PEOPLE on both sides of the border were relieved. The four-day-long military engagement between India and Pakistan came to a close on the late afternoon of May 10. Despite this, gunshots were heard late in the night. But later, the DGMOs of both countries confirmed that the ceasefire has held and war clouds have receded for now.
However, these three weeks have unfolded a sequence of developments which is dramatic, unraveling a disastrous pattern in South Asia. The chain of events began with the grotesque killing of 26 people, including a local Kashmiri pony handler who sacrificed his life to save innocent tourists. It is clear that the terrorist attack was conducted targeting tourists choosing victims based on religious profiling. Evidence furnished by the army clearly establishes the involvement of Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), who were in telephonic communication with the killers. If anything was left to imagination, the subsequent military engagement brought out images of the terrorists who had fallen being honoured by the Pakistani establishment.
With this reality laid bare, there was no other option but to initiate punitive action. The remarkable unity of the people – justifiably outraged – was widely evident. Political parties in the country offered support to the government for the anti-terror operation. However, it was abundantly made clear that the actions would be directed against the terrorists and not at launching an all-out war.
It was at this point that an obnoxious campaign of hate started – directed against Kashmiris particularly, and at Muslims in general. The long-nurtured infrastructure of hate was activated. Muslims, and for that matter, anyone who expressed their opposition to this move towards all-out war, were targeted. In many ways, this was waiting to happen.
Thankfully, the armed forces conducted themselves in a manner that underlined that their aim was to dismantle the infrastructure of terror, and not to act against the Pakistani people or establishment. Therefore, the media briefings by representatives of the armed forces were professional, emphasizing this objective. Obviously, this enraged the peddlers of hate. What also became clear was the ominous silence maintained by the political leadership of the government to these hate-driven actions.
People on both sides of the border were yearning for an end to military engagements. It was clear that those living in forward areas of the country, the common people, were getting hurt. People in Poonch and Rajouri had to bear the brunt. Students, and migrant workers were the biggest casualties. Eventually, the ceasefire was to be enforced before sundown.
It is at this point that the mystery unraveled. Before any official announcement, a tweet by the US President Donald Trump declared that both sides had agreed to a ceasefire mediated by his administration. This put the Indian government in a spot of bother, particularly given the prime minister's absence from two rounds of all-party meetings. Clearly, the official narrative was not convincing.
Against this backdrop, the collective demand of the opposition to summon a special session of Parliament to discuss this entire development emerged. The government was on the back foot. Narendra Modi, who had started his journey as the prime minister with his familiar flourish of bowing down on the stairs of the Parliament House, paying his obeisance to ‘the temple of democracy’ went silent. We need not go into the record of the last decade to examine this shift. But the imperative of summoning the parliament session stands out. The imperial announcement of Trump punctured Modi’s posturings.
In any case, the government had to act. But despite the support from the opposition, the government was wary of facing the Parliament, and the obvious questions which would be raised and ought to be raised in a functioning democracy.
To avoid potential embarrassment, the prime minister chose to bypass Parliament and instead addressed the nation directly. But the next decisive jolt came from the prime minister’s avowed friend, Donald Trump. He laid bare the sequence of events that led to the ceasefire where both the Indian and the Pakistani governments were forced to accept the severance of military hostilities. These two interventions by Trump exposed the government and its inability to stand up to pressure. The Pakistani establishment was blessed with the quick acceptance of their request for $1 billion loan. With the Pakistani armed forces at the helm of affairs where this money will go is anybody’s guess!
The tragedy is that the options suggested by the opposition – namely, that apart from military action, other avenues such as diplomacy should be explored – were ignored. The outcome of ignoring this advice is now evident to all. India was the only member of the 25-member IMF Executive Board to abstain from voting. Despite the evidence of Pakistan sponsored terrorist act, the granting of the loan was unanimous.
This damning situation was further buttressed by Trump just hours ahead of the prime minister’s national address. There he did not leave anything to imagination, citing how issues of finance and trade were the levers that the US exercised to force the two neighbours to submission.
So there was no reference to the Indian casualties, no demand for the extradition of the perpetrators of the Pahalgam attack, not to speak of the extreme stress faced by common Indian citizens. This has only underlined our pathetic state.
Given that the terrorists were actively attempting to trigger communal polarisation – as candidly admitted by the foreign secretary – it was imperative that the battle against hate become an integral part of the broader fight against terrorism. But alas, the Hindutva brigade’s infrastructure of hate was baying for blood. They were not prepared to accept this outcome and their rage was palpable. On the evening of May 8th, they went on a rampage, with even sections of the mainstream media complicit in peddling pure fiction. This was further amplified by social media hate-mongers on the scale of destruction in Pakistan.
This hurt the interests of the country, bringing down the standing of India in the international community. Therefore, the foreign secretary and the armed forces’ spokespersons had to painstakingly explain that India was a secular country and was a functioning democracy. Therefore, it is not surprising that they targeted the foreign secretary, unable to question the ‘leader’. After Himanshi Narwal, the foreign secretary was exposed to the most obnoxious trolling.
The only way to emerge from this crisis is for the government to come forward with candid explanations. The orchestrated, one-sided exhortations by the prime minister cannot be a substitute for a structured discussion and debate in Parliament. This is the bare minimum standard of accountability in a functioning democracy.
Meanwhile, the unfolding pattern reveals a disturbing new savagery with which US imperialism is reasserting itself in South Asia. This is a situation fraught with grave dangers for the Indian people. Now is the time to redouble our resolve and determination to confront this menace head-on.
(May 14, 2025)
or reload the browser
