Opinion: Ceasefire, Trump, And Opposition’s Dilemma — Nationalism Vs Critique

The Pahalgam terror attack on April 22, which claimed 26 lives in Jammu and Kashmir, marked a grim turning point in India-Pakistan relations. India’s swift retaliation through Operation Sindoor, targeting terror camps across the border, showcased its resolve against terrorism. The operation, which reportedly eliminated over 100 terrorists, unified the nation, with opposition parties rallying behind the government in a rare display of solidarity. 

However, the announcement of a ceasefire on May 10 by US President Donald Trump, before any official statement from New Delhi, disrupted this unity. Trump’s claim of mediating the truce, coupled with Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s silence on US involvement, sparked a political firestorm. 

While the government insists the ceasefire was negotiated directly between the directors general of military operations (DGMOs) of India and Pakistan, opposition parties like Congress, Aam Aadmi Party, and the Left have raised pointed questions about transparency and sovereignty. They demand clarity on Trump’s role and whether India acquiesced to third-party mediation, a move that contradicts its long-standing policy on bilateral resolution of disputes, particularly concerning Kashmir. The Congress now is also questioning one statement by External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar that Pakistan was informed about the attack "beforehand". 

Meanwhile, opposition political parties like the Trinamool Congress, Rashtriya Janata Dal, Samajwadi Party, and others have continued to back the government. This is indeed the opposition’s dilemma: balancing nationalist support for India’s security measures with the need to critique the government’s evasive stance on the ceasefire. 

The fragility of opposition unity was once again laid bare by their impulsive reactions to the Centre’s sudden announcement of an all-party delegation for global outreach. Several parties erupted in protest, accusing the government of bypassing their recommendations and excluding senior leaders from the consultation process. The backlash wasn’t just about protocol — it revealed a deeper lack of coordination and strategic clarity within the opposition ranks, even on matters of global significance.

OPINION | Op Sindoor Has Introduced New War Strategy, But Kashmir Dispute Stuck In 1947

Unity In Crisis: Opposition’s Initial Response

The Pahalgam terror attack, the deadliest on civilians in over two decades, jolted the country and drew a swift, sharp response from PM Modi, who vowed to chase down the perpetrators “beyond their imagination”. The result: Operation Sindoor. Launched in the early hours of May 7, it struck nine terror camps linked to Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad, delivering a calibrated blow to Pakistan’s terror machinery.

What followed was rare: a fractured political landscape closing ranks in the face of national tragedy. From Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha and Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s unequivocal support to statements from AAP’s Sanjay Singh, the Left, TMC, and SP leaders — all echoed solidarity, toning down rhetoric and aligning behind the armed forces. The I.N.D.I.A bloc’s restraint was telling, especially in the heat of election season, and evoked memories of 2001, when Parliament was attacked and partisan lines blurred in the interest of national security.

The Congress, despite BJP’s habitual chest-thumping, refrained from politicising the issue. The moment revealed a matured political instinct — an understanding that terror demands unity, not point-scoring. Modi, in his post-operation address, struck a tone of resolve, dismissing both terror and Pakistan’s nuclear blackmail. Operation Sindoor did more than dismantle camps — it stirred a moment of rare national coherence, one that India badly needed.

OPINION | Op Sindoor Not Just A Military Response, It's A Meticulously Crafted Diplomatic Messaging

And then, The Dilemma

Though these opposition parties put up a united front, they asked some tough questions also to the government and demanded accountability.

And this split response encapsulates a broader dilemma in Indian politics: how to critique the government without appearing to weaken national resolve. Congress, AAP, and the Left risk being portrayed as obstructing India’s fight against terrorism, a narrative the BJP has deftly exploited. The BJP’s call for the opposition to refrain from “unwarranted questions” until Operation Sindoor concludes reinforces this trap. 

Yet, the demand for transparency is legitimate. The government’s refusal to clarify Trump’s role, coupled with reports of Pakistani ceasefire violations hours after the agreement, raises valid concerns about the truce’s terms and durability. 

The government’s delegate selections for global outreach after Operation Sindoor have also left the opposition exposed — less for ideological differences and more for internal confusion. Congress found itself cornered when Shashi Tharoor, seen as sympathetic to the government’s stand, was chosen over their official nominee Gaurav Gogoi. Despite nominating four MPs, only Anand Sharma made the cut, prompting a cryptic comment from Jairam Ramesh about “loyalty".

The party’s hesitance to challenge Tharoor’s inclusion outright reveals its deeper struggle: how to assert discipline without appearing unpatriotic. Meanwhile, the TMC withdrew Yusuf Pathan after Mamata Banerjee wasn’t consulted, signaling a turf war over political autonomy. Both parties support Operation Sindoor publicly, but the Centre’s unilateralism forced them into an uncomfortable balancing act between national interest and party control. In a charged nationalist atmosphere, these episodes underscore a bigger challenge for the opposition — staying relevant without losing coherence or control.

