Ravneet Bittu Questions Kharge on Rahul and Pannun's Alleged Mutual Endorsement

A day after Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge wrote to Prime Minister Narendra Modi raising concerns over 'provocative speeches' against Rahul Gandhi, Union Minister Ravneet Singh Bittu on Wednesday sought to justify his 'Number 1 terrorist' jibe and asked, "What should be a person called if he endorses or supports a declared terrorist."

Union Minister, in a video message, said there is nothing wrong in drawing a parallel between the Leader of Opposition (LoP) and Khalistani sympathiser Gurpatwant Singh Pannun as both of them are speaking in the same voice.

"Kharge sahab, whom do you call a terrorist? Pannun and Rahul Gandhi are supporting and endorsing each other. What Rahul says is applauded and endorsed by Pannun. What inference would one make from this," Bittu asked.
Ravneet Bittu's statement comes hours after Congress filed a police complaint in the capital against the Union Minister for terming Rahul Gandhi the 'Number 1 terrorist of the country'.

Ravneet Singh Bittu, who resigned from the Congress and joined the BJP ahead of Lok Sabha elections 2024, had attacked Congress MP Rahul Gandhi on his comments in the United States and had even labeled the latter as 'Number 1 Terrorist'.

Rahul created a controversy during his three-day visit to the USA when he claimed that religious freedom was 'under attack' in India and that members of the Sikh community were not being let loose to practice their faith freely.

"The fight is about whether he, as a Sikh, is going to be allowed to wear a turban in India; or whether, he, as a Sikh, will be allowed to wear a kada in India; or whether he, as a Sikh, is allowed to go to a Gurdwara. That's what the fight is about, and not just for him, but for all religions," Gandhi had said.

Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, an India designated terrorist, supported the statement.
Pannun via social media post said Gandhi's statement on the "existential threat to Sikhs in India is not only bold and pioneering but also firmly grounded in the factual history of what Sikhs have been facing under successive regimes in India since 1947."