The decisive action of Operation Sindoor, aimed at dismantling terror infrastructure and recalibrating regional dynamics, has undoubtedly reshaped India’s strategic landscape. While the nation largely stood united in its immediate aftermath, a familiar pattern is now emerging in the low-level political discourse, one that threatens to undermine the very spirit of national cohesion. This period, more than ever, necessitates a conscious effort from both the ruling party and the opposition to uphold the sanctity of political debate.
For some in the opposition, there’s a critical reminder: there’s a very thin line between criticism and cynicism.
Legitimate criticism is the bedrock of a healthy democracy. It involves thoughtful questioning, constructive suggestions, and holding the government accountable. However, when criticism devolves into baseless negativity and a constant questioning of motives, it crosses into cynicism. Post-Operation Sindoor, we’ve seen this manifest in various ways:
- Questioning the ceasefire motives: Despite the government’s categorical declarations of no external pressure, voices from the opposition have, at times, insinuated that the ceasefire was a result of pressure from entities like the US President. This kind of rhetoric, without concrete evidence, can undermine public confidence in the government’s sovereignty and decision-making during sensitive national security moments.
- Echoing adversary narratives: Remarks like “how many Rafales shot down?” by prominent opposition figures, especially when mirroring claims made by an adversarial nation, can be deeply problematic. Such statements, regardless of intent, are easily amplified by those seeking to destabilize the narrative and sow doubt about India’s military capabilities and the success of its operations.
- Personal attacks and demeaning portrayal: The proliferation of memes and social media content by some opposition supporters, depicting the Prime Minister in an “ugly pose” or resorting to overtly disrespectful and personal attacks, shifts the focus from policy debate to petty insults. This degrades the level of political discourse and fosters an environment of animosity rather than constructive dialogue.
Conversely, for some in the ruling party, the message is equally crucial: there’s also a thin line between patriotism and jingoism.
Patriotism is a deep and abiding love for one’s country. It’s about celebrating shared values and working for the common good. Post-Operation Sindoor, a surge of patriotic sentiment was natural. However, this sentiment can quickly mutate into jingoism when it becomes aggressive, exclusionary, and intolerant of dissent. This is often seen when:
- Deriding past governments’ actions: While drawing comparisons to highlight a current government’s perceived strengths is part of political strategy, constantly harping on past inactions, such as the perceived slow response of the Manmohan Singh government post-26/11 Mumbai attacks, can cross into jingoism. It implies that only the current dispensation possesses true patriotic resolve, dismissing the efforts and challenges faced by previous administrations. This not only trivializes complex historical events but also creates an ‘us vs. them’ narrative within the nation.
- Labeling dissent as anti-national: The tendency to quickly label any form of criticism or questioning of government actions, particularly on national security, as “anti-national” or “pro-Pakistan” is a hallmark of jingoism. This tactic stifles legitimate debate and creates an atmosphere of fear, discouraging nuanced discussion and alternative perspectives.
- Excessive chest-thumping and self-congratulation: While celebrating the success of operations like Sindoor is warranted, an over-the-top, constant projection of infallibility and superiority, sometimes accompanied by triumphalist rhetoric in public rallies, can border on jingoism. It can create a perception that national security is being politicized for electoral gains, rather than being treated as a serious, shared responsibility.
The moment both the ruling and opposition parties blur these critical lines – when criticism becomes cynicism, and patriotism morphs into jingoism – the politics of the nation becomes petty, divisive, and ultimately, ugly. Instead of constructive engagement and a shared vision for the future, we witness a relentless cycle of mud-slinging, character assassination, and an inability to find common ground, even on matters of national importance.
At such instances, there should be unwavering unity in the public sphere. When the nation faces external challenges or celebrates significant strategic achievements, political differences should be set aside for the greater good. The public looks to its leaders for guidance and a sense of shared purpose. When those leaders engage in petty squabbles and ideological dogmatism, it not only disillusions the electorate but also weakens the nation’s collective strength.
Operation Sindoor demonstrated India’s resolve on the global stage. Now, the challenge lies within, in upholding the integrity of our democratic discourse. It’s time for both sides of the political spectrum to reflect, course-correct, and remember that true strength lies not in relentless opposition or uncritical adoration, but in a mature, responsible, and unified approach to nation-building. Only then can we present a picture of India that is not only strong but also united and resilient.
