NSA’s comments on temple looting factually incorrect, say political observers

By A Representative 

National Security Advisor Ajit Doval has drawn significant criticism from political and civil society circles following his address at the Viksit Bharat Young Leaders Dialogue in New Delhi on January 10, 2026. Speaking to a gathering of roughly 3,000 young delegates, the 81-year-old NSA invoked historical grievances, suggesting that India’s ancestors remained "helpless, mute spectators" while villages were burned and temples were looted. 

While acknowledging that "revenge" is not an ideal term, he described it as a "powerful force" and called upon the youth to "avenge" India’s history by rebuilding a nation based on its own values and beliefs.

The remarks have triggered a sharp rebuttal from various quarters, with critics arguing that his characterization of the Indian people as passive is both factually incorrect and politically dangerous. Historical experts have pointed out that India’s past is defined by a legacy of resistance, citing uprisings against foreign invasions and the eventual defeat of colonial rule as proof that the country was never truly helpless. 

Opposition figures, including former Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti, have described the rhetoric as a "dog whistle" that could incite communal tension, while Congress spokespersons questioned the appropriateness of a high-ranking security official using such provocative language.

Adding to the controversy, some historians have contested Doval's claim that Indian civilizations never attacked others or destroyed places of worship. They cite the Chola Empire’s maritime expeditions and documented instances of internal temple desecration during ancient dynastic shifts as evidence of a more complex reality. Concerns have also been raised that focusing on historical "vengeance" may distract the youth from contemporary priorities like education, employment, and social harmony.

Basant Hetamsaria, a spokesperson for the Socialist Party (India), headed by well kmown activist-scholar Sandeep Pandey, joined the chorus of disapproval, stating that such language from a constitutional authority poses a threat to social harmony and the rule of law. 

The party emphasized that India’s strength lies in its democratic consciousness and justice rather than a politics of retaliation, urging that the younger generation be encouraged toward development instead of being pushed into a "war-like mindset" based on a distorted view of the past.