BJP's Ravi Shankar Prasad questions Rahul Gandhi's "Fondness for Vietnam"

The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) on Saturday took a sharp dig at Congress leader Rahul Gandhi over his alleged frequent visits to Vietnam, questioning the necessity and transparency of these trips. BJP leaders raised concerns over the Opposition leader’s absence from his constituency and Parliament, claiming that his “undisclosed” foreign travels could pose national security risks.

During a press briefing, BJP leader Ravi Shankar Prasad remarked, “New Year's in Vietnam, Holi too in Vietnam? I have been told he has spent 22 days in Vietnam, more than in his own constituency, Rae Bareli.” Prasad accused Gandhi of neglecting his parliamentary responsibilities while frequently traveling abroad.

BJP IT cell head Amit Malviya further intensified the attack, questioning the nature of Rahul Gandhi’s visits. "As the Leader of the Opposition, his numerous clandestine trips abroad, especially while Parliament is in session, raise serious questions about propriety and national security," Malviya posted on X (formerly Twitter).

The controversy comes as Gandhi's latest Vietnam visit coincided with the Holi festival and the ongoing Budget session in Parliament. This follows another visit to the Southeast Asian nation shortly after the death of former Prime Minister and Congress stalwart Dr. Manmohan Singh. The BJP had earlier accused Gandhi of leaving the country for New Year's celebrations during the national mourning period.

Malviya claimed that Gandhi “politicized and exploited Dr. Singh's death for his convenience, but his actions show clear disregard for him.” He further demanded that the Congress party clarify the reasons behind the repeated foreign trips.

In response, the Congress defended Gandhi, stating that his travels were aimed at studying Vietnam’s economic model. Congress leader Harish Rawat dismissed BJP’s allegations, saying, “He has gone there to study their economic model.”

Despite the Congress's clarification, BJP leaders have continued to question the timing and frequency of the visits, suggesting a pattern of unexplained foreign travel by the Congress leader.