Congress leader P Chidambaram has responded to Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s “mental Naxal” remark, saying he was proud to be described that way. The exchange has added to a wider political dispute over comments made during the Prime Minister’s Independence Day speech.

The remarks have drawn responses from opposition parties and the Centre for Journalism and Press, with reactions focusing on the language used by the Prime Minister and its political meaning.

Chidambaram’s response

Chidambaram’s reply directly addressed the label used in Modi’s remarks. His response, as reported in the headlines, was that he took pride in being a “mental Naxal”. The statement was presented as a counter to the Prime Minister’s comments and became the central point of the political exchange.

The reported confrontation places a senior Congress leader’s response alongside a speech by the Prime Minister. The available reports identify the speech as Modi’s Independence Day address, but provide no further detail about the setting or the wider text of the remarks.

Opposition reactions

The controversy has extended beyond Chidambaram’s statement. Reports also mention responses from opposition parties and CJP, including a reaction from its spokesperson Saurav Das. One reported response used the phrase “the bell of change has rung” while addressing the Prime Minister’s “mental Naxal” comment.

The reported reactions include:

  • Chidambaram’s statement that he was proud to be a “mental Naxal”.
  • Opposition responses to the phrase used by Modi.
  • A reaction attributed to CJP spokesperson Saurav Das.
  • Claims that the political confrontation has intensified.

What the reports establish

The reports consistently connect the dispute to Modi’s Independence Day speech and to the phrase “mental Naxal”. They identify Chidambaram as the principal respondent and refer to additional reactions from opposition voices. The supplied reports do not provide a detailed explanation of whom Modi was referring to or the broader context of the phrase.

The political dispute therefore remains centred on the exchange of remarks and the responses that followed. The available material records the competing statements and reactions, without setting out any further verified development beyond the reported escalation of the controversy.