ALSO READ ON ABP LIVE | US Has ‘Intervened’ At Least 5 Times Since 1980s During Flare-Ups Between India And Pakistan

Opposition’s Critique

Congress, AAP, and the Left seized on the government’s evasiveness to demand accountability. Congress leaders like Rahul Gandhi and Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge called for a special Parliament session to discuss the Pahalgam attack, Operation Sindoor, and the ceasefire.

They questioned whether Modi had allowed US interference, with Congress leaders labeling Trump’s announcement “unprecedented” and a possible breach of the Simla Agreement. AAP leaders went further, accusing the government of “betraying” India by halting Operation Sindoor prematurely, potentially squandering a chance to reclaim Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. 

Left parties, including the CPI and CPIM, expressed concern over reported US involvement, arguing that Kashmir remains a bilateral issue. These parties framed their critique as a defence of India’s sovereignty, accusing Modi of diplomatic weakness. Congress, in particular, contrasted Modi’s silence with Indira Gandhi’s defiance during the 1971 war, positioning itself as the guardian of national pride. 

With the Bihar elections on the horizon, the Congress faces high stakes as a familiar wave of nationalism resurfaces in the wake of Operation Sindoor. Historically, such moments have politically benefitted the BJP, which is once again positioning itself to ride the sentiment. Yet, to pin the blame of politicisation solely on the opposition would be misleading.

The government’s decision to brief only BJP chief ministers on the operation is itself a calculated political move. The party’s planned Tiranga Yatras across states further reinforce its bid to channel patriotic fervour into electoral advantage.

Caught in this tide, the Congress is seeking a counter-narrative. Rahul Gandhi’s invocation of alleged US involvement is part of a broader attempt to revive his longstanding claim that the Modi government operates under American influence. The Congress’s “Jai Hind” rally, questioning foreign entanglement, is designed to push back against the BJP’s nationalist framing. He is also questioning now governments' alleged stand on informing Pakistan prior to the operation Sindoor. 

For the AAP, which has limited electoral stakes at present, this is an opportunity to amplify its role as the BJP’s most strident critic. The Left, predictably, maintains its anti-American posture — a consistent ideological line rather than an electoral calculation.

OPINION | Getting PoK Back Won't Destroy India's Economy — Might Actually Save It

The Loyal Opposition

In contrast, TMC, RJD and SP maintained their support for the government, wary of being seen as soft on security. TMC leader Mamata Banerjee and SP’s Akhilesh Yadav refrained from questioning the ceasefire, focusing instead on condemning the Pahalgam attack and praising the armed forces. This stance aligned with their regional voter bases, where nationalism often trumps partisan critique. 

However, a brief rupture occurred in Banerjee's party when TMC MP Saugata Roy demanded proof of India’s strikes on Pakistan, echoing skepticism about surgical strikes in the past. The TMC swiftly distanced itself, clarifying that Roy’s views did not reflect the party line, underscoring its commitment to national unity. 

This incident highlighted the delicate balance regional parties navigate: supporting the government to avoid being labeled anti-national while addressing internal pressures for transparency. The SP, similarly, avoided confrontation, with Yadav emphasising solidarity over scrutiny. These parties’ restraint reflects a strategic calculation: challenging Modi on security could backfire in a climate where public sentiment favors decisive action against Pakistan.

With the Bihar assembly elections due this year, followed by West Bengal in 2026 and Uttar Pradesh in 2027, the political stakes for the opposition are enormous — and explain their measured response to Operation Sindoor.

In Bihar, the RJD leads the opposition alliance but cannot afford to alienate NDA-leaning voters, many of whom back Nitish Kumar’s JD(U) rather than the BJP. Taking a hard stance against the nationalistic mood could backfire, pushing swing voters firmly into the NDA camp.

In Bengal, Mamata Banerjee faces rising anti-incumbency. The BJP’s well-worn narrative against her — of minority appeasement — could gain renewed traction if she appears critical of a counter-terror operation. The TMC, after all, draws substantial support from Hindu voters as well. A shift in that demographic could make 2026 an uphill battle for Banerjee. However, Mamata Banerjee drew a clear line when it came to the Centre’s unilateral nomination of Yusuf Pathan to the all-party delegation — one that bypassed her entirely. Unlike the Congress, which chose a cautious silence, Banerjee pushed back, asserting that no MP from her party would join such a delegation without her consent. It wasn’t just a political move; it was a principled stand. In an era where many opposition leaders tread carefully to avoid being painted as “anti-national”, Banerjee’s response was less about strategy and more about protecting political autonomy and respect.

The stakes are no less significant for Akhilesh Yadav in Uttar Pradesh. The Samajwadi Party, which hopes to regain ground in the 2027 polls, is also wary of being cast as anti-national if it challenges the government’s narrative too sharply.

In this atmosphere, silence or symbolic support becomes a tactical necessity for regional players — not an ideological shift, but political survival.

The author teaches journalism at St. Xavier’s College (autonomous), Kolkata.

[Disclaimer: The opinions, beliefs, and views expressed by the various authors and forum participants on this website are personal and do not reflect the opinions, beliefs, and views of ABP Network Pvt. Ltd.]

blog