Operation Sindoor: A Security Move or a Political Football?

Paromita Das
GG News Bureau
New Delhi, 23rd May: It has become a political ritual in Bharat: the Congress party, once the dominant force of Bharatiya politics, now frequently positions itself as the default critic of every major strategic decision made by the Narendra Modi government. Whether it’s a military operation, diplomatic maneuver, or international outreach effort, the Congress finds fault. The recent controversy over Operation Sindoor—Bharat’s decisive military response to the Pahalgam terror attack—and the Modi government’s global diplomatic outreach plan, including sending all-party delegations abroad, has brought this political pattern into sharp focus.

Congress General Secretary Jairam Ramesh recently attacked Prime Minister Modi for not responding to former U.S. President Donald Trump’s repeated claims that he brokered a ceasefire between Bharat and Pakistan. Ramesh used Trump’s remarks to argue that Modi, the External Affairs Minister, and the National Security Advisor were conspicuously silent on a matter that could potentially dent Bharat’s image. But is this criticism rooted in facts, or is it yet another example of political grandstanding?

The Legacy of Congress: Inaction in the Face of Terror

To understand the current context, it’s important to revisit Congress’s own legacy in dealing with terrorism. During its last major stint in power (2004–2014), Bharat faced several brutal terror attacks: the 2005 Delhi bombings, the 2006 Mumbai train blasts, the 2008 Jaipur bombings, and the most infamous—the 26/11 Mumbai attacks in 2008.

These attacks not only exposed serious lapses in intelligence and security preparedness but also revealed the Congress-led UPA government’s reluctance to take any firm retaliatory action. Despite overwhelming public anger and global sympathy, the Congress response was characterized by restraint and an overwhelming dependence on “dialogue” and “diplomatic channels,” even when faced with clear evidence of cross-border terrorism.

This soft posture earned criticism both domestically and internationally. There was no equivalent of a surgical strike or airstrike in retaliation, and Pakistan-based perpetrators like Hafiz Saeed continued to mock Bharat openly. The government’s failure to decisively respond to the 26/11 attacks, in particular, left a deep scar on the national psyche.

A New Era: BJP’s Zero-Tolerance Policy

In contrast, the Modi-led BJP government has consistently demonstrated a zero-tolerance approach toward terrorism. From the 2016 surgical strikes following the Uri attack to the 2019 Balakot airstrikes after Pulwama, Bharat under Modi has shown it will no longer absorb terror attacks without a powerful response.

Operation Sindoor, launched after the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack that killed 26 civilians, is the latest example of this doctrine in action. Though details remain classified, credible sources suggest that the operation inflicted significant damage on terror camps in Pakistan-occupied territories. It was a swift, strategic response that conveyed Bharat’s willingness to retaliate proportionately yet decisively.

Yet rather than supporting this posture—which resonates with a nation that demands strength and security—Congress chose to question the motive behind the operation’s cessation. Jairam Ramesh cited Donald Trump’s controversial statement that he had “settled” the Bharat-Pakistan conflict through trade negotiations and claimed Modi’s silence indicated approval of this foreign narrative.

Trump’s Claim and Modi Government’s Strategic Silence

Donald Trump’s boast that he mediated peace between Bharat and Pakistan was met with swift official denial from the Ministry of External Affairs. Bharat reiterated its long-standing policy that any matters concerning Jammu and Kashmir would be dealt with bilaterally and without third-party intervention. The MEA clarified that Operation Sindoor was Bharat’s sovereign decision and that trade was never discussed during the operation timeline.

Still, Jairam Ramesh demanded a personal rebuttal from Modi, claiming that Trump’s remarks placed Bharat and Pakistan “on the same level”—something he deemed unacceptable. But the Modi government’s decision to stay above the media storm may well be strategic. Responding directly to Trump’s comment—made in a campaign-like setting—would only legitimize it further and derail the focus from Bharat’s actual military success.

Multi-Party Foreign Delegations: A Masterstroke or Diversion?

As part of a broader vision of diplomacy and soft power, the Modi government has announced plans to send multi-party delegations abroad. These are aimed at strengthening Bharat’s image globally and allowing members from across the political spectrum to participate in shaping foreign relations.

Congress, however, has dismissed this move as a “diversion” from the Trump controversy and the cessation of Operation Sindoor. Ramesh claimed it was an attempt by Modi to shift the national conversation. But such a view is shortsighted.

Sending all-party delegations enhances Bharat’s bipartisan credibility abroad. Involving leaders from various ideologies in international dialogue builds consensus on strategic matters and ensures continuity in foreign policy. Rather than opposing this, Congress should view it as an opportunity to contribute constructively and reclaim some diplomatic relevance.

The Real Issue: Congress’s Compulsive Opposition

The deeper issue at hand is not about one military operation or one foreign delegation. It is about Congress’s continued refusal to support national initiatives that demand unity. In the past, when in power, Congress failed to act decisively against terrorism. Now, when a government is acting, they question every move.

This compulsive contrarianism weakens not just the Congress party, but also Bharat’s democratic fabric. Constructive criticism is healthy and essential. But reflexive opposition—especially on matters of national security—undermines public confidence and provides unnecessary ammunition to adversaries.

Congress’s behavior also seems increasingly disconnected from public sentiment. The Bharatiya electorate has shown time and again that it supports strong leadership, decisive action, and assertive diplomacy. By questioning every operation, undermining military decisions, and casting doubt on Bharat’s foreign policy without offering viable alternatives, Congress risks further alienation.

From Passive to Proactive — The Shift Bharat Needed

Bharat’s approach to terrorism and diplomacy has shifted from passive reaction to proactive assertion. While the Congress party once hesitated to cross the line of restraint, the Modi government has drawn new red lines—and acted on them. Operation Sindoor is emblematic of a new Bharat that does not merely condemn terrorism with words but confronts it with calibrated force.

The Congress party, instead of constantly objecting, must introspect. It must ask why it failed to act decisively during its own tenure, and why it continues to oppose actions that align with Bharat’s long-term security and global stature. Unless it evolves from compulsive critic to constructive collaborator, it risks becoming politically irrelevant and morally unconvincing.

National security cannot be a battleground for petty politics. It must be the foundation of unity. Bharat deserves a strong opposition, but it deserves an even stronger commitment to the nation first. On that front, the Congress has much catching up to do.