‘The Nation is above your image, above your politics…’

 

‘The Nation is above your image, above your politics…’

Following the terror attack in Pahalgam, Jammu & Kashmir, on 22 April 2025, the Indian people wanted to know how and why it happened. India carried the Operation Sindoor between 7 and 10 May striking at nine terror sites in Pakistan. The opposition INDIA bloc demanded a special session of parliament to discuss the developments. The government didn’t concede. And to pre-empt the persistent demand for a special session, the government announced, 45 days in advance, convening of the Parliament monsoon session from 21 July.

 

The issues that agitated the  nation are: (a) How could the terrorists attack such a high security zone on the border; (b) what happened to the security; (c) who is accountable for the security lapse and the intelligence failure that led to the dastardly killing of 26 innocent people; (d) why no terrorists were arrested or killed; (e)why was the ceasefire declared suddenly when the Indian forces had the advantage of forcing a decisive outcome; (f) why did India come under pressure of the US President Donald Trump to declare the ceasefire and surrender to him; (g) the losses suffered  and the number of fighter jets lost; and (h) the failure of foreign policy and diplomacy vis-a-vis the US and China.  

 

After wash out of the parliament session for a week, due to the protest by the Opposition, following the presiding officers’ rejection of their adjournment motions demanding debate on the Pahalgam attack and the Operation Sindoor, it was finally agreed to have the debate. And on 28 July, Defence Minister Rajnath Singh opened the debate in the Lok Sabha. He said the objective of the Operation Sindoor was not to cross the border or capture territory or wage war, it was to eliminate terror nurseries which Pakistan had nurtured, and that the operation was ‘paused’ after the nine terror sites in Pakistan were destroyed. He had a dig at the opposition for asking questions regarding losses to the IAF during the operation. He made light of the losses: “In any exam, the result matters. We should see whether a student is getting good marks in an exam and not focus on whether his penicil was broken or his pen was lost.”

 

The Congress Deputy Leader in the Lok Sabha Gaurav Gogoi said the Centre had withheld critical details and asked who helped the terrorists and how they fled. He accused the Defence Minister is not telling the truth.  He held the Home Minister Amit Shah responsible for the security lapse; he can’t hide behind the Lieutenant Governor of Jammu & Kashmir. Participating in the debate, External Affairs Minister Jaishankar claimed that the international community had overwhelmingly backed India.

 

The next day, that is 29 July, Amit Shah opened the debate in the House. He slammed P Chidambaram, former Home Minister, who in an interview to an online news portal The Print, said there was no evidence that the terrorists came from Pakistan, and those behind the Pahalgam massacre could be homegrown terrorists. Amit Shah asked why he was giving a clean chit to Pakistan. In a diatribe, Shah held the Congress responsible for creating Pakistan: “All roots of terrorism lead back to Pakistan. And Pakistan itself is the result of the Congress party’s blunder. Had they not accepted the idea of partition, Pakistan would never have come into existence.”

 

He claimed three ‘terrorists’ linked to the Pahalgam attack were killed. Why were they killed on the very day the debate started? It raises suspicion about the genuineness of the claim that the ‘terrorists’ now killed in an encounter by the security forces were the ones who massacred the tourists, sounding it as an afterthought answer to the opposition charge that the terrorists were not caught or killed, even after 100 days of the attack.

 

The opposition leaders who participated in the debate said that it was the security lapse that led to the massacre of tourists. Akilesh Yadva, Samajwadi Party Leader, wanted to know who is responsible for the intelligence failure. Priyanka Gandhi asked: “If Pakistan had no resort apart from surrender, why did this war stop:” You claim muscular nationalism but fall silent when asked who failed to protect the civilians on Indian soil.” She wanted to know that why in spite of several terror attacks, the Home Minister is still holding the Office, and not resigned.

 

The Leader of the Opposition (LOP), Rahul Gandhi, was at his combative best. In his speech, he targeted the Defonce Minister, the External Affairs Minister and the Prime Minister, charging them of being incompetent. The speech is one of the fiercest powerful speeches in the parliamentary history of India. The following narrative is based on excerpts from the speech:

 

“Every single person in this House condemned Pakistan. Even before the Operation Sindoor started all the parties in the opposition decided to stand like a rock by the Government. If you want to use the armed forces, you need 100 percent political will and freedom of operation.  Rajnath Singh compared 1971 with the Operation Sindoor. There was political will in 1971 war. In the Indian Ocean Seventh Fleet of the US was approaching. Then Prime Minister said we will do whatever we want to do in Bangladesh. That is political will. General Manekshaw told Indira Gandhi that he cannot carry out the operation in the summer…he needed six months. Indira Gandhi told him take whatever time you want because you should have the freedom of action, freedom to manoeuvre. One lakh Pakistan soldiers surrendered, and a new country was created.”

 

And referring to the telephonic conversation that India’s DGMO had with his Pakistan counterpart at 1,35 in the night, right after the Operation Sindoor started, informing him about the attacks India had carried out on terror camps and hideouts in Pakistan and then telling him that India will not attack Pakistan’s military bases and that there will be no escalation was a monumental blunder. Rahul Gandhi called it shocking that India had conveyed that it had hit non-military targets and did not want escalation. It is like two people fighting and one of them punching the other on the face, and then telling him not to escalate. According to him, this amounted to “ceasefire” offer on the first night of the Operation Sindoor itself; no political will to fight, immediate surrender in 30 minutes.

