When Mockery Replaces Debate: Operation Sindoor and the Crisis of Credibility

Paromita Das

New Delhi, 30th July: In Bharat’s democratic setup, ministers sworn into office take oaths that bind them to truth and constitutional duty. When Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar or Home Minister Amit Shah speak on national security, their words are not mere political opinions—they represent the state’s highest responsibility. Yet, during the ongoing parliamentary session centered on Operation Sindoor, a disturbing trend has reemerged: the opposition’s refusal to believe the sworn word of Bharat’s own ministers, demanding instead validation from foreign entities or presidents.

Why Is Ministerial Trust Eroding?

At the heart of this controversy is not just a disagreement over facts, but a deepening distrust that borders on institutional rejection. The Ministry of Home Affairs and the Ministry of External Affairs provided detailed briefings on Operation Sindoor—Bharat’s tactical response to the Pahalgam terror attack, which claimed the lives of 26 pilgrims. Yet, instead of acknowledging the information shared by constitutionally responsible figures, sections of the opposition sought external validation, implicitly questioning Bharat’s internal credibility.

This is more than political opposition—it suggests a dangerous tilt toward outsourcing national truth to foreign governments, instead of relying on internal democratic mechanisms.

Mockery in Parliament: The Kalyan Banerjee Episode

The discussion took a turn for the worse when TMC MP Kalyan Banerjee, during a recent session, referred to Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) as “Pakistan-Governed Azad Kashmir”—a terminology rooted in Pakistan’s geopolitical propaganda. His usage of the term in Bharat’s Parliament gave credence to an adversarial narrative. What followed was even more controversial: Banerjee mimicked Bharatiya security agencies, mocked intelligence briefings, and laughed about terrorist infiltration with statements like “they just come, kill, and leave.”

This reduction of national tragedy to parody infuriated many. BJP IT Cell head Amit Malviya responded strongly, stating, “Pakistan is celebrating today—courtesy of TMC,” and labeled Banerjee’s performance as “disgrace, not dissent.” BJP spokesperson Pradeep Bhandari echoed similar outrage, calling the mockery “an insult to our armed forces.”

When Criticism Becomes Collusion

There’s a vital difference between parliamentary dissent and deliberate sabotage of narrative. Dissent critiques power; sabotage delegitimizes authority. By ridiculing national efforts and adopting terminology aligned with hostile neighbors, Kalyan Banerjee’s conduct edged alarmingly close to the latter.

This wasn’t the first time Banerjee made headlines for controversial behavior. Earlier, he was caught on camera mimicking Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar outside Parliament. These recurring performances raise concerns: Are we witnessing legitimate criticism or a descent into political theatre devoid of accountability?

The Erosion of National Unity in Security Discourse

Bharat’s military operations, especially those involving terrorism, demand unity. Regardless of political affiliations, the country typically speaks in one voice in the face of such threats. But when elected representatives weaponize national grief or security lapses to earn political mileage—or worse, entertain themselves—the lines between patriotism and partisanship begin to blur.

It becomes essential to ask: What emboldens this conduct?

1. Hyper-partisan politics: When party loyalty outweighs national interest, rhetoric overtakes reason.
2. Media amplification: Performative moments, unfortunately, gain viral traction, incentivizing theatrics.
3. Lack of accountability: Parliament lacks immediate mechanisms to censure this kind of irresponsible language beyond symbolic protest.

Parliament Must Remain Sacred

Bharat’s Parliament is not a stage for political stand-up. It is the highest forum of democratic debate, where the words spoken echo far beyond the chamber—across borders, into headlines, and through generations.

When a Member of Parliament chooses mimicry over matter, propaganda over principle, and performance over policy, they not only mock their opponents but the very ideals that placed them in that seat. National security is a collective responsibility, not an electoral punchline.

Let Institutions Speak, Not Be Silenced

In questioning Bharat’s own ministers—who are duty-bound to speak truthfully under oath—and instead favoring foreign testimony, the opposition sends a troubling message: Bharatiya truth isn’t enough unless validated abroad. This approach weakens domestic institutions, emboldens adversaries, and misleads citizens.

As Operation Sindoor and its impact unfold, Bharat must ask itself a serious question: Do we want our national security decisions debated on facts and trust, or diluted into circus acts of political convenience?

Let Parliament remember its purpose. Let leaders speak with responsibility. And let Bharat never forget that respect for truth must begin at home—especially when that truth is delivered from its highest offices.