'It is important India to stay focussed on its primary national objectives: Combating terrorism; not losing sight of other security and strategic concerns (on the Sino-Indian front for instance); ensuring a strong economy and registering growth which includes improving the lot of common people; and finally making certain that the social fabric remains intact and harmony among people is not jeopardised, at least any further,' asserts Nilanjan Mukhopadhyay.
During a recent conversation with Christophe Jaffrelot, the globally acclaimed academic on South Asian politics, on recent events in the Indian sub-continent triggered by the terrorist attack in Pahalgam, he drew attention to an interesting fact.
He pointed to the Pakistan army leadership, prior to the recent military exchanges between the two neighbours, being the most unpopular one since 1971, primarily because people considered it to be instrumental in keeping Imran Khan behind bars and for teaming up with fairly discredited political forces.
Jaffrelot contended that although for long, the army across the border was treated as synonymous with the notion of 'establishment', in the recent past, it had almost become Army + Pakistan Muslim League (N) and Pakistan People's Party.
To this military-politico troika, the only alternative, also considered the sole credible political formation, was the former cricketing star and his now-struggling-to-stay-afloat party, the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf.
This perception has now altered with the army being seen a 'saviour' of the nation. In a recent Gallup Pakistan poll conducted after declaration of a ceasefire on May 10, almost 96% of the respondents stated that in their opinion, Pakistan 'won' the war and 92% of them confessed to marked 'improvement' in their opinion of the army.
Independent media reports from Pakistan also mention that public confidence in the troubled country's state institutions is re-emerging, at least for the moment.
On May 11, the day after declaration of ceasefire, people across several cities and towns of Pakistan, crowded the streets on foot, motorbikes and cars, jubilating by blowing vehicle horns and playing patriotic songs.
Importantly, these people who spontaneously took to the streets also waved national flags and posters in praise of the military, especially its chief, General (now Field Marshal) Syed Asif Munir.
To engrave the day as a permanent commemoration hereon, the Pakistan government also declared May 10, as 'The Day of Righteous Battle'.
Political leaders on the side of the establishment, led by Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, were lavish in their praise of the armed forces.
Successes of the Pakistani military forces during the bitterest armed conflict between the two nuclear neighbours may be debatable on the Indian side of the border, but the episode was termed by Sharif as a 'golden chapter in military history' of the nation.
Even Imran Khan, who remains in jail since August 2023, issued a statement calling for support for the military.
The overall swell in public confidence in the army cushioned the establishment from any form of criticism at the decision to elevate Munir to the rank of field marshal.
On the first Friday after the ceasefire was declared, the Pakistani government and military decided to mark completion of the military campaign with ceremonies, prayers, and tributes to fallen soldiers in nationwide ceremonies.
That day was also designated as 'Youm-e-Tashakur' or Day of Gratitude, to honour the armed forces and civilians involved in what was officially named as Operation Bunyan um-Marsoos, launched in response to Indian military actions.
The name, derived from a verse in the Quran, describes believers fighting in Allah's cause as 'a solid wall cemented with molten lead' besides symbolising unity, strength, and solidarity.
On the Indian side too, victory as claimed and the operation in response to the terrorist attack in Pahalgam was given a name steeped in the Hindu religio-cultural tradition.
To ensure that the obvious was stated, the formal logo of Operation Sindoor, designed by the Indian armed forces' social media section of the Additional Directorate General of Strategic Communication, featured the traditional vermillion bowl.
However, on May 11, unlike in Pakistan, people did not impulsively spill out on the streets of Indian cities and towns to celebrate 'victory'. Contrarily, if any sentiment was palpable, it was that of 'dismay' at calling a ceasefire when, in the perception of a significant section of Indians, their armed forces was so close to taking the fight to the 'finish'.