 

Rajnath Singh said that Pakistani was told India had no intention to hit its military targets.  This had crippled the Indian forces. Rahul Gandhi quoted Captain Shiv Kumar, India’s Defence Attache to Indonesia: “India did lose some aircrafts only because of the constraint put by the political leadership to not attack the military establishment and their air defenses.”  The pilots were sent to fight, but their hands were tied behind their back. The result - the loss of jets and the retaliation by Pakistan hitting the civilian areas, killing 15 people and injuring more than 40 in Poonch.    

 

The Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) General Anil Chauhan said, “what is important is not the jets being downed, but why they were being downed” and that the Indian forces had learnt from their mistakes, rectified the same and taken off again. Rahul Gandhi responded: “I want to tell CDS Anil Chauhan that you made no tactical mistake. The Indian Air Force made no mistake. The mistake was made by the political leadership. And Anil Chauhan must have the guts to say this…that my hands were tied behind my back. The goal of this exercise was to protect the image of the Prime Minister. He used the air force to protect his image. It is dangerous for the country.”

 

Trump said 30 times that he had worked out the ceasefire between India and Pakistan and stopped the war. If he is telling lies, let the Prime Minister say in this House that Trump is telling lies, demanded Rahul Gandhi. “If he has the courage of Indira Gandhi...even 50 per cent of Indira Gandhi’s courage, let him say here that Trump is a liar that he did not make the ceasefire and that we did not loose any fighter jets.”  

 

The LOP then turned to the failure of foreign policy. The external Affairs Minister told the House that the world condemned terrorism, but he didn’t say that not a single country has condemned Pakistan. The world is equating India with Pakistan. He and the Defence Minister claimed that we have deterred Pakistan. If that is so, how did the US President Trump break all protocol and invite General Munir, Chief of Pakistan Army, who perpetuated terrorism on India, to have lunch with him? Trump said the reason why he invited General Munir was to thank him for ending the war. General Munir also had a meeting with the US Central Command Chief General Michael Kurilla and the generals from four Central Asian countries on ‘how to prevent terrorism’. “Which planet is the Foreign Minister sitting on?”, Rahul Gandhi asked.

 

He questioned the government’s new security doctrine to treat any act of terror as an act of war. It means that if a terrorist who wants to make India fight a war with Pakistan, he has to just attack India. The very idea of deterrence is turned upside down. The government is clueless about what political will means and what it means giving free hand to the armed forces- Army, Air Force and Navy - to fight. The China and Pakistan are fused. The Government of India thought it was fighting war with Pakistan, only to realise it was fighting both China and Pakistan, with China feeding Pakistan with strategic satellite information. They were getting live battlefield information. It is dangerous. It is the complete bankruptcy of foreign policy.

 

While concluding his speech, Rahul Gandhi said: “Do not allow India to be reduced to a battlefield where large powers are fighting. We have to navigate; we have to protect our interest. To the Prime Minister, the nation is above your image, above your politics, above your PR. The forces are above your image, above your PR, above your politics. Do not use the forces for your image. Have the humility to understand that. Have the dignity to understand that. Do not sacrifice the armed forces and the national interest for your own petty political gains.”

 

Narendra Modi didn’t attend the two-day debate in the House. And when he replied to the debate, the nation expected him to answer the questions and the issues relating to the Pahalgam attack and the Operation Sindoor. He spoke for more than 100 minutes; most of the time, as usual, spent in bashing Pandit Nehru and the Gandhis, as diversionary tactic to evade his responsibility and accountability. Pandit Nehru has become ‘a life jacket’ for Modi. He accused the Congress of aligning its narrative with Pakistan’s agenda. “India got support from the entire world but it is unfortunate that Congress did not support the velour of our soldiers.” No one, lest of all the media, is dared to question the relevance of all that Modi spoke when the debate was on the terror attack in Pahalgam and the Operation Sindoor.  

 

Modi did not answer the questions and the issues raised by the LOP and the opposition leaders.  He said no world leader forced India to stop the Operation Sindoor. He did not deny Trump’s claim that he had worked out the ceasefire. Trump said that the US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President J.D. Vance were responsible for bringing the ceasefire between India and Pakistan and ending the war. The Secretary of State and the Vice President were in touch with Modi and Jaishankar before announcing the ceasefire. That Modi returned the call of the US Vice President Vance late in the night on 9th July when the latter warned him that Pakistan was planning a big attack is an indication that India was under pressure. What actually transpired between them will remain a mystery. However, the conversation between them establishes the fact that America pressurised Modi to end the war. That explains why Trump was the first to announce the ceasefire in the afternoon on 10th July.

 

And when asked about Modi’s silence on Trump, Rahul Gandhi interacting with the media on 30 July said: “It is obvious the Prime Minister has not said that Trump is lying. It is obvious what has happened.  Everyone knows he is not able to say it. That is the reality.  If the Prime Minister says it, then Trump will tell openly and will lay bare the truth. That is why the Prime Minister is not able to say anything.”