EIGHT QUESTIONS TO THE NARENDRA MODI GOVERNMENT AFTER A TERROR ATTACK, AN OPERATION AND A CEASEFIRE

Narendra Modi came on television on the evening of May 12 and told the nation that Pakistan had begged for a ceasefire, and that India had conceded because it had already destroyed terrorist infrastructure and because Islamabad had promised to behave henceforth.

Around the same time, Donald Trump was telling a White House press briefing he had threatened to stop trade with India and Pakistan if they did not agree to a ceasefire, and so they did. He described both countries as “unwavering” at first. “I said, ‘C’mon. We’re going to do a lot of trade with you guys. Let’s stop it, let’s stop it. If you stop it, we’ll do trade. If you don’t stop it, we will not do trade…. And all of a sudden, they said: ‘I think we’re going to stop.’ And they have.”

Whatever the truth, the ceasefire between India and Pakistan that was first announced to the world by the US President on Saturday holds as of now. With the guns silenced, it is time to take stock and try to make sense of the developments of the past weeks. We could begin by asking some questions:

__________________________________________________________________________

https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaAtNxX8fewmiFmN7N22

__________________________________________________________________________

Why did Operation Sindoor have to be launched?

We know it was action taken in retaliation to the massacre of 26 innocent men in front of their families in Pahalgam. The evil attack could not have been allowed to pass. India had to respond, and it chose to do so with military action.

But how did the attack in Pahalgam take place? From the survivors’ accounts, we have learnt that there were hundreds of tourists in Baisaran Valley, inside an area that is fenced and ticketed, on the afternoon of April 22 when the gunmen struck; and that there was no security presence anywhere in the vicinity.

The terrorists, whose number has been put at four, took their time to pick their victims. ‘Hindu or Muslim?’ they asked, before shooting. Some were asked to recite the Kalma. The wives of the men shot were told to go back and tell the government what had been done to them. This was not a shoot-and-scoot attack.

“They knew they had all the time in the world, they knew no help would come. We had been left there as orphans by our government,” Aishanya, whose husband Shubham was a victim, told an interviewer. Srishti said her brother Lt Vinay Narwal was alive for an hour and a half after being shot, and cried: “He could have been saved had help come in time, but no help came.”

Why was Baisaran left unguarded? In a place that attracts hundreds of tourists, why was there no security arrangement? As Shital, whose husband Shailesh Kalathiya was killed, asked a minister: “Why is there so much security for VIPs, and none for taxpayers?”

Had the Indian government, which directly governs the Union territory of Jammu and Kashmir, taken adequate security measures, the tourists in Baisaran would have been safe. And there would be no need for Operation Sindoor.

Why were Indians killed in Pakistani shelling?

The terror attack on April 22 killed 26 people. Pakistani firing in retaliation to Operation Sindoor has killed at least 20 people in and around their homes or workplaces in Jammu and Kashmir. Among the dead were four children: 13-year-old Vihaan, 12-year-old twins Zain and Zoya, and 7-year-old Maryam.

The question is: Why did the government not evacuate the vulnerable areas before launching Operation Sindoor?

It was only expected that Pakistan would hit back against any Indian action. Since the timing of Operation Sindoor was of India’s choosing, what prevented the government from first moving families on the border to safety and then ordering the air strikes?

Who should we hold accountable for these deaths? What about the sindoor of the women whose husbands were killed in the shelling? And the pain of the families that lost young children?

Whose decision was the ceasefire?

The ceasefire was announced not by India or Pakistan, but by President Trump. Confirming it afterwards, Pakistan acknowledged the role of the US while India did not mention it at all. Prime Minister Modi told the country that Pakistan had begged for the ceasefire through its DGMO and India had conceded the request. If this was so, if indeed the ceasefire was a decision made by India, why was the announcement made in the US?

The world community does get involved and does counsel peace whenever there is conflict anywhere, and friendly nations do mediate. But the decision and its announcement are the sole prerogative of the countries involved. Why did India, a sovereign nation, cede this space to Washington?

The statement put out by the US President on Saturday said: “After a long night of talks mediated by the United States, I am pleased to announce that India and Pakistan have agreed to a FULL AND IMMEDIATE CEASEFIRE. Congratulations to both Countries on using Common Sense and Great Intelligence. Thank you for your attention to this matter!”

Apart from the fact that a third country was making an announcement on India’s behalf, this statement is troubling also because it clubs India and Pakistan together. India was the victim of a monstrous terror attack, and exercised its right to retaliate. Yet it was equated with the country where the terrorists train and are sheltered.

Trump further said, “I will work with you both to see if, ‘after a thousand years’, a solution can be arrived at concerning Kashmir.”

India has always held that Kashmir is an internal issue and that there is no room for third-party interference. Is US mediation now acceptable to the Modi government?

