The Controversial Ceasefire: Gaurav Gogoi Challenges Government Over Operation Sindoor’s Halt

The recent Monsoon Session of Parliament saw a fiery exchange as Congress leader Gaurav Gogoi launched a sharp attack on the government regarding the sudden halt of “Operation Sindoor.” Gogoi’s pointed questions came in the wake of repeated claims by President Donald Trump, asserting his mediation in brokering a cessation of hostilities between India and Pakistan. This controversy surrounding Operation Sindoor has ignited a crucial debate about the government’s strategic decisions during a critical period of national security.

Unanswered Questions on Pakistan’s Alleged Capitulation

During a Lok Sabha debate on India’s response to the Pahalgam terrorist attack, Gaurav Gogoi questioned the rationale behind stopping Operation Sindoor if, as Trump suggested, Pakistan was indeed ready to “kneel down.” He challenged the government, asking, “To whom did you surrender?” This line of questioning directly addresses the perceived premature end to military action, especially when the nation, including the Opposition, had seemingly rallied behind Prime Minister Modi. Gogoi highlighted Trump’s astonishing claim of having forced a ceasefire between India and Pakistan 26 times, intensifying the scrutiny on the decision-making process during Operation Sindoor.

• Trump’s Repeated Claims: President Donald Trump’s consistent assertions of mediating a ceasefire between India and Pakistan have fueled skepticism about the true circumstances surrounding the conclusion of Operation Sindoor.
• Government’s Stance: The government has consistently denied any mediation, stating that the cessation of hostilities occurred after Pakistan’s DGMO initiated contact with his Indian counterpart.
• Congressional Scrutiny: Gaurav Gogoi’s interrogation aims to uncover why India did not press further to reclaim illegally occupied territory if Pakistan was on the verge of capitulation during Operation Sindoor.

Accountability for the Pahalgam Terror Attack

Beyond the strategic implications of Operation Sindoor, Gogoi also shifted focus to the Pahalgam terror attack, asserting that Home Minister Amit Shah should assume direct responsibility. He dismissed the government’s alleged “cowardly” act of blaming tour operators for taking individuals to Baisaran without proper authorization.

• Blame Game: Gogoi accused the government of deflecting responsibility for the Pahalgam attack, advocating for direct accountability from the Home Minister rather than through the Lt Governor of Jammu and Kashmir.
• Delayed Response Concerns: The Congress leader raised concerns about the delayed ambulance response to the attack and the unsettling incident of locals mistaking an Indian soldier for a terrorist.
• Lack of Apprehension: Gogoi pointed out that 100 days after the Pahalgam attack, the five responsible terrorists remained at large, despite India’s advanced surveillance capabilities.

Leadership Under Fire: Prime Minister’s Priorities Questioned

Gogoi also criticized Prime Minister Narendra Modi for his itinerary following his return from Saudi Arabia, noting his attendance at a government program and an election rally in Bihar instead of visiting Pahalgam. He contrasted this with Rahul Gandhi’s visit to the affected area, implicitly questioning the Prime Minister’s priorities in the wake of a significant terror incident that preceded Operation Sindoor.

Unanswered Military Inquiries and Broader Geopolitical Concerns

The debate also saw Gogoi pressing Defence Minister Rajnath Singh on the number of Indian fighter jets lost during the conflict with Pakistan, emphasizing the right of soldiers and the nation to know the truth. He further inquired how Pakistani terrorists managed to infiltrate and carry out the Pahalgam attack.

• Fighter Jet Losses: Gogoi’s persistent questioning about Indian fighter jet losses aimed to bring transparency to the military’s operational outcomes following the events that led to Operation Sindoor.
• Pakistan’s Aid: Gogoi also referenced Pakistan receiving aid from the IMF, drawing parallels with remarks from CDS Gen Anil Chauhan regarding losses in conflict and Lt Gen Rahul Singh’s observation that China utilized the India-Pakistan conflict as a “live lab.”
• Silence on China: A significant point of criticism from Gogoi was the Defence Minister’s omission of any mention of China in his speech, especially given the BJP’s prior rhetoric of showing “laal aankh” (red eye) to Beijing.

Government’s Rebuttal and a Call for Unity

In response, Defence Minister Rajnath Singh subtly critiqued the Opposition, suggesting that focusing on minor issues could overshadow national security objectives. He emphasized that the Opposition’s questions, particularly concerning Indian plane losses, did not align with national sentiments. India’s Operation Sindoor was initiated as a robust response to the Pahalgam terror attack, involving precision strikes on terror infrastructure in Pakistan and PoJK, and effectively repelling subsequent Pakistani aggression.

This ongoing debate underscores the complexities of national security, diplomatic relations, and domestic political discourse in India, with Operation Sindoor serving as a central point of contention and discussion.