Editorial 2: ​In the wake of crisis, the need for bipartisanshi

Context

As India boosts its commitment to fight terrorism, it is important to make sure that national security is not used for political showmanship.

Introduction

The terrorist attack in Pahalgam on April 22, 2025, has deeply shaken our collective conscience, highlighting the fragile peace in a region with a difficult history. As India mourns the loss of innocent lives and renews its fight against terrorism, it is vital to recognize the need for bipartisanship. This unity is essential both for an effective response and to ensure that national security is not used for political posturing.

The Danger of Politicizing National Security Crises

• A troubling pattern appears during crises in India: instead of uniting to defend the nation, political parties often use the situation to score points.
• Grief is sometimes weaponized for electoral advantage instead of building a unified front.
• After the Pulwama attack in 2019, swift retaliation became part of campaign narratives due to upcoming general elections.
• This shift moved the national conversation from security to politics, which weakens the ability to create a strong, long-term security strategy.
• Such politicization risks compromising both our defence and democratic integrity.

The Challenge of Terrorism

• Terrorism is a grave threat requiring decisive and coordinated responses.
• Reactions should not be impulsive or influenced by party politics or ideologies.
• Decisions on:
  • Counter-terror operations
  • Diplomatic negotiations
  • Intelligence reforms must be made collectively, guided by long-term strategic thinking, not short-term political gains.
• National security is paramount and must rise above political divides.

Bipartisanship in India: Kargil Conflict (1999)

• Despite political differences between the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and Opposition Congress, India united in defending the nation.
• The war effort demonstrated bipartisan cooperation with security policies focused on national interest, not party agendas.
• Congress leader Sonia Gandhi praised the armed forces:
  “The bravery of our soldiers in Kargil has made every Indian proud. Their sacrifice will never be forgotten.”

Bipartisanship in India: Surgical Strikes (2016)

• India’s surgical strikes in response to the Uri terror attack were:
  • Executed with clear, measured messaging
  • Demonstrated strength without escalating conflict
• The action received nationwide applause across political parties.

Global Examples of Bipartisan Responses to Terrorism

• United States (Post-9/11): Both parties recognized the need for unity, leading to a swift, coordinated national security response.
• New Zealand (Christchurch Attacks, 2019):
  • Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern led bipartisan gun law reforms.
  • Within weeks, legislation banning military-style semi-automatic weapons was passed with support from all major parties.
• Western Europe (Post-Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine):
  • Bipartisan support emerged for military aid to Ukraine and sanctions against Russia.
  • Neutral countries like Sweden and Finland joined NATO with broad political consensus.

National Unity in Times of Crisis

• Despite political differences, nations have the ability to unite in crises to prioritize:
  • Security
  • Unity
  • Effective action
• Question posed: Should the situation in Pahalgam and its aftermath be treated differently?

Commitment to a Unified Foreign Policy

• On becoming Chairman of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on External Affairs, I declared:

“There is no Congress foreign policy and no BJP foreign policy; only Indian foreign policy and Indian national interests.”

• Historic precedent:
  • In 1994, PM P.V. Narasimha Rao appointed Opposition Leader Atal Bihari Vajpayee to lead India’s delegation at the UN in Geneva on Kashmir.
  • Congress Minister Salman Khurshid served as Vajpayee’s deputy.
  • Vajpayee later recalled how confused Pakistani officials were to see an opposition leader representing India at such a crucial forum.
  • This episode exemplifies India's “vichitra loktantra” — a democracy both chaotic and miraculous.

Bipartisan Diplomacy in 1994

Decline of Bipartisan Spirit

• Over the last three decades, political discourse has become more:
  • Rancorous and bitter
  • Lacking mutual respect between ruling party and opposition
• Democracy’s core assumption:
  • Both parties share commitment to national interest, even if they differ on approach
  • They are adversaries, not enemies
• Reality today:
  • Bitter polarization has replaced constructive engagement
  • Push-and-pull dynamics in democracy intensified by extreme political rhetoric

Role of Social Media and Political Polarization

• The Overton Window (acceptable political discourse) has narrowed, driven by:
  • Resentment
  • Desire to atone past grievances
• Social media has become a tool for:
  • Divisive narratives
  • Political gain from polarization
• Public and private discussions have shifted from nuanced views to stark, polarized black-and-white perspectives.

Consequences for National Security Discourse

• Political debates on security often turn into blame games, avoiding strategic clarity.
• India-Pakistan relations remain complex but require:
  • Clear condemnation of terrorism
  • Avoidance of national security being used as political leverage
• Importance of unity:
  • Division at home emboldens the enemy
  • Inflammatory rhetoric serves no constructive purpose

Path Forward for India

• India must emerge as a responsible power by ensuring that politics, diplomacy, and defense work together with maturity and unity.

Conclusion

True political leadership requires statesmanship instead of populism, and clarity instead of chaos. If our lawmakers accept this truth, they will see that protecting India’s security is not about political parties but a shared responsibility. In times of grief and crisis, let bipartisanship unite us—not just in words, but through real action. The future of a secure, stable, and resilient India depends on it.