Congress today downplayed Finance Minister P Chidambaram’s remark that India should have supported the US-sponsored resolution against Sri Lanka.
“He is certainly entitled to that view and we understand that he is from Tamil Nadu. Equally, Congress, on a national perspective is entitled to agree to disagree with it”, party spokesman Abhishek Singhvi said when his reaction was sought over the issue.
Chidambaram said in Chennai that New Delhi should have supported the resolution.
- Varun Gandhi Under Attack Over Defence Deals: Here’s How
- This Diwali, Let Blind Students Brighten Up your Homes With Candles & Diyas
- CBI Files Supplementary Chargesheet In Sheena Bora Murder Case
- Soha Ali Khan And Vir Das Starrer 31st October Audience Reaction
- Sahara Chief Subrata Roy’s Parole Extended Till November 28
- Simple Tips To Secure Your Debit Card From Fraudsters
- New Zealand & India Team Being Welcomed In Chandigarh
- Mumbai Call Centre Scam: All You Need To Know
- Jammu Kashmir Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti Appeals To Police: Here’s What She Said
- Shocker From Ahmedabad: Find Out What Happened
- Bigg Boss 10 Day 3 Review: Celebs Fail To Do Well in First Task
- Airtel Offers 10GB Data At Rs 259 For New 4G Smartphone Users
- Aamir Khan Starrer Dangal’s Trailer Launched: First Impressions
- TMC Supporters Attack BJP Leader Babul Supriyo
- Sri Lankan Navy Apprehends 20 Indian Fishermen
“It is my personal opinion. Twenty three countries had supported it and we also should have supported even if it was a watered down one,” he told reporters here.
The decision could have been taken by officials in the External Affairs Ministry, Chidambaram, who hails from Tamil Nadu where the ethnic conflict involving minority Tamils in Sri Lanka has an emotional appeal, said. He pointed out that there was no consensus among political parties in the state over this issue.
On Thursday, India had abstained from voting in the US-sponsored resolution at UNHRC, saying it imposes an “intrusive approach” of international investigative mechanism which was counter-productive, apart from being “inconsistent and impractical”.