The Centre's grave security and intelligence failures, which resulted in the loss of 26 innocent lives, can no longer remain hidden behind a veil of silence
There are many interpretations and quotations about the dangers of intense nationalism. Mahatma Gandhi once warned that a society following the principle of "an eye for an eye" would only lead the world into darkness.
The Pahalgam terror attack, Operation Sindoor, the border conflicts, and the subsequent ceasefire have brought the nation to a critical crossroads, demanding thoughtful reflection. The well-known adage that war breeds more crises than solutions should serve as a guiding principle for both India and Pakistan as they navigate the ceasefire.
There is no disputing the fact that peace is vital for the social and economic progress of both nations. Yet, the pressing question remains: how should India respond to Pakistan’s ongoing support for terrorism?
‘Extreme nationalism’
This is also a moment to reject extreme nationalist ideologies that claim the only path to resolution lies through the barrel of a gun, rather than a nuanced, multifaceted approach. It is crucial to challenge the tendency to view the brutal killing of 26 innocent people in Pahalgam by Pakistan-based terrorists solely through a religious lens.
When concerned voices pointed out that the invocation of "Kalima" — Allah’s name — was part of a calculated strategy by Pakistan, a nation shaped by religious extremism and veering towards a dangerous trajectory, the response from our side was a wave of war hysteria, drowning out critical reflection.
Also Read: Shashi Tharoor’s 4 objections as Trump claims credit for India-Pak truce
History, including that of Nazi Germany, tells us that the easiest way to destroy a nation is through extreme nationalism and war-mongering. Looking at the right-wing social media accounts that express disappointment over the India-Pakistan ceasefire and indulge in toxic debates, one gets a glimpse of the danger looming over us.
CPI(M)’s stance
At the all-party meeting convened by the Union government in the wake of Operation Sindoor, the CPI(M) took the clearest and most resolute stand: war is undesirable, and de-escalation is essential.
The core of the party’s position was that India, as a democratic nation and a global role model, has both the capacity and the responsibility to take the lead in pursuing peace. With India’s move towards a ceasefire, it must be acknowledged that this decision reinforces the credibility and strength of the CPI(M)’s stance.
Even as both nations return to a state of peace, many questions and uncertainties linger in the aftermath of the conflict. A key concern is the role of the United States, which appeared to position itself as a "super mediator."
'Peace-maker' Trump
Before the ceasefire was officially announced, US President Donald Trump claimed that both India and Pakistan had already been urged to restore peace and that a resolution was imminent.
Adding to the sense of unease was a detailed statement from US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who offered a summary of the consultations on the India-Pakistan issue held under his leadership — raising further questions about the extent of external involvement.
Also Read: My advice to Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri: Don’t ignore the trolls
Rubio named Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Foreign Minister S Jaishankar, and National Security Advisor Ajit Doval — alongside Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, Foreign Minister Mohammad Ishaq, and Army Chief Asim Munir — while detailing his mediation efforts.
India’s longstanding position
Such statements should be seen as contrary to India’s longstanding position on disputes with Pakistan, including Kashmir.
The core principle of the 1972 Simla Agreement is that such issues must be resolved through bilateral dialogue. India has consistently rejected third-party mediation, even when major international powers have offered to intervene.
When IK Gujral was Prime Minister and the United Kingdom made a similar overture, his sharp response — mockingly questioning what “health” Britain was in to offer such help — captured India’s unwavering opposition to external interference.
Also Read: Cong asks if PM has accepted US mediation on Kashmir, stopped ops against Pak for trade
This raises a valid concern — has Prime Minister Modi’s approach inadvertently paved the way for the internationalisation of the Kashmir issue? It is a question that is likely to gain traction in the days ahead. The more pressing issue is whether, in his outreach to “my friend Trump,” the Prime Minister compromised India’s longstanding strategic position.
Media’s jingoistic narratives
The role of the mainstream media during the conflict demands serious scrutiny. What unfolded was a dangerously frenzied model of coverage, driven by war hysteria.
Pahalgam, the conflict, and the ceasefire can only progress if they become part of a meaningful dialogue. It is not war hysteria or media-driven missile scares that will move India forward, but the thoughtful insights from the people that the country must pay attention to.
Indian media outlets rivalled their Pakistani counterparts in amplifying jingoistic narratives. The dominant message was that India had a golden opportunity to decisively crush Pakistan.
A viral social media post captured the absurdity with biting sarcasm: “Zee TV captured Karachi, NDTV took over Islamabad, Republic TV seized Rawalpindi...”
