By Kumkum Chadha
The much-awaited debate on Operation Sindoor finally happened in Parliament. Of course, it was not a smooth sail with the Opposition first stalling the House on its demand for the debate and then disrupting it again after time was allotted.
On the first day of the Monsoon session, the Lok Sabha was adjourned after Opposition benches demanded a response from Prime Minister Narendra Modi on US President Donald Trump’s assertion that peace between India and Pakistan had been brokered after US intervention. There were anti-Modi slogans in the House: “PM Modi jawab do” even as the Lok Sabha was adjourned within 20 minutes of it being convened.
The government then agreed to a debate and time was allotted for the marathon. But at the nick of time, the Opposition shifted the goalpost and demanded a discussion on the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in Bihar. This led to another adjournment: “A U-turn” to quote Union Minister Kiren Rijiju. “Why are the Congress and other parties now running away from a discussion they have been demanding for two months… this is cheating the nation… finding an excuse to avoid a discussion,” he said.
Nitty gritty apart, the discussion in Parliament did take place, but not without an element of drama: both preceding the debate and, expectedly, during the proceedings.
Before the debate, the focus was on Congress MPs Shashi Tharoor and Manish Tewari—both were kept out of the list of speakers the party had handpicked. For the record, both were part of the government’s all-party delegations that had travelled to various countries following Operation Sindoor. The Operation, it may be recalled, was carried out by the armed forces in retaliation to the Pahalgam attack in which terrorists gunned down 26 people.
However, the script for both the MPs were a study in contrast—Tharoor was, reportedly, asked to speak, but he refused; Tewari wanted to speak, but was not allowed to. Tharoor had, at the outset, made it clear that he would not toe the party line. In his view, Operation Sindoor was a success, and therefore, to slam it was not in order. However, Tharoor remained relevant with Prime Minister Narendra Modi taking a dig at the Congress: “Some leaders were stopped from speaking in the Lok Sabha as Congress was pained at India’s stand being put up…” Modi said.
Modi’s outreach to Tharoor was similar to his emotional references, some years ago, to the then Leader of Opposition Ghulam Nabi Azad. In a visible display of emotion, the prime minister had fought back tears while bidding farewell to the veteran leader even as he described him as a “true friend” and said he will continue to seek his advice. Azad, on his part, effusively praised the prime minister and said that he brought a “personal touch” to all matters. Interestingly, within a year Azad quit the Congress to float his own party. That it came a cropper is another matter.
As for Tharoor, the key word was and still is: Maunvrat, silence. Ditto Tewari who took to the social media stating: “If you don’t understand my silence, you will never understand my words”. Earlier in the day, he had indicated that he would speak for India rather than the party. To substantiate, he quoted a lyric, straight out of Manoj Kumar’s patriotic film, Purab aur Pachhim: Bharat ka rehnewala hoom bharat ki baat sunata hoon. This roughly translates into: Being a native of India, I will speak for India.
Tharoor’s snub and Tewari’s poetic outburst apart, there was more to the debate: histrionics, drama, rhetoric and oratory: sub-standard, but delivered with aplomb.
The Congress opened with Deputy Leader of Opposition Gaurav Gogoi. It was a lacklustre start given that Gogoi is a middle-rung leader and not among those who is counted for his abilities as a speaker who can hold an audience. Yes, his high decibel levels did work and willy nilly drew attention to what he was saying. Also being an opening speaker did give him an advantage over others. But that is where it ended. At another level, handpicking Gogoi to lead the attack demonstrates the grand old party’s bankruptcy vis-a-vis orators and top-ranking speakers.
However, the men and women to watch out for were the Gandhi siblings, Rahul and Priyanka and Prime Minister Narendra Modi: the key participants in the debate in the Lok Sabha.
The key takeaways from prime minister’s speech were: there was no intervention by any world leader to broker a ceasefire; he told US Vice-President JD Vance that if Pakistan attacks, we will retaliate in a greater measure; he charged Jawaharlal Nehru with financing Pakistan to build dams; and Pahalgam victims being targeted according to their religion.
It was on the last that Priyanka Gandhi scored. As she read out the first name of the victim she annexed Bharatiya, Indian, to it. For the record, during the debate in Parliament, Priyanka read out the names of the 25 Indians who fell to the bullets of terrorists. As she read out the first name, the Treasury benches shouted Hindu to which Priyanka retorted Bharatiya, Indian: making it clear that she put country above religion.
The shouting match continued, but Priyanka made the point: effectively and with sensitivity. At the same time, she underscored that the Congress was above religion-politics, so to speak.
All through her speech, Priyanka deftly weaved in content with sentiment and emotion. There was no drama or grand rhetoric: the words were straight from the heart, and of course, they touched a chord. She spoke about her mother’s tears and terrorists killing her father equating her pain with the families of the Pahalgam victims. Equally she was aggressive, assertive and forthright. Ripping the government apart, Priyanka said that it evades accountability for the Pahalgam attack by going back to what Nehru and Indira Gandhi did: “You talk about History, I will talk about the present” she said to a packed House.
Pitch this against her brother Rahul Gandhi rewinding to Indira Gandhi and later the UPA government and its successes. Directly taking on Prime Minister Modi, Rahul said that if the prime minister had even “50 percent of Indira Gandhi’s courage”, he should refute US President Donald Trump’s claims of mediating a ceasefire between India and Pakistan. “If he has the courage, he will say here that Donald Trump is a liar” the Gandhi scion thundered. The Pappu of yesteryears, it seems, had come of age.
On India’s isolation, Gandhi said that no country condemned Pakistan after the Pahalgam attack. “When the UPA government was there, Pakistan was condemned for terrorism”, he said as the House listened to him in rapt attention. Of course, he could have done away with words like ghoosan, punch, thappar and jhappar, slaps, but then that is Rahul Gandhi who, often, brings street politics into Parliament.
On content, Rahul did better than his sister, but the two together took on the government, particularly Prime Minister Narendra Modi, as never before.
To compare Rahul to Priyanka or kickstart a Gandhi-versus-Gandhi debate would be off the mark. Politically, the who-better narrative may fit in, but given their bonding, for Priyanka to upstage her brother would be illusionary. Therefore, they have to be seen as “two together” rather than one pitched against the other.
And that, perhaps, would be the BJP’s immediate problem—the brother-sister duo all geared to take on Modi and company, as it were.
Electorally, the Gandhi-team may not be equipped to take on the saffron party, at least yet, but when it comes to optics, they seem to have covered a distance.
But this is where it stops because when it comes to a Modi versus Rahul comparison, the septuagenarian leader would win hands down.
Gandhi may be grabbing eyeballs with his one-liners, but on the question of governance, there is a big question-mark. On that count, right-minded Indians would trust Modi, however controversial he may be, to lead India.
The sum total: Gandhi has come a long way, but only as an Opposition leader. For him, to step into Modi’s shoes may remain a pipedream.
—The writer is an author, journalist and political commentator