The Congress party’s latest allegation—that the Narendra Modi–led NDA government is preventing Leader of the Opposition (LoP) Rahul Gandhi from meeting visiting Russian President Vladimir Putin—deserves closer scrutiny than political rhetoric allows. What has been framed as an assault on democratic tradition may, in fact, be little more than a political misunderstanding amplified for partisan gain. To be sure, there has been a longstanding informal protocol in Indian diplomacy. During previous governments—across parties—visiting foreign dignitaries occasionally met the Leader of the Opposition or senior Opposition figures. Such interactions were not mandatory, but they were accommodated when appropriate. Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s government did not object when foreign leaders met Sonia Gandhi. Similarly, during the UPA years, when Manmohan Singh was prime minister, L.K. Advani and later Sushma Swaraj met certain visiting dignitaries. These meetings helped provide an additional window into the breadth of India’s political opinion. But it is equally important to recognise that these interactions were never a binding diplomatic requirement. Foreign policy is an executive prerogative, and successive governments have exercised discretion in structuring such meetings based on strategic relevance, the purpose of the visit, and prevailing geopolitical conditions. In other words, governments have always had the latitude to facilitate or skip such appointments. Rahul Gandhi’s claim that the NDA government “advises visiting foreign dignitaries not to meet the Leader of the Opposition” therefore warrants careful evaluation. His statement, made just hours before President Putin arrived in New Delhi, asserts that the present government has broken with “tradition” out of “insecurity.” He suggested that foreign visitors often receive a tacit signal discouraging engagement with him. This allegation certainly makes for sharp political messaging, but does it reflect grounded reality?
India’s diplomacy with Russia—particularly at a moment when Moscow is increasingly reliant on Asian partners amid geopolitical isolation—centres overwhelmingly on continuity, strategic clarity, and executive-level engagement. Putin’s visit this week is not ceremonial. It is a carefully choreographed two-day affair focused on defence, energy, nuclear cooperation, and resilient trade architecture. The agenda is dense, the stakes are high, and the optics are being closely watched not only in Moscow and New Delhi but also in Western capitals. Against that backdrop, the government’s decision to keep the visit tightly structured should not be surprising. Moreover, meeting the LoP is neither protocol-bound nor customary to every visit. Many past visits—including those during Congress rule—did not feature Opposition interactions at all. Conversely, some meetings happened because the visitor explicitly requested them, not because the government mandated them. It is also worth recalling that past Opposition leaders who engaged foreign dignitaries carried substantial political stature and long experience in national governance—figures such as L.K. Advani, Sushma Swaraj, and Dr Manmohan Singh before he became Prime Minister. Whether or not one agrees with Rahul Gandhi’s politics, it remains true that he is yet to demonstrate a consistent or coherent foreign policy worldview. His foreign speeches have often been criticised at home for airing domestic grievances on international soil—something all parties, including the Congress in earlier eras, used to firmly avoid. This context adds a layer of complexity. The government may genuinely feel that at a time of sensitive geopolitical negotiations, where India’s positions on defence partnerships, energy routes and multilateral alignments are under heightened scrutiny, mixed political messaging could be counterproductive. That said, Rahul Gandhi does raise one point worth acknowledging: the Opposition, too, represents India. A mature democracy benefits when the world understands the plurality of its political voices. Restricting such interactions—if indeed they are being restricted—would be an unfortunate narrowing of democratic space. But the Congress must also accept that international engagement comes with responsibility. The LoP’s words, posture, and consistency matter. If it seeks the diplomatic respect accorded to its predecessors, it must demonstrate the seriousness, continuity and gravitas that foreign policy conversations demand. In the end, the controversy appears less about constitutional principle and more about political signalling. Foreign policy should ideally remain above this fray. India’s relationship with Russia has endured through wars, sanctions, and shifting global alignments. It will not be shaped—or shaken—by whether one meeting took place or did not. What India needs today is not competitive posturing but political maturity. Traditions are valuable, but responsibility is indispensable.
