Hamid Ansari (Left), Rahul Gandhi, P.Chidambaram (Right)
Mohammad Hamid Ansari — the man who once occupied the second-highest constitutional office in Bharat — has decided the nation needs another lecture from him. Twice installed as Vice President by the Congress-led UPA (2007–2012 and 2012–2017), this gentleman has kicked up a storm in the headlines in recent months.
Ansari has described Sultan Mahmud of Ghazni as an “Indian.” Ghazni was the ruler of the Ghaznavid Empire who repeatedly invaded northern India, defeated Indian kingdoms, raided cities and temples, and carried substantial wealth back to his empire. Yet, in Ansari’s description, this historical figure was an “Indian plunderer.”
The same Mahmud of Ghazni who led repeated invasions into northern India, crushed kingdoms, sacked cities, and systematically looted temples before carting the wealth back to his Ghaznavid empire. The same invader whose 1025–26 Somnath campaign remains one of the most infamous episodes in Indian history: his forces stormed the great temple in Gujarat, stripped it of its treasures, damaged or destroyed the shrine, and returned home loaded with the spoils.
Historians continue to debate the relative importance of religious motives and political and economic objectives behind his raids —Whatever, the temples were desecrated, wealth was plundered, and the scars were left on Hindu civilisation.
Yet in Ansari’s revisionist telling, this foreign conqueror was just an “Indian plunderer.” Whitewashing complete.
Having finished rehabilitating the temple-destroyer, Ansari has now turned his righteous gaze upon the RSS and the Hindu right wing. With the same serene confidence, he declares that the “true threat” to India is not communism but “Hindu right-wing communalism.”
Because the same Mohammad Hamid Ansari, while serving as India’s Ambassador to Iran between 1990 and 1992, faces serious allegations from within India’s own intelligence community. According to reports in The Sunday Guardian and statements by former RAW officers, he is accused of compromising R&AW operations in Tehran — of passing sensitive information about Indian intelligence activities to Iranian authorities and the intelligence agency SAVAK on multiple occasions.
Those same allegations claim this contributed to the abduction of Indian diplomatic and intelligence personnel. A man who, according to retired RAW officers, allegedly damaged India’s external intelligence apparatus in a critical theatre now postures as the guardian of the republic against the “Hindu right wing.”
Hamid Ansari served as Vice President not once, but twice under the Congress-led UPA government. It was the same Congress ecosystem that first popularised the toxic phrase “Hindu terror.” Rahul Gandhi was among the earliest politicians to push this narrative, later echoed by then Finance Minister (and later Home Minister) P. Chidambaram.
We later learnt the truth about the 2008 Malegaon blasts case: Lt Col Prasad Purohit, Sadhvi Pragya Takur and others were falsely implicated in a manufactured “Hindu terror” and “saffron terrorism” storyline. In July 2025, a special NIA court exposed how the charges were built on a political agenda designed to legitimise that very Congress-coined term against Hindus.
So it is no surprise that the man carefully chosen twice by the same Congress regime as Vice President has now launched a campaign against the RSS and Hindu right-wing politics. The pattern is consistent, and obvious.
Speaking on September 18, 2026, at the AG Noorani Memorial Lecture at the India Islamic Cultural Centre in New Delhi, Ansari invoked the late constitutional expert’s 2019 book The RSS: A Menace to India. He quoted Jawaharlal Nehru’s reported remark, recorded by former Foreign Secretary Jagat Singh Gundevia: “The danger to India, mark you, it is not communism. It is Hindu right-wing communalism.”
Ansari went further, warning of “trends and practices that dispute the well-established principle of civic nationalism” and replace it with “cultural nationalism.” He claimed this seeks to present an electoral majority as a religious majority, monopolise power, distinguish citizens by faith, and promote intolerance and insecurity.
Ansari faced far graver accusations from within India’s intelligence community. Former RAW officers, including NK Sood, publicly claimed that while Ansari served as India’s Ambassador to Iran (1990–92), he played a “crucial role in exposing RAW set-up in Tehran,” endangering the lives of unit members. According to accounts in former RAW officer RK Yadav’s book Mission R&AW and subsequent statements by retired operatives,
Ansari allegedly failed to protect Indian officials kidnapped by Iranian intelligence (SAVAK), downplayed the incidents in reports to Delhi, and in at least one case passed operational details that led to the abduction of a RAW station chief. Officers claimed he even recommended closing RAW stations in Iran.
Some former RAW personnel wrote to the Prime Minister seeking an inquiry into what they described as serious damage to Indian operations in the Gulf. Ansari has rejected the charges, stating his work as ambassador was known to the government of the day and that he remained committed to national security.
Former R&AW officers have alleged that Ansari failed in his duty to protect India’s intelligence interests during these incidents. They claim he did not fully disclose to the Indian government the alleged involvement of Iran’s intelligence agency, SAVAK.
Reports also say that the officers have also alleged that Ansari came to know that Indian intelligence was monitoring Kashmiri youths travelling to Qom, Iran, where they were allegedly receiving arms training. According to their claims, Ansari passed details of the operation, including the name of the officer handling it, to Iran’s Foreign Office. The information was allegedly then shared with SAVAK.
The officer was subsequently taken into custody by Iranian intelligence, according to these allegations. These allegations first came to public attention in 2017, when former intelligence officers approached the government and sought action against Ansari.
The latest speech fits a pattern: a former high constitutional functionary who once occupied the second-highest office in the land, twice nominated by the Congress-led UPA, now framing Hindu cultural assertion itself as the primary internal danger while soft-pedalling the historical record of invaders he prefers to rebrand as domestic “looters.”
Critics see the trajectory as consistent. From alleged compromise of intelligence networks in Tehran, to reframing temple-destroying conquerors as fellow Indians, to casting the ideological current that rebuilt Somnath and prioritises civilisational memory as the greater menace than communism — the circle, they argue, is complete.
Ansari’s defenders will call it a principled defence of secularism and Nehruvian values. His detractors will call it something far darker: a long record of prioritising narratives that dilute both historical truth and national security. The record, at least, is now public for us to judge.
