Karnataka BJP chief S Yeddyurappa clearly goofed when he said that, after the Pakistan strike, prime minister Narendra Modi’s popularity was so high, the party would win at least 22 of the state’s 28 Lok Sabha seats, While he was quickly snubbed by junior external affairs minister VK Singh – “action taken by our government is to safeguard our nation & ensure safety of our citizens, not to win a few extra seats” – this gave the Opposition yet another opportunity to raise the issue of Modi’s opportunism.
Much the same point was made at the meeting of 21 Opposition leaders a day earlier when they praised the armed forces for responding so well to the Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) attack at Pulwama, but used the opportunity to condemn Modi for “blatant politicization of the sacrifices made by our armed forces”. This is odd considering the Air Force couldn’t have retaliated had Modi not given them to the go-ahead. And while the joint statement after the meeting condemned the ‘Pakistani misadventure’ – for attacking military installations in India – the Congress party’s tweet was quite explicit in blaming Modi: “We hope the Govt will tell us about the whereabouts of missing Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman today”, it asked, suggesting that his capture showed up the government and that each day he remained in Pakistani hands, would be a black mark against Modi. “We hope to see him back in India as soon as possible”, it said gratuitously.
Read | V K Singh to Yeddyurappa on IAF strikes: Govt action to safeguard nation, not win extra seats
Certainly, Modi is making the most of the situation, as was seen from the pictures of the CRPF jawans as the backdrop to his speech in Churu after the strike was made public. And he brought it up again in his address to the BJP karyakartas on Thursday. But while rushing to paint Modi a petty politician is easy, the question to ask is what does the Opposition want him to do?; indeed, the same question goes to the Twitter and WhatsApp crowd who are now rethinking whether the Air Force strike was worth it because Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman’s plane was shot and he was captured by the Pakistanis.
Indeed, a lot of the WhatsApp chatter reflects the same underlying view, that Modi unnecessarily escalated matters in order to get votes, and now there is no knowing where this is going, more so since Pakistan also has nuclear weapons. The good news, of course, is that no TV channel has gone to Abhinandan’s house, to get a grab from his parents or his wife, asking for the government to ensure his early release; possibly because his father and wife have both served in the air force and wouldn’t pander to this kind of blackmail of a government that is only trying to do its job.
But those accusing Modi, directly or through innuendo, need to ask what would have happened if the Air Force operation had failed. Surely Modi took a big risk, and needs to be applauded for that? There are, of course, many who would argue that the strike won’t really help since Pakistan can launch another attack, and even go back to what it does best, strike almost at will through JeM-type terrorist groups at any place in the country.
There is little doubt that Pakistan has gone back to its old ways in the past, and almost certainly will do so again; but was the old policy of ‘strategic restraint’ working? Clearly not, if you look at the number of people killed in terrorist violence – 1,467 in 2014-17 across the country and 2,703 in the four years before that – and keep in mind that the latest attacks include something as brazen as infiltrating into army and paramilitary camps such as in Handwara, Nagrota and Sunjuwan. So, if ‘strategic restraint’ didn’t work, what was Modi to do?
Also read | PM Modi video conference: Grand alliance like combination of oil and water, will render both useless, says Prime Minister
Indeed, by upping the ante so much – finance minister Arun Jaitley has even hinted at a Osama-type operation deep in the heart of Pakistan like the US did – Modi has made it clear the costs for Pakistan will no longer be as minimal as in the past. And, if the operation itself was executed so well, the diplomatic offensive prior to the strike, and after it, has been equally impressive. While China, which has traditionally backed Pakistan on JeM chief Masood Azhar, was forced to sign off on a UN Security Council (UNSC) statement condemning the attack, the US, the UK and France have made yet another attempt to get the UNSC to label Azhar a ‘global terrorist’; while China may, once again scuttle the move, it says a lot that the pressure is being maintained by the global community.
US Secretary of State Michael Pompeo urged both countries to deescalate but while underscoring the “urgency of Pakistan taking meaningful action against terrorist groups operating on its soil”. And, after his summit with North Korea ended, President Trump reiterated the US position when, instead of condemning India, he said “We have reasonably attractive news from Pakistan and India” and that he hoped the hostilities would end soon; a few days before the strike, he had said India was planning ‘something very strong’, once again indicating it had US support. And while the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) condemned India’s strike, it has not withdrawn its invitation to foreign minister Sushma Swaraj at its next session, so much so that Pakistan – a founding member – may boycott the meeting.
Under normal circumstances, most would consider this India’s finest hour, in terms of its ability to execute a complex strike and in getting world opinion on its side so solidly. But given the Opposition’s behavior, it appears that it, and not Modi, is the one that is playing politics with national security. And this doesn’t even take into account the continued mudslinging over the Rafale contract that the Air Force so desperately needs. Since WhatsApp forwards dominate the discourse nowadays, it is fitting to quote from one of them to end this column: “India: We’ve isolated Pakistan internationally. Pakistan: We’ve isolated Modi domestically with the help of 21 political parties”.