Rahul Gandhi became entangled in his own arguments while giving a speech on Operation Sindoor in the Lok Sabha. The points he put on the war and ceasefire against Pakistan showed clear contradiction. On the one hand, he objected to why he stopped the war, on the other hand he also objected to why he accepted the terror attacks as Act of War? It is obvious that Rahul Gandhi himself is not able to understand what is the difference between the two things or they are unable to explain to the people of the country, how both action is possible together. As a result, apart from the Congress party, the general public is unable to understand their words that they want what they want? The opposition had got a chance to surround the Modi government with great difficulty, that too went in front of these arguments.
Why does Rahul object to the ceasefire
From the time of the commencement of Rahul Gandhi and the entire Congress party Operation Sindoor, he started questioning the deadline of Operation Sindoor and immediate ceasefire in their speeches, in their social media updates. Rahul says that the Defense Minister said that the operation started at 1:05 am and after 22 minutes, at 1:35 pm, DGMO informed Pakistan that we targeted civilian bases and do not want escalation. This is surrender.
Rahul argues that the government did not give full freedom to the army. The government should have given full time. In a hurry, the ceasefire was done, which reduced the effect of the operation. Rahul Gandhi also sets an example of the 1971 war in favor of his talk. Rahul says that Indira Gandhi gave complete freedom to General Sam Manek Shaw. Rahul’s words mean that the army should have given full exemption. Until the PoK government achieved, it should not have been ceased to be a ceasefire. It was clear that the government should take decisive military action. Obviously, he was pointing out of full war. His statement the lion cannot be placed in the cage, which meant that the army should have been allowed to take action without obstacles. But see this statement of Rahul how it changes. Let’s look forward.
Objection to considering terrorist attack as ‘act of war’
On one hand, Rahul wants the Indian Army to have given an open exemption so that it gains a decisive lead but on the other side there is more question. They raise the question as to why the government consider the Pahalgam terror attack as war action? Rahul wants that Sircar should not have taken the terrorist attack in Pahalgam as a war. That is, as the Government of India used to send doser on doser after the terrorist attacks during the UPA government, the Modi government should also do it. Actually, Rahul’s argument is that Pakistan gets a chance to say on the global platform that India started the war.
His argument was that the terrorist attack should have been answered by keeping the terrorism under the purview of terrorism and not by giving it the status of war. This can increase international pressure on India, and Pakistan can redeem it diplomatically. Actually, Rahul’s words can be morally correct. But they all know that diplomacy is not based on policy. That is why it has been called diplomacy. Diplomacy is always made and implemented keeping in mind the benefits of our country.
Rahul should understand that during the UPA government, the Government of India believed the dosier policy. India used to get only sympathy. No country in the world came forward to respond to terrorist attacks against Pakistan. India kept assigning evidence to Pakistan in response to terrorist attacks.
Why could Rahul not follow any one policy?
Rahul Gandhi is not able to say openly that the Government of India should have fought a long war. Nor is they able to remain stable on the fact that they should have handed over the doser on the doser like the UPA government. Rahul understands that advocating the full war is risky among the Indian public. This is not only against the policy of Congress but also opposite to the mood of the country. Along with this, the long war could also increase economic and international pressure on the country.
Similarly, Rahul knows the fate of the Doder Policy. What was the result of handing over the dodier after attacks like 26/11 during UPA. Pakistan’s mind increased. The public also considers it a weak decision. In 2025, operations such as surgical strikes and Balakot have increased public expectations. Rahul also knows that his colleagues like SP and TMC were also demanding an aggressive attitude rather than a dodier.
Rahul also fell alone in the Congress as well as leaders like Shashi Tharoor and Manish Tiwari not getting a chance to speak. This must have been the reason that Rahul could not make a clear policy regarding what to say in the Lok Sabha. This time Rahul’s speech was never seen as unorganized and scattered.
—- End —-