polarised-debate-on-operation-sindoor-was-avoidable

The highly polarised debate on Operation Sindoor in the Parliament on July 28 and 29 was completely avoidable. Sadly, the debate turned into an open confrontation between the treasury and the Opposition benches. So much so they looked more like enemies than political rivals.

 

None of the sides could draw the line that when they were debating Operation Sindoor, they were talking about the attack on the country that started with the brutal and merciless killing of 26 tourists in Pahalgam in Jammu and Kashmir on April 22. While the Opposition parties did play politics on the matter to slight down the government, the government in turn proved no different.

 

A signal that should have gone across the country from the august chambers of the Parliament of India about the unity and consensus, at least, on the issue of national security and national interest, was missing. Instead, what the nation saw was routine confrontation, condemnation of each other, personal attacks, and blame game unbecoming of both sides across the aisle. It should not have been the Bharatiya Janata Party and the Congress trying to score against each other and to run each other down, it ideally should have been ‘India’ debating, discussing and introspecting within ‘itself’ as what went wrong, what went right and what to do in future.

 

While Defence Minister Rajnath Singh initiated the debate in his characteristic sober and commanding tone, Deputy Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Gaurav Gogoi also made his points and arguments well. Although the debate on the first day was not without acrimony, as it couldn’t have been since the Opposition had a stick to grind, the overall atmosphere in the House remained by and large normal. The debate went on, as it should have – informed and probing with relevant questioning and relevant answers. There was not too much political rhetoric.

 

Also read: In defence of SIR; already quite late

 

However, real confrontation was witnessed on the second day of the debate when the Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi, in his characteristic style, targeted Prime Minister Narendra Modi in all the ways he could, even accusing the latter of “having the blood of the Pahalgam victims on his hands”. He also said that the Operation Sindoor was carried out to protect the image of the Prime Minister. It was certainly unbecoming of the Leader of the Opposition to speak like that.

 

The Operation Sindoor was necessitated by the Pahalgam terror attack. Even the Congress had been consistently demanding action against the perpetrators of the terror attack. The government retaliated and smashed down terror training camps deep inside Pakistan. There may have been some operational losses, which are natural in any conflict, but to try to run down the government and damn it as its failure amounts to crossing the limits. 

 

The Opposition could have adopted a different and better approach than trying to corner the government on the “reported” losses of some fighter jets. Even if some jets were lost in the operation, how and why should anyone be blamed for that? The Opposition never asked the government what was achieved from Operation Sindoor.

 

The Opposition has been trying to make a permanent feature of its criticism against the government that US President Donald Trump has been repeatedly claiming he mediated the ceasefire between India and Pakistan. India had repeatedly rejected these claims. Eventually, Prime Minister Modi also spoke in the Parliament and said no world leader ever told him to stop the war. The matter should have ended there.

 

The Opposition should ideally have grilled the government over the grave security lapse, rather negligence, in Pahalgam. It was a multipronged failure at intelligence, security and follow up action. The intelligence agencies could not get any whiff of the terror attack of such intensity.

 

Also read: Digging deep into PM Modi’s foreign visits

 

How could the terrorists cross the border and travel a distance of 200 km to reach Pahalgam and not be noticed or spotted on the way? Then at Pahalgam, they had a free run as there was “absolutely no” security arrangement. The helpless tourists ended up like sitting ducks, literally. And after committing such a heinous crime, all the terrorists made good their escape and were killed only after three months.

 

Instead, the Opposition has been trying to embarrass the Prime Minister for what US President Donald Trump said or did like his claims of mediating the ceasefire and then inviting the Pakistan army chief Asim Munir for lunch to the White House. How can an Indian Prime Minister be held responsible for what a US President, and that too someone like Trump, does? Should Modi have objected to and prevented Trump from hosting Munir?

 

Even on the Pakistan-China nexus, there is nothing new. It is not a recent phenomenon. Pakistan and China are old and long-time military allies as both of them see India as their common enemy. Indo-China relationship has been strained since the days of first Prime Minister Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru. Even he cannot be blamed for Chinese hostilities, as China proved ungrateful and unpredictable.

 

While the Opposition has been unjustified in its blatant attack on the government on Operation Sindoor, trying to make an issue about how many jets fell down or Trump’s claims of mediating the ceasefire, the ruling party’s deep and incorrigible obsession with blaming the Congress and Pandit Nehru for everything is not justified either. Like Congress leaders reminded the BJP leaders that they must stop delving on history as they have been there for 11 years now, the ruling party will have to own up to its failures as it owns up to success.

 

The debate on Operation Sindoor should make every concerned Indian introspect as to where the country's polity is headed? If the country’s Parliament cannot have a positive and non-confrontationist debate on an important and sensitive matter like national security, then something is certainly wrong with our politics. The country expects its leaders, particularly its parliamentarians, to act in a better way.