Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, prepares to meet the media on the grounds of Ellingham Hall. PHOTO: AP

Congress general secretary Rahul Gandhi on Friday put the record straight about his views on “terrorism and communalism” against the backdrop of his reported statement that “radicalised Hindu groups” posed a bigger threat than outfits like the Lashkar-e-Tayyaba after the statement whipped up a political storm.

WikiLeaks released a secret US diplomatic cable from US ambassador to India Timothy Roemer to Washington in which the envoy quoted a statement he purportedly had with Mr Gandhi in New Delhi in July 2009.
The Congress party issued a statement later on Friday afternoon explaining Mr Gandhi’s views on terrorism and communalism. “Terrorism and communalism of all types is a threat to India. We need to remain vigilant against acts of terrorism of all kinds, no matter who commits them,” said the Congress release issued by party general secretary Janardan Dwivedi.
In another confidential cable, the US embassy in New Delhi was critical of Congress president Sonia Gandhi and described CPI(M) leader Prakash Karat as an “extortionist” in a cable that discussed the political scenario in November 2007 — days before the Indo-US nuclear agreement was to be debated and voted in Parliament. In the cable dated November 7, 2007 released by WikiLeaks, embassy officials described Mrs Gandhi as being “unable to show principled leadership even when it might benefit her party at the polls and reveal Prakash Karat to be the extortionist he is,” PTI reports.
In New Delhi, the party’s statement came hours after the Congress struggled with the issue of the WikiLeaks cable which claimed that Mr Rahul Gandhi had told Mr Timothy Roemer that the growth of “radicalised Hindu groups”, which create religious tensions in India, could pose a bigger
threat to the country than activities of groups like the LeT. This, in a way, was the first acknowledgement from the Congress that Mr Gandhi had indeed talked to Mr Roemer on the issue.
The initial reaction of the Congress on the issue was one of dilemma with party spokesperson Abhishek Singhvi saying, “We will respond to it after verifying the facts. There is no reason to react in an excited manner. The issue should first be looked into and verified.”
Mr Dwivedi, who is also the AICC media department chairman, had first suspected a conspiracy behind the release of the WikiLeaks cable, saying, “Let us verify the truth. May be there is some conspiracy behind the pattern with which all this is being done.” Asked what was there to doubt in the issue, Mr Singhvi remarked, “I am not questioning anything and I am questioning everything.”
To a query on whether what he says indicates that the party is distancing itself from Mr Gandhi’s remarks, Mr Singhvi said, “The question does not arise. It is your interpretation.”
According to the secret cable from New Delhi released by WikiLeaks, at a luncheon hosted by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh at his residence in July 2009, the Congress general secretary was asked by the US ambassador about the LeT’s activities in the region and the immediate threat to India. “Gandhi said there was evidence of some support for the group among certain elements in India’s indigenous Muslim community,” the cable notes. “However, Gandhi warned, the bigger threat may be the growth of radicalised Hindu groups, which create religious tensions and political confrontations with the Muslim community,” it says.
The cable that criticises Mrs Sonia Gandhi and discusses whether the Manmohan Singh government would be forced to call general elections on the Indo-US nuclear deal issue, says: “Mrs Gandhi never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity.” It says: “The Congress party, led by Sonia Gandhi, has proven especially cautious and nervous in the face of recent extortionist tactics by Prakash Karat. With two huge confrontations in its future — Parliament and Gujarat — it will remain true to its cautious form by seeking first to gauge its levels of support before finally being forced — if absolutely needed — to take action.”