Also Read: Op Sindoor: PM Modi's address spells out 3 key points on Pak and terrorism
Even the Malayalam media joined the fray, employing sensationalist content and inventive tactics to grab viewers’ attention.
Typically, it is the pro-government media that are expected to amplify polarised political messaging. But in this case, even the Union government appeared taken aback by the media’s excessive zeal.
This led the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to step in, issuing multiple advisories urging media houses to exercise restraint.
Economic troubles
It is striking that our media never made a genuine effort to discuss, with facts and depth, how religious fanaticism and deepening polarisation are pushing Pakistan towards collapse. Instead of critically examining the dangers of a theocratic state, they chose to obscure the parallel threat of a reactionary, Hindutva-driven India.
In the early decades after Independence, India and Pakistan had nearly identical per capita incomes. Today, that parity has vanished.
The average Pakistani now earns only half as much as the average Malayali. India’s economy is approximately 11 times larger than Pakistan’s. Yet, it is also worth noting that the per capita income of an Indian citizen remains just one-fifth that of a Chinese citizen.
Also Read: Trump: US stopped India-Pakistan 'nuclear conflict', will do 'lot of trade' with them
The pressing political question of our time is this: should we focus on strengthening the economy and addressing critical issues like unemployment and inflation, or follow Pakistan down the path of militarisation and violence?
Meanwhile, the war-mongers showed no concern for the thousands who fled their homes in border areas, nor for the deep uncertainty and disruption that now define their lives.
Asif Khwaja’s admission
In Pakistan, the civilian government holds only nominal power, while the military wields real control. Those who advocate for "crushing" Pakistan have failed to consider the potential disaster that could follow if full control of this nuclear-armed nation falls into the hands of terrorist groups.
A notable interview given by Pakistan's Defence Minister, Asif Khwaja, to Sky TV in the US sheds light on this issue.
Also Read: 10 satellites working continuously to ensure safety, security of citizens: ISRO chairman
"We have been doing this dirty work for the United States for about three decades, and for the West, including Britain. That was a mistake, and we suffered for that, and that is why you are saying this to me. If we had not joined the war against the Soviet Union and later on the war after 9/11, Pakistan's track record was unimpeachable," Asif said.
Accountability for Pahalgam
As the guns fall silent, new questions emerge, with Pahalgam once again at the centre of the debate. During the height of the conflict, the Opposition stayed silent, hoping to maintain national unity.
However, the grave security and intelligence failures of the union government, which resulted in the tragic loss of 26 innocent lives, can no longer remain hidden behind a veil of silence.
Also Read: Op Sindoor: Who are top Pak Army officers, cops who attended funeral of terrorists?
Till date, not a single one of the terrorists involved has been apprehended. In the last Parliament session, the Home Minister made bold claims — statements that are now part of the official record. He declared that terrorism had been completely eradicated from Kashmir.
"If any terrorist enters our country, they will be shot between the eyes," Amit Shah famously said.
Yet, if this is true, why were terrorists able to infiltrate Indian soil, roam freely, fire rounds at point-blank range, and escape unharmed? No one has been held accountable, and not a single person has faced consequences for this lapse.
Time to resign?
It is pertinent to recall the 2008 Mumbai terrorist attack, which occurred during Manmohan Singh’s tenure as Prime Minister. At that time, the Home Minister, Shivraj Patil, along with Maharashtra Chief Minister Vilasrao Deshmukh and Deputy Chief Minister RR Patil, were held accountable for the attack.
If the then-Home Minister was forced to resign following the tragic events in Mumbai, it is now the responsibility of the nation to question Amit Shah on the matter.
What is particularly striking is that even media outlets, which should be holding leaders to account, have failed to raise this issue.
Azhar’s 1999 release
Narendra Modi's campaign often portrays other political parties as weak.
Maulana Masood Azhar, the founder of Jaish-e-Mohammad and widely believed to be behind many terrorist activities in Pakistan, has once again gained attention, especially after being designated a terrorist by the UN.
However, an unresolved issue remains: in 1999, when the BJP was in power, the Indian government released Masood Azhar in exchange for hostages held by terrorists aboard an Indian Airlines flight. This controversial decision has largely been overlooked, despite its significant implications.
Also Read: Naval forces were ready to strike targets, including Karachi: Vice Admiral on Op Sindoor
Pahalgam, the conflict, and the ceasefire can only progress if they become part of a meaningful dialogue. It is not war hysteria or media-driven missile scares that will move India forward, but the thoughtful insights from the people that the country must pay attention to.
(The Federal seeks to present views and opinions from all sides of the spectrum. The information, ideas or opinions in the articles are of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Federal.)
