Political parties must not squabble over airstrikes, which have effectively changed our counter-terrorism module

Does it occur to our politicians that an Indian Air Force (IAF) pilot probably had a horrid time in Pakistan’s custody, that our neighbour did attempt a war psychosis and it doesn’t behove us to use the Pulwama-avenging airstrikes for narrow and selfish electoral gains? That our sole focus at this point of time is to bring our boy back home instead of chest-thumping that the airstrikes showed us that we are mazboot and not majboor? In this respect, none can be quite above board. The BJP for credit-seeking, pitchforking itself as the nation’s saviour and deliverer and, therefore, tom-tomming its qualification to lead the country. And the equally brash Opposition for starting a public slugfest and playing out differences in the open instead of demanding an all-party meeting on a national security issue in a civil manner. First, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who has yet to chair an all-party meeting or even address the nation through Doordarshan, chose to talk about the airstrikes with his party workers first through a video conference, the BJP party flag emblazoned in the background. Surely, the party couldn’t have been bigger than the citizens? True, he couldn’t have invigorated the party rank and file at the booth level without mentioning the airstrikes and staving off the threat from Pakistan-sponsored terrorism in India’s growth story but did it have to happen with such speed, considering both sides are on a wire and every remark could be misconstrued as escalatory? In continuing electoral campaigns through the sombre and tense moments of the last two days, the theme song was constant. One would argue that anybody in governance would but scroll down a list of his achievements while seeking a mandate but what was the desperation to do so given the fluidity and sensitivity of the border situation? Particularly, when there was a radio silence on engaging with media and the nation for two whole days? To make matters worse, Karnataka leader BS Yedyurappa claimed that post the airstrikes, there was a wave in favour of Modi and the  party would win hands down in the state. 

What riled the Opposition was that an unspoken agreement was broken by the ruling party. After the Pulwama attack, there was general agreement among all parties to suspend political activities, including election campaigns, rally behind the government, refrain from making stray adversarial comments and present a united India not only to Pakistan but the world at large. Even Congress chief Rahul Gandhi and general secretary Priyanka Gandhi, while spending time with Pulwama martyrs’ families, stayed away from making any remarks. But the moment the BJP went on an overdrive, the Opposition parties came together to issue a joint public statement, expressing “deep anguish” over the “blatant politicisation of sacrifices.” Worse, they took to social media before dialogue. Samajwadi Party leader Akhilesh Yadav went so far as to say that “everything — even national security — is seen through the lens of public relations and votes.” So began the barrage with each party listing what it had foregone in favour of national interest, one which quickly descended into a noisy game of charges and counter-charges as to who was the better Indian. What none of them realise is that India, at this point of time, cannot trivialise its fight against terror, one that has cost us civilians and soldiers in numbers bigger than the casualties of conventional wars, and make it seem as subservient to political interests. We cannot delegitimise the heft of our argument against Pakistan or afford to risk world opinion, which is in our favour. Most importantly, we cannot rob our impeccable armed forces of their sheer commitment and skill, one that saw us take down terror targets and threats with the old Mirage 2000 and MiG21. Without them, we could not have redrawn the lines of dealing with the Pakistani jihadi factory on the sand. Wing Commander Abhinandan will be back home for sure but in election season, will we learn from his maturity of silence or give into the immaturity of babel?