Should the desire to make the Indian government look bad go to the extent that a national victory should be projected as a defeat? Should conjecture override hard facts? Is the logic behind the launch of Operation Sindoor and the subsequent ceasefire so hard to understand? It is possible that the opposition parties do not want the Modi Government to get the credit for a significant blow against Pakistan, but does it require criticism that undoes the very purpose of the operation? If the Pakistani establishment obtains endorsement from the Indian opposition of its claim that the operation did not achieve its objectives, it will be able to convince its people that its anti-India strategy is working. In fact, claims have been made that the terrorist attack in Pahalgam was carried out by a local outfit, which Pakistan can now flaunt as proof of its non-involvement.
This is what the discussion in Parliament on Operation Sindoor has turned out to be. Congress leaders who would have taken a balanced approach keeping these aspects in mind were benched by the leadership, which seems convinced that the people will be pleased with the content of its criticism. Is that what the party believes the people are?
It would have been far better if, instead of all the noise about the operation, the opposition had treated it as ‘normal’, worthy of support but not requiring much comment. Why take on the government where it is on high ground? There are certainly some legitimate questions that people are concerned about, and briefings could have been sought from the government behind closed doors on subjects like loss of fighter aircraft, the role of China and Turkey, intelligence failure regarding Pahalgam, etc.
It is not surprising, therefore, that the Treasury benches are getting the better of the opposition in such debates, when looked at from an objective point of view. It will turn out the same when the SIR issue is taken up. There is no doubt that the opposition unity, however tacky as it may be, has provided electoral gains, but it has had more to do with mutual transfer of already existing support, rather than the addition of voters. If it is believed that the radical ideological positions being taken on divisive issues are providing benefits, they are mistaken. If the party ideologues are unable to work this out, then they will have to learn the hard way.
