– Abdul Bari Masoud
In the relentless churn of political grandstanding and slogan-shouting that often defines India’s Parliament, the debate on Operation Sindoor was meant to be a rare moment of serious national introspection. Instead, it became a sobering display of evasions, contradictions, and silences – none more deafening than that of Prime Minister Narendra Modi himself.
The Pahalgam terror attack on April 22, which left 26 civilians dead, shocked the nation. In response, the government announced Operation Sindoor – a purportedly decisive military action targeting terror camps allegedly backed by Pakistan. But as the details emerged, the operation began to look less like a show of strength and more like an elaborate political theatre. Its abrupt halt, vague outcomes, and the government’s aggressive attempts to control the narrative triggered an avalanche of questions across both Houses.
What should have been a solemn and clear articulation of strategy, intelligence, and policy turned into a storm of government opacity versus Opposition outrage. And when the moment called for leadership, the PM’s chair remained conspicuously empty.
Gogoi’s Rebuke
Among the most piercing voices in the Lok Sabha was Congress MP Gaurav Gogoi, who scathingly critiqued the government for turning Parliament into a PR studio. “This House is not a green room for your public relations machinery. It is the highest forum of the Republic, and it demands answers.”
Gogoi questioned the constitutional process behind the operation. Was the Cabinet Committee on Security consulted? Was there a formal military strategy approved? Or was the operation greenlit by a political command centre more concerned with electoral image-building than national defence?
His questions were echoed by others, but government ministers either sidestepped them or contradicted each other, amplifying the perception of disorder within the ruling establishment.
“Operation Sindoor Was to Defend Modi, Not India”
Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi mounted the most striking takedown of the government’s handling of Operation Sindoor. Calling it a “cosmetic strike for optics”, Gandhi accused the Modi government of manipulating military action to protect the Prime Minister’s image.
“This entire operation was not to defend India. It was to defend the image of Prime Minister Narendra Modi.”
He contrasted the operation with the 1971 Indo-Pak war under Indira Gandhi, citing her courage and Field Marshal Sam Manekshaw’s operational independence.
Gandhi’s most damning claim came from quoting Defence Attaché Captain Shiv Kumar, who said that Indian aircraft were lost due to restrictions imposed by the political leadership.
“The Defence Minister himself admitted that our military was told not to escalate, not to strike air defence systems, and was forced to halt action just 30 minutes after it began. You tied their hands behind their backs,” he said.
He concluded with a dramatic challenge: “If you have even 50% of Indira Gandhi’s courage, come here and tell Donald Trump that he’s lying. Say it in Parliament that Trump didn’t broker the ceasefire.”
SP chief Akhilesh Yadav questioned the strategic clarity of Operation Sindoor, raising concern over the timing and intent. “The people of India want to know – was this a tactical strike or a political drama? If it was a real military operation, why was it stopped abruptly?”
He noted that under the BJP, national security had become a tool for electoral gain, not genuine policy. “Every time an election nears, suddenly there’s a new narrative of nationalism,” Yadav remarked, demanding transparency on who made the call to pause the strike. He also questioned the timing of the operation Mahadev as the government claimed killing of three terrorists involved in Pahalgam attack.
DMK MP Kanimozhi used the moment to link national security with the broader marginalisation of democratic accountability, minorities, and women.
“In every national crisis, three things are missing: women’s voices, minority safety, and the truth. Today, all three are missing in this debate.”
She criticised the lack of clarity on civilian protections, questioning whether local populations were warned or evacuated prior to the operation. She also noted that the Home Ministry had not issued any proper statement on the internal security lapse.
“Parliament Was Misled”
In the Rajya Sabha, SS(UBT) leader Sanjay Raut accused the government of misleading Parliament by dressing up a half-done airstrike as a full-scale military victory. “This government used smoke and mirrors. They wanted applause for a trailer, not for a real movie.”
Raut warned that manufacturing narratives around military action could have disastrous long-term consequences for India’s strategic credibility. “Our soldiers deserve clarity, not chaos. We must not reduce the military to a PR tool.”
“This Is Not New India. This Is News India.”
AAP MP Sanjay Singh lambasted the government’s media-first approach to governance. “Operation Sindoor was first reported on television screens and WhatsApp forwards – before Parliament was informed. This is not New India. This is News India.”
Singh also grilled the government over its failure to secure intelligence in Kashmir during peak tourist season. “How can militants roam freely, ask for people’s religion, and execute them? What was the Home Minister doing?”
“Operation Spin-door, Not Sindoor”
Trinamool MPs staged coordinated interventions across both Houses, dismissing the operation as “Operation Spin-door,” a politically motivated stunt. One senior TMC leader said, “The only thing red here is not the sindoor of martyrdom, but the red lines crossed by this government in misusing defence for political propaganda.”
TMC MP Saugata Roy noted how even regional leaders were not briefed before the operation, breaching federal norms.
Opening the debate in the lower house, Defence Minister Rajnath Singh tried to defend the government’s stand, insisting the military had achieved its goals and the operation was only “paused.”
Yet, when interrupted by Rahul Gandhi’s piercing “Aapne roki kyun?” (Why did you halt it?), Singh didn’t answer. His refusal set the tone for the rest of the debate: defensive, dismissive, and evasive.
Statements from Jaishankar and Amit Shah further muddied the waters. Jaishankar cited “diplomatic success,” but no country had publicly condemned Pakistan. Instead, Trump was seen having lunch with Pakistan’s General Muneer – a moment Rahul Gandhi mockingly described as “the true diplomacy of New India.”
Congress leader K.C. Venugopal tore into the Home Ministry’s silence, pointing to repeated terror attacks in J&K under BJP rule. “From Pulwama to Rajouri, the pattern is clear. Terrorists are targeting pilgrims and minorities. Intelligence is failing, but no one is taking responsibility.”
He accused the government of turning terror victims into communal symbols, echoing a wider concern that nationalism is being fused with majoritarianism.
Modi’s Absence
Across both Houses, the most discussed and lamented figure was the one who never showed up – Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
In a session defined by its focus on military strategy, national mourning, and cross-border retaliation, Modi neither inaugurated the debate nor chose to respond. His silence, Opposition leaders said, was not just personal – but institutional.
“He can campaign, tweet, host ‘Mann ki Baat’, but can’t face Parliament? Is that the hallmark of leadership?” a senior MP remarked off-record.
In the words of one TMC MP, “When the nation demanded answers, the Prime Minister gave a photoshoot.”
What Operation Sindoor ultimately exposed was a government that has grown uncomfortable with scrutiny, allergic to questions, and adept at substituting symbolism for substance. The Modi government may claim it struck a blow against terror, but the Opposition insists that it did so without courage, without clarity, and without constitutional accountability.
This tension between democratic oversight and authoritarian posturing is the defining characteristic of the Modi era. And it was on vivid, disturbing display in Parliament this week.
