There is something profoundly disturbing when political leaders begin treating India’s armed forces as collateral damage in their war against the government. On Vijay Diwas — a day meant to honour sacrifice, courage, and national resolve — former Maharashtra Chief Minister Prithviraj Chouhan chose to perform a political low that should shame even a party long desensitised to national embarrassment. By declaring that Indian forces “lost the war against Pakistan on the very first day of Operation Sindhoor,” Chouhan did not merely offer an opinion. He peddled a lie — brazen, reckless, and contemptuous of facts. Worse, he did so on a day that commemorates India’s military triumphs, reducing Vijay Diwas to a stage for partisan venom. The facts are not debatable. They are recorded, acknowledged, and globally analysed. Indian armed forces struck nine terror infrastructure hubs operating under Pakistan’s protective umbrella. Eleven Pakistani Air Force assets were neutralised, significantly degrading Islamabad’s aerial capabilities. Strategic experts worldwide acknowledged India’s precision, escalation control, and military superiority. To call this a “loss” is not ignorance — it is deliberate distortion. One must ask: who benefits from such statements? Certainly not India. Certainly not its soldiers. But Pakistan’s propaganda machinery, perpetually hungry for internal Indian dissent, could scarcely have asked for better ammunition. This is the real damage caused by leaders like Chouhan — not to the government, but to national morale. Words spoken by a former Chief Minister carry weight. When those words undermine the armed forces, they erode confidence among soldiers deployed on hostile frontiers and embolden adversaries who watch India’s political class for signs of fracture. Unfortunately, this is no isolated lapse. It is Congress’s muscle memory. From questioning the Balakot airstrikes, casting aspersions on the surgical strikes after Uri, to Rahul Gandhi’s outrageous and false claim that Indian soldiers were “beaten up” by the Chinese PLA in Arunachal Pradesh — a claim repeatedly denied by the Army itself — the pattern is unmistakable. Congress leaders reserve their deepest scepticism not for hostile powers, but for their own armed forces.
The party that once celebrated the military now treats it as a political inconvenience — useful when it suits a narrative, expendable when it does not. This is not democratic debate. It is institutional sabotage by insinuation. Such conduct raises a far more serious constitutional question. Does freedom of speech extend to statements that demoralise the armed forces, distort military facts, and undermine national security? The Supreme Court has consistently held that free expression is not absolute and must be balanced against the sovereignty and integrity of the nation. The Indian armed forces are not a political punching bag. They are a constitutional institution, bound by discipline and silence, unable to respond to political slander. That asymmetry makes irresponsible statements all the more dangerous — and morally indefensible. Is it time for the Supreme Court to take cognisance of this pattern of reckless rhetoric? When senior political leaders repeatedly make demonstrably false claims that weaken public trust in the armed forces, judicial scrutiny is no longer an overreach — it becomes a necessity. The cost of such statements is not borne by politicians who enjoy Z-category security and studio applause. It is borne by soldiers standing watch at sub-zero temperatures, by pilots flying combat sorties, and by families who believe — or want to believe — that the nation stands firmly behind its defenders. Vijay Diwas is not a day for cheap political theatrics. It is a reminder of what discipline, unity, and sacrifice achieve when politics steps aside. Leaders who cannot respect that boundary have no moral authority to speak of patriotism. If Congress wishes to oppose the government, it is free to do so. But when opposition morphs into hostility towards the armed forces, it ceases to be politics and becomes an act of national self-harm. India deserves better. Its soldiers certainly do.