The memes that have followed, asking Trump to help remove high GST on this or that article or seeking his intervention to speed up stalled infrastructure projects, might look frivolous but these capture the essence and the enormity of what has just happened.

And then came Trump’s statement on Monday telling the world how he had got India and Pakistan to fall in line, and would now reward them. “We’re going to do a lot of trade with Pakistan, we’re going to do a lot of trade with India,” he said.

Will the Indian government, elected to speak for 1.4 billion people, make itself heard?

Where are the killers of Pahalgam?

Operation Sindoor was launched in response to the deaths in Pahalgam. But the four killers are yet to be brought to justice. Where are they and why have they not been caught yet? Why didn’t India demand that Pakistan hand them over before conceding the ceasefire?

Has Operation Sindoor succeeded?

This question has to be asked because it was the US that called the operation to a halt. Perhaps the government will answer it in Parliament, which it must face. On Monday, the Prime Minister only said that India had destroyed terrorist infrastructure and eliminated many terrorists. He also said Operation Sindoor would now be a ‘new normal’ in the battle against terrorism, alongside the surgical strikes and the air strikes.

For those who might have forgotten, the surgical strikes were launched across the Line of Control in 2016 after 19 Indian soldiers were killed in a terror attack in Uri and the air strikes were launched across the border into Balakot in 2019 after 40 Indian soldiers were killed in another terror attack at Pulwama.

What happened to the Pulwama investigation?

Six years have passed since 40 Indian soldiers were killed in an attack on a CRPF convoy in Pulwama. As much as 200kg of explosives was smuggled in and stored undetected, the soldiers were sent by bus rather than by aircraft, and the road had not been sanitised. Clearly, there was a huge intelligence lapse and a huge security lapse. No one was held accountable. After a repeat of the lapses in Pahalgam, can we expect the answers on Pulwama?

Has India lost any aircraft during Operation Sindoor?

Asked about reports in the international media that India had lost fighter jets, including Rafale, foreign secretary Misri said the information would be shared when the time is right. When will the time be right? The head of air operations of the Indian Air Force told a press briefing that there had been “some losses” but declined to provide specifics at this time.

Should India be like Russia or North Korea, where citizens are fed only news that is palatable and not allowed to see the full picture? In any conflict, there will be gains and losses. A mature democracy would be able to take the bad news in its stride, make corrections and carry on. Transparency is a hallmark of democracy.

Will anyone be held accountable?

Once upon a time in India, ministers would be held accountable for lapses on their watch, whether it was railway accidents or security breaches. After 26/11, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had apologised to the nation for the failure to prevent the attack. His home minister and the Maharashtra chief minister resigned. After the attacks on Pathankot, Uri, Pulwama and now Pahalgam, will Prime Minister Modi hold anyone in his government accountable? Is it enough to avenge attacks? Should a government’s aim not be to prevent attacks?

The questions are many, but in the response to the heinous attack in Pahalgam, there are also some heartening takeaways that must be acknowledged.

The families of the tourists killed resisted getting swept up in the Hindu-Muslim hate narrative and drew a distinction between the terrorists who had destroyed their lives and the ordinary Kashmiri Muslims who stood with them.

Himanshi Narwal, whose photograph sitting helpless by the body of her husband made her the face of the Pahalgam tragedy, articulated it best when she said: “Of course we want justice. Of course, the killers must be punished. But we do not want hate against Kashmiris and against Muslims. We want peace and only peace.” Arathy R. Menon, who lost her father N. Ramachandran, said she had found brothers in the two Kashmiri cab drivers who had waited with her family outside the morgue at 3am. Many others gratefully remembered how ponywallahs had risked their own lives to help them.

One of the 26 dead was a ponywallah, Syed Adil Hussain Shah, a 29-year-old who sacrificed his life to protect tourists. Adil was a Kashmiri Muslim, not a Hindu tourist who the terrorists were targeting. He could have easily kept quiet and stayed out of harm. Instead, he tried to snatch a terrorist’s gun and was killed.

The survivors also asked why the government had not ensured security, bringing back the question of accountability in public life which the middle class seemed to have all but forgotten in the past decade. Breaking down again and again in front of the camera, Anushka Mone, whose husband Atul was shot dead, said: “It is a tourist spot, there should have been security.” Shital Kalathiya addressed the question directly to a minister who had gone to attend her husband’s funeral in Surat.

During Operation Sindoor, foreign secretary Misri was a reassuring presence at the daily briefings. Measured and fuss-free, he spoke of how Indians had foiled the terrorists’ attempt to divide us, gave Pakistan a slap in the face when he said citizens in democracies routinely criticise their governments, and took questions. The choice of two women soldiers, one Muslim and one Hindu, to address the briefings reflected an official effort to present a united face.

It is in this unity, diversity, courage and accountability that India’s strength lies. It is here that neither Pakistan nor China can ever compete with us. Let us hope that in Pahalgam and its aftermath, we have rediscovered our strength and will not let it slip away.