In the eyes of this section of Indians, fed on by expectations generated by Modi and his party colleagues, Operation Sindoor was perceived as a 'repeat' of 1971, Modi was no less than Indira Gandhi, and just as Bangladesh was carved out as an independent nation, it was time for Balochistan to be 'severed'.
As the script did not roll out as visualised, a nationwide survey conducted by C-Voter found that a significant section of the BJP's supporters were dissatisfied over the immediate ceasefire. In their mind, Pakistan's 'humiliation' was not 'complete'.
In more than three weeks after the ceasefire was declared, there would grudgingly have been a decline in the number of those sharing this sentiment and among those continuing to hold this viewpoint it is likely that this emotion would have weakened.
Following May 10, the Indian government and the largest party of the ruling-coalition, the Bharatiya Janata Party, too actively took out road shows featuring its principal leader, Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
Ironically, these celebrations and events mirrored those across the border, the sole difference being projection of Modi as superman of sorts with large cutouts of Modi in military fatigue and helmet in hand -- clearly to convey imminence of boarding a fighter aircraft.
Such posters and cutouts are a continuation of the trend to officially promote the cult of Modi.
In India, a concerted effort is also underway to maximise electoral support for the BJP by harnessing emotions buoyed by the officially driven narrative that the Indian armed forces emerged 'victorious' and Modi has personally delivered the 3-point charter to Pakistan: Similar response to any terror attack; not succumbing to nuclear blackmail; and erasing distinction between terrorist organisations, leaders and government which backs them.
During armed conflicts between nations, unless particular regimes have a deeply entrenched tradition of democratic accountability, the official version is seldom the whole truth.
In the case of India, speaking about the official narrative on this side of the border because the narrative from the other side remains either blanked out or extremely difficult to source, there has been opacity from the first morning itself on May 7.
But, given the nature of the two regimes, it is likely that both would be mirroring one another when it comes to not providing 'absolute' truth.
Aping the other will however come at grave risk to the Indian foundational philosophy. Unlike Pakistan, Indian nationalism was not defined on the basis of religious identity.
In the aftermath of Operation Sindoor, the BJP has made a conscious effort to mobilise support by whipping up nationalistic fervour, the way it was done after the 2019 strike on Balakot.
There, however, is a danger in repeating the same tactic this time because unlike in 2019, Pakistan is now being marshalled by a person who famously espoused the idea of a two-nation theory just days before the terrorist attack in Pahalgam.
It is important India to stay focussed on its primary national objectives: Combating terrorism; not losing sight of other security and strategic concerns (on the Sino-Indian front for instance); ensuring a strong economy and registering growth which includes improving the lot of common people; and finally making certain that the social fabric remains intact and harmony among people is not jeopardised, at least any further.
For India to be able to reach these objectives, it is now more than ever necessary for India to embrace 'inclusive' nationalism as was the case during the course of the national movement or freedom struggle.
For whatever its success ratio, Modi should be grateful to members of various parties who joined the teams to various nations and presented India as a united lot.
True, there are divergences even within various parties, most importantly the Congress. But, these are hallmarks of India's divergence and would get hopefully get resolved over time.
The real challenge will come, there is already evidence of this in various BJP campaigns, from the party's continued push to further secure support for its exclusivist idea of nationalism.
India is already isolated globally and it is for the BJP to choose for politics which polarises the nation on the basis of religious identity, or to cast away divisive politics, at least for the moment, like the Atal Bihari Vajpayee government had done.
Just as the National Democratic Alliance in 1998 thrashed out a joint National Agenda for Governance or a common minimum programme, it is imperative now for Modi to treat the government as a coalition government truly. Refusal to do so will cost the nation dearly.
Nilanjan Mukhopadhyay is an author and journalist based in Delhi-NCR.
His latest book is The Demolition, The Verdict and The Temple: The Definitive Book on the Ram Mandir Project.
He is also the author of Narendra Modi: The Man, The Times.
Feature Presentation: Aslam Hunani/Rediff
© 2025