MP Rabindranath
In the aftermath of Pakistan-sponsored terrorists murdering 26 innocent tourists in Pahalgam, India responded with unprecedented force. The military retaliation was swift, decisive, and unequivocal—a signal to Islamabad that the era of strategic restraint is over. Yet, what followed was equally significant: a strategic diplomatic offensive by Prime Minister Narendra Modi that not only won global attention but also exposed deep fissures—and occasional flashes of maturity—within India’s opposition.
Instead of reducing the retaliation to a routine military response, the Modi government turned it into a global case study on sovereign self-defence against cross-border terrorism. Panels comprising Indian MPs—cutting across political lines—were dispatched to key world capitals to explain India’s position, strategy, and the legitimacy of its actions. Remarkably, some of the fiercest Modi critics have joined the mission, and in doing so, have reluctantly admitted what they long denied: Modi’s decisive, nation-first approach on foreign policy works—and commands respect.
Take Congress MP Shashi Tharoor, for instance. Known for his barbed critiques of the Prime Minister, Tharoor has of late adopted a strikingly different tone. Not only did he agree to represent India on the diplomatic outreach team, but also publicly praised Modi’s international strategy—despite his party’s disapproval. That’s not just statesmanship; it’s a subtle rebellion against his own party’s pettiness.
Then comes the surprise from Hyderabad: AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi, a man often accused of harbouring soft spots for anti-national elements, publicly mocked Pakistan for its delusional claim of “victory” over India in the recent standoff. Coming from a leader who once offered legal aid to individuals accused of terror links, this shift is not just ironic—it’s instructive. Even ideological opponents know when to draw the line between political dissent and national interest.
NCP’s Supriya Sule, too, praised Modi for trusting opposition leaders to represent India on global platforms. In an age of shrill partisanship, that’s a rare acknowledgment of Modi’s inclusive outreach when it comes to matters of national security.
But while some in the Opposition rose to the occasion, others chose pettiness over patriotism. The Congress party’s response to Tharoor’s inclusion was not to celebrate his stature or his diplomatic prowess, but to sulk. Why? Because Modi didn’t pick their preferred trio—Anand Sharma, Gaurav Gogoi, and a Karnataka MP known more for his communal rhetoric than his commitment to India’s global standing.
Let’s unpack that. Anand Sharma, a Gandhi loyalist, was part of the controversial Memorandum of Understanding between the Congress and the Chinese Communist Party—an agreement shrouded in secrecy. Gogoi, meanwhile, faces uncomfortable questions over his wife’s alleged links to Pakistan’s ISI. And the third nominee? A politician with a documented history of anti-India statements and soft-on-terror positions.
Mamata Banerjee, never one to be left out of the self-sabotaging circus, withdrew her MP and former Indian cricketer Yusuf Pathan from the delegation. Was she afraid that a patriotic Muslim figure would undermine her party’s minority-victimhood narrative? The nation is left to guess, but the implications are telling.
Credit must go to Law Minister Kiren Rijiju for assembling a delegation that, while not uniformly agreeable to all parties, includes those willing to rise above partisanship. The fact that the BJP-led government trusted select opposition leaders signals maturity. The fact that some Opposition parties couldn’t reciprocate signals rot.
India is not at war, but at a geopolitical crossroads. As Pakistan persists with its proxy war, and China lurks with expansionist ambitions, India’s foreign policy cannot afford to be a casualty of domestic political grudges. Modi understands this. Some in the Opposition do too. The rest are still playing student politics while the nation fights adult battles.
This isn’t just about Modi’s style of governance—it’s about redefining what it means to put India first.
