Conflict ceases, divisive rhetoric returns

The period of collective poise was brief – the idea of India is, again, challenged in narratives of discord

Wars usually teach invaluable lessons to citizens. The recent cross-border attacks between two nuclear-armed countries – India and Pakistan – ought to have left an indelible reality check, given the grave possibilities of escalation, but they seemingly did not. Barely had the shelling and loitering munitions stopped and the blaring sirens silenced along the Line of Control (LoC), that the proud ‘sons of the soil’ (read politicians) returned to the centre stage to peddle their toxic, divisive and polarising theme of supremacism based on religion, ethnicity, regionalism, caste, gender, partisanship etc. It was as if the worms crawled out of the woodwork after a temporary disappearance and unheroic hiding that lasted only for the duration of Operation Sindoor.

For four days, a deeply concerned but grateful nation was rooting for the monolithic ‘Indian Soldier’ who stood tall in harm’s way to protect its citizens and take on the enemy. Rightfully, it didn’t matter if the soldier was a Sikh, a Muslim, a Kuki, a Meitei, a Yadav, a North Indian or had any personal preference in terms of partisanship – he/she was simply a noble soldier, a simple and proud constitutionalist who put himself/herself in the line of fire, so that the territorial integrity and the dignity of the Tiranga was upheld, whatever be the personal cost.

The manufactured emotions in the loud and accusatory spaces of the world’s largest democracy took a brief reprieve from its longstanding project of hate-mongering, othering and calling out one another, to suddenly wake up to the fragility of normalcy and to the sheer need to stand together in a rare moment of collective unity. Ironically, it even took a no-holds-barred propaganda war unleashed by the enemy across the LoC (to defend its indefensible conduct) to posit the negative power of regressive rhetoric, revisionist impulses, and unchecked lies. Many Indians also woke up to the pernicious consequences of over-valourising religiosity or majoritarianism in governance, as the neighbouring enemy invoked its fight in the name of their majority religion. Whereas the majesty of the Idea of India was demonstrated in full glory by the sheer professionalism and gallantry in the form of the Army spokespersons or by the Chief of a defence arm that was dominating the skies and hitting enemy targets with audacious impunity – they were not ‘trophies’ but brilliant career officers who rose through the dint of their hard work, competence, and the love for India.

When these and countless other soldiers from across the country of varied religions, ethnicities, and castes were staring down the enemy, the Indian citizenry and their otherwise voluble political leaders barely managed a squeak. The composite dignity of a Constitutional India with its secular credentials boldly exemplified by its sword-arm i.e., Indian Defence Forces, fought back those who believed in majoritarian, bigoted and unsecular moorings, and yet the inclusive and profound idea of India triumphed. Proud Indian soldiers avenged the loss of their 26 innocent fellow citizens, including a brother-in-arm, Naval Lieutenant Vinay Narwal.

Perhaps the most courageous display of personal dignity, patriotism, and constitutionality was made by the grieving wife of Lieutenant Vinay Narwal, who despite the immeasurable loss to herself said, “We don’t want people going against Muslims or Kashmiris. We want peace and only peace. Of course, we want justice”. Unlike many unhinged political leaders who instinctively conflate matters of personal identity to their twisted notions of hyper-nationalism, these were words of immense maturity, wisdom and above all, constitutionality.

Othering and other staples

Unfortunately, the expressions and celebration of the idea of India 
or unity amongst its myriad diversities were punctured almost immediately with the return of the so-called political leaders who remain incorrigibly fixated on the project of othering. It was comical to see them jostling for usurping credit for the work done by the constitutionalist soldier or even gleefully ascribing higher-ups with something as innocuous as the credit for the naming of Operation Sindoor. Tellingly, no one was publicly corrected for making such outlandish and unwarranted attributions and suggestions.

Senior politicians (both from ruling and opposition parties) were seen dissecting the personal details of the two Army spokespersons to insist on their religious and caste identities, to pander to their respective rotten boroughs and partisan narratives. That both the professional female officers represented the very best of India was suddenly no longer the point of celebration. Politicians ultimately reduced them to their identities of gender, religion, region, and caste in the most wantonly divisive manner, almost a fall back to the ‘slipping normal’ that was India, days before Operation Sindoor.

Yet again, the newsrooms and newsprint got populated with incidents of natives beating up ‘others’ (read from other parts of the country or unable to speak the local language) – as if, days earlier, this was the biggest threat to their personal lives and identities. Nobody had asked the soldiers on the LoC along Punjab or Jammu region if they were only Punjabis or Dogras, as all wanted the monolithic soldier to win, somehow. These Johnny-come-lately politicians with their patronising sermons, platitudinous homilies, and barely-masked partisanship, had been camping in the safety of their homes but emerged the moment the conflict ended.

Wars ought to temper, teach and define the collective memory of a generation with invaluable lessons. However, for many, the efficacy of the idea of India seemed to be lost, within days after the conflict. This short-term memory confirms the slide in the understanding of patriotism.

(The writer is a former Lt Governor of Andaman & Nicobar Islands and Puducherry)