Vital to build on Operation Sindoor gains

A preliminary review suggests that Operation Sindoor was largely successful in realising the objectives laid down for the Indian armed forces. India’s resolute military action, which targeted terror sites in Pakistan in response to the dastardly Pahalgam terror attack, was launched on May 7; a cessation of hostilities was announced on May 10.

The defence forces are to be commended for carrying out this operation effectively despite constraints and uncertainties, particularly those related to the strategic threshold, given that India and Pakistan are both nuclear-armed nations.

Op Sindoor, a display of political acumen, resolve and restraint by PM Narendra Modi, sent a strong message of deterrence to the perpetrators and handlers of terrorism across the border. But challenges in the foreign and domestic domains need to be addressed.

The Indian narrative about Op Sindoor is one of righteous triumphalism prevailing in the face of state-sponsored terrorism nurtured by a devious Pakistan. Indian parliamentary delegations are conveying this message abroad to cynical audiences that remain ambivalent about the Indian narrative. China and some other nations have been more than sympathetic to the adversary, as testified by the grant of an IMF loan to Islamabad during Op Sindoor.

The next challenge will be in June when the Financial Action Task Force meets. New Delhi will seek to have Pakistan placed on the grey list for abetting terrorism. The outcome of the meeting will be a bellwether about the degree to which the global community is on the same page as India regarding state-sponsored terrorism in South Asia.

In the domestic context, a disturbing sociopolitical trend is discernible. Are the very voices that vociferously supported the government and who were nurtured through dog whistles to target the minorities now bucking the leash? How else does one explain the deafening silence from the government and its band of cheerleaders (who are usually quick to applaud or denounce, depending on the signal from the top) over unsavoury controversies in recent weeks?

The aftermath of Pahalgam/Op Sindoor has created complex challenges for India’s internal security, societal harmony and restoration of normalcy in Kashmir. The mood in the country has become virulently polarised, with shrill nationalist rhetoric inundating the discourse. Coarse outbursts on social media and TV channels are illustrative. Deeply embedded resentment against Kashmiri Muslims in particular has come to the fore.

Targeting the ‘other’ has become staple fare in the electoral dynamics of most democracies in recent years. The spread of social media has served to amplify this trend in a dangerous manner. The immigrant worker in the US and Europe and the minorities in India have been at the receiving end.

Stoking majoritarian sentiment by projecting the ‘other’ or ‘outsider’ as a threat to national security may result in tactical victories and short-term electoral gains. But this collective frenzy that abjures human values such as empathy can acquire its own ugly autonomy — as recent events have demonstrated.

Days after the Pahalgam massacre, Himanshi Narwal, the young widow of a naval officer, was hounded by trolls after she pleaded for justice and calm. Vile personal insinuations were made against her. No institution or senior government functionary stood by her. The mob had prevailed.

When Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri, the seniormost Indian diplomat, announced the ceasefire, he was vilified and aspersions were cast on his daughter’s patriotism. This was absurd as Misri was only speaking on behalf of the government, yet nobody in South Block stood by the civil servant for fear of angering the irate mob that wanted the hostilities to continue.

Col Sofiya Qureshi, who briefed the media on Op Sindoor, was referred to as a “sister of terrorists” by a minister in BJP-ruled Madhya Pradesh. Little or no censure followed, and it has been explained away as a “linguistic mistake”. Virtually the same stand is being adopted over a BJP MP who has questioned the bravery of the Pahalgam widows.

History reminds us that the mob has been cynically harnessed through the millennia to consolidate elite power, but this has progressively corroded the entrails of the empire and the state. Edward Gibbon, in his magisterial work The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, examines the role of the mob in Rome in relation to the political and social dynamics of the republic and the empire.

Gibbon avers that the Roman mob (plebs urbana), when enraged, could be volatile and unpredictable. It was capable of both uncritical loyalty to the Emperor and destructive unrest, if not engaged or entertained. Normative civic virtues were abandoned by the collective onslaught of the masses — which could no longer be controlled — and the spirit of the republic steadily weakened, resulting in the decline of the Roman empire.

The brazen use of abusive language by an Indian TV panellist against the Iranian Foreign Minister is a case in point. The Indian mob has donned the mantle of shrill majoritarian nationalism and casts terrorism in emotive binaries, wherein Indian Muslims are presumed to be harbouring jihadi inclinations. Are we allowing this mob to become a force unto itself to spread hatred and poison in the societal fabric? This would advance the long-held objective of the adversary to undermine India’s socio-religious harmony.

Op Sindoor is in pause mode. As its impact on the mentors of cross-border terrorism in Rawalpindi is awaited, Delhi has to convince the international community about the integrity of its anti-terrorism narrative and concurrently ensure that the domestic discourse stays within the constitutional framework.

C Uday Bhaskar is Director, Society for Policy Studies.

Comments