By Kumkum Chadha
As a nation, we take pride in being one—standing together, so to speak. But scratch the surface, and the cracks appear: deep and beyond repair. Nothing describes this better than recent events that have panned out here in India.
The obvious reference is to the terror attack in Pahalgam, in the state of Jammu and Kashmir, which killed 26 tourists: only men and only Hindus. In retaliation, India launched Operation Sindoor and targeted terror camps deep inside Pakistan. The rest is history.
Till the ceasefire was announced, everyone backed the Modi government: “You push on ahead and we are with you,” is what Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge told the government following the all-party meeting. Ditto other Opposition parties that pledged “full support” to the government. However, once the ceasefire was announced, fissures appeared.
More than politicians, it was the people who led the charge: Who won the war? Why did India agree to a hasty ceasefire? Why did it not demand its proverbial pound of flesh? Was Pakistan’s retaliation, in the measure that it was, unexpected? Was India on the backfoot? And so on and so forth.
While the consensus was that “India should have done more,” opinion was willy-nilly divided between those actually bearing the brunt of the war and those getting accounts from a safe distance—in other words, those living in cities along the border areas versus those safely away from the missile attacks.
For instance, in places like Ferozepur, Jalandhar, and even Amritsar, there was a sense of relief at the proverbial guns falling silent. Nearer Delhi, the angst was that “India did not do enough.” Decode “enough” to mean forcing Pakistan to hand over the terrorists, to say the least.
A sizable section felt that after the initial ghar mein ghus kar marenge bravado, there was a climbdown: the Indian government was having second thoughts on how far it can or should go.
Once Pakistan offered to back off, India seemed more than willing: “Having mounted a tiger, India was keen to get off. A call from Pakistan’s DGMO gave the escape route,” according to non-military observers. This perhaps explains the “quick and unconditional” ceasefire that was brokered.
Of course, much of this is in the realm of speculation because those in the know confirm that, militarily, India had a clear advantage—and Pakistan was battered, to say the least.
Common people apart, political parties too stirred the pot. For starters, the Opposition asked for a joint session of Parliament, ostensibly to hold the government accountable for the security lapse that led to the Pahalgam attack. The Congress red-flagged US intervention in brokering the ceasefire; others questioned the government’s outreach programme.
Earlier this month, the Modi government had announced that it would send all-party delegations to different countries to flag India’s resolve to combat terrorism. The government handpicked MPs across parties to meet parliamentarians, ministers, government officials, and think-tanks in 33 countries: a move slammed by critics as “nothing but a travel and tourism programme.”
If non-political players have questioned the logic of this move, Opposition parties sparred over the names that were included. Two parties—the Congress and the Trinamool Congress—had issues with the government sidestepping them. The Congress was irked at the BJP handpicking Shashi Tharoor to lead a delegation; the Trinamool Congress was miffed at Yusuf Pathan’s inclusion. The qualitative difference: the Congress did not have the heft to stop Tharoor. As against this, the Trinamool Congress asked Pathan to pull out—and he did.
Despite objections from his parent party, Tharoor stuck to his decision of accepting the centre’s invitation: “National service is the duty of every citizen,” Tharoor said.
The Congress’ angst: MPs should “seek party concurrence before accepting official delegation roles,” and the government did not include the four MPs the party had nominated: Anand Sharma, Gaurav Gogoi, Syed Naseer Hussain, and Raja Brar.
Just by way of comparison, all four put together cannot match what Tharoor can do singlehandedly. For one, he would place India above the Congress and would speak for the nation rather than toe the party line. This is not something one can say about any of the Congress nominees. That apart, Tharoor would not stoop to playing petty politics—something one cannot put past the Congress’ four. While Tharoor should have been the obvious and unanimous choice, he was not on the list sent by the Congress.
Though grudgingly, one can charge the BJP with “playing politics” for handpicking Tharoor. But can the Congress be absolved? It made enough noises to embarrass Tharoor. Congress General Secretary Jairam Ramesh went to the extent of saying that there is a difference between being in the Congress and being of the Congress. The message is not lost: Tharoor is an outsider-insider, so to speak. However, in this slugfest, it is the Congress that has come a cropper.
Tharoor, it is well known, has often supported the Narendra Modi government on issues—including the recent stand-off with Pakistan. His statements, quite in line with the BJP’s, have irked the Congress. Quite aptly, when Tharoor had shared the stage with Modi at an event in Kerala, the prime minister had remarked that this would give sleepless nights to “many,” read: the Congress.
Having said that, one cannot deny the distancing between Tharoor and the Congress in recent years. A fourth-term MP, Tharoor is reportedly “too hot to handle” as far as the Congress is concerned. He speaks his mind and often says things that go against the party line. Angling for a foothold in the Kerala unit of the Congress, Tharoor has been given a short shrift by the party. Therefore, were the BJP wooing Tharoor, the eloquent MP, like Barkis in the Charles Dickens novel, “is willing”.
However, when it came to the Trinamool Congress, the BJP agreed to “switch” Yusuf Pathan with Abhishek Banerjee. According to reports, after Mamata Banerjee put her foot down and forced Pathan to pull out from the delegation, Union Minister Kiren Rijiju called her and asked her to suggest a name from the Trinamool Congress. Banerjee then handpicked her nephew—decidedly a better choice.
Pathan, a cricketer-turned-politician, is ill at ease with his new role as an MP. When clashes erupted in Murshidabad and claimed lives, Pathan was busy on social media. He had posted photos sipping tea. The caption: “Easy afternoons, good chai and calm surroundings. Just soaking in the moment.” Murshidabad is some 80 kilometres from Pathan’s parliamentary constituency, Baharampur.
Politics and politicians apart, reactions to this outreach are mixed. While some flag that non-BJP governments—including PV Narasimha Rao’s—had undertaken similar initiatives, naysayers see this as a tactic to divert attention from questions that are top of mind post-ceasefire. Even while the government is being torn apart in some quarters, there is unanimity on the Indian armed forces giving Pakistan a run for its money.
—The writer is an author, journalist and political commentator