A lot was said in parliamentary debate on Operation Sindoor launched in the wake of the Pahalgam terror attack as the Treasury and Opposition members got an albatross off their backs.
A lot was said in parliamentary debate on Operation Sindoor launched in the wake of the Pahalgam terror attack as the Treasury and Opposition members got an albatross off their backs. What was said was mostly a formal reiteration of things made public already, including about no world leader playing a mediatory role involving India in bringing about the ceasefire, which was entirely Pakistan’s call.
What was left unsaid was plenty too, especially regarding making war losses public, specifically of fighter jets. At the end of two days of legislators standing to deliver speeches, the Indian public may have been left just a bit wiser about what transpired. But little could have been done to dampen the triumphalism of one side and the cynicism of the other.
What should not be in dispute is that proof of the forensic kind was made public on the floor of Parliament about three perpetrators of the Pahalgam violence having been found and gunned down though the coincidence of the timing being too pat may in itself trigger more theories to sow doubts on the closure that should have offered some solace to the victims’ kin.
The tone and tenor of the debate was emotional rather than about data and hard facts. The demand for Donald Trump to be called a liar was an impossible one as no government would do that, even in a world so riven by its geopolitics. The US media does it regularly enough in its fact-checking exposes of a mercurial head of state with a claim to being the world’s most powerful man. Where is the need then for a populous democracy to state something that is public knowledge already?
The Leader of the Opposition challenged interpretations of the core happenings during Operation Sindoor and the subsequent ceasefire agreement. Not without logic did he ask why India grabbed the ceasefire offer when it was on the ascendant in the exchanges. By leaving it too late, as in a 90-day gap between Op. Sindoor and a debate in Parliament, plenty of scope was afforded for conspiracy theories to gain salience.
Not even the Prime Minister’s lengthy reply, which was more about historical decisions of Indian politicians that are considered grave mistakes today than the specifics of recent events, helped remove the doubts sown in the idle time in which counterfactual ideas circulated. Had the PM conveyed the message in Parliament of military and weapons superiority soon after the event, the tidings from the border and beyond may have been more warmly received.
What the PM revealed on the over-generous nature of the Indus Waters Treaty is not without logic either. What was done to keep it going while favouring Pakistan in not even desilting dams deserved to be examined and course correction ordered as it has been in the wake of Pakistan’s misadventure in sponsoring terror in the Kashmir Valley.
What Rahul Gandhi said about the Pakistan-China embrace getting tighter — as in China actively assisting Pakistan in a war situation — should be of great import as it is a strategically significant scenario reflecting today’s global reality which India would have to gear up for. The borders of northernmost India are in such a state that eternal vigil is an absolute national security requirement.
The benefit of holding an open debate among people’s representatives on the underlying grievances about the running of the day-to-day Parliament sessions was also spelt out. India’s version of an electoral democracy may be more refined if the diversity of opinions is allowed to be aired freely and more often. Both the ruling alliance and the Opposition must understand this.
