New Delhi: Congress leader Sam Pitroda, who recently sparked controversy with his remark about feeling “at home” in neighbouring countries, has issued a clarification, saying his comments were meant to highlight shared history and people-to-people bonds in the Indian subcontinent.
In a statement on X (formerly Twitter), Pitroda emphasized that his intention was not to ignore the pain, conflicts, or security challenges posed by terrorism and geopolitical tensions. “My intention has always been to call attention to the realities we face: concerns about the electoral process, the importance of civil society and youth, and India’s role—both in its neighborhood and globally,” he said.
He added, “If my words have caused confusion or hurt, I want to clarify that my aim was never to belittle anyone’s suffering or undermine legitimate concerns—but to foster honest conversation, empathy, and a more grounded and responsible approach to how India sees itself and is seen by others.”
Pitroda had underscored the importance of prioritizing India’s neighbourhood in foreign policy, citing recent turbulence in Nepal and Bangladesh. “Our foreign policy, according to me, must first focus on our neighbourhood. Can we really substantially improve relationships with our neighbours? I’ve been to Pakistan, and I must tell you, I felt at home. I’ve been to Bangladesh, and I’ve been to Nepal—I feel at home. I don’t feel like I’m in a foreign country,” he said.
However, the mention of Pakistan drew criticism from the BJP, which accused Congress of undermining India’s national interest. BJP spokesperson Pradeep Bhandari said, “Rahul Gandhi’s blue-eyed boy and Congress Overseas chief Sam Pitroda says he ‘felt at home’ in Pakistan. No wonder the UPA took no tough action against Pakistan even after 26/11.”
Pitroda, who leads the Indian Overseas Congress, has previously sparked controversies with his statements. Last year, he stepped down from his post for seven weeks following remarks on diversity and inheritance tax, which were interpreted in contentious ways. Upon his reinstatement, he said that his comments are often twisted in interpretation, noting, “People are not interested in the substance of a conversation; they are interested in the form of the conversation.”
