 soldiers were killed. Indian special forces crossed the Line of Control (the de facto border between India and Pakistan in the region) and targeted several terrorist launch pads, or camps where militants were believed to be preparing to infiltrate into India. The Indian government said the strikes were intended to prevent future terrorist attacks and were not an act of aggression against Pakistan. The strikes were widely reported in the media and were met with a mixed response, with some praising the action as a necessary response to terrorism and others criticizing it as a politically motivated move.
