Operation Sander in Parliament; Political claims and national questions: Abdul Majid Nizami

Abdul majid nizami

The torrential rains are getting out of the sky, and words are being removed in the houses of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha. The monsoon session of Parliament continues with its full intensity, but this time the rain is not only a cloud, but also political statements, claims, allegations and clarification. The people of the country are looking at the spectacle that the house which should solve their problems, their problems and their voice has turned into a battlefield. This time the topic that has shocked the house is “Operation Sandor”, a military claim on which the whole country is proudly wrapped in the chest and many questions are echoing at the same time.

During his speech in Parliament, Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced that on 9 May, India launched a strong and successful military campaign in Pakistan’s borders, targeting terrorist bases in Pakistan -destroyed more than a thousand drones, missiles and launching. The operation was named as “Operation Sander”. With this name, the media began to paint this action in “Surgical Strike Part Two” and created a certain type of emotional quality across the country. The Prime Minister also said that the attack was a declaration of sovereignty and dignity of India. He said very clearly that India had made this decision itself, did not come under pressure from any world power and India can go to any extent for the safety of its land and its people. He said: Anyone who attacks India, he will see it with his own eyes, he will get an answer from Sindh to Sindh.

In this meeting, Home Minister Amit Shah made a long statement in the Rajya Sabha, in which he provided the details of “Operation Mahadev”. He said that it was not only a military campaign, but was a clear message for the terrorists who came to the border and there was bleeding here. He said that three terrorists were killed through a tremendous intelligence operation in Poonch and Pahgam, known by digital evidence and DNA. Amit Shah said that India is no longer following the defense policy, but is on the path of aggressive defense. He emphasized that the government gives complete freedom to the army when, where and how to take action.

But not just every speech in Parliament is a clap. The opposition has also raised strong questions and serious criticism. In his speech, Rahul Gandhi directly told Prime Minister Modi that if US President Donald Trump is lying that he played a role in stopping this action, Modi is standing and tells the nation that Trump is lying. Rahul Gandhi’s question was not only about foreign policy or military action, but was a question of statements, sovereignty and diplomatic truth. He also said that if this action was necessary then why was it not done earlier? And why was it done now? Is this part of the election campaign? Was the “Operation Sandur” announced in Parliament to be used as a political benefit in the upcoming elections? He asked the government to keep full details of the action before the House so that the whole country could know what happened.

Many more opposition leaders were also involved in Rahul Gandhi’s voice. Akhilesh Yadav has also said that the government is really refusing to take action against China and takes action as an easy goal there. He questioned that when China has entered the land of India within several kilometers, then why does the name of China not fall on the language of the government? Will we only fight the enemies that can benefit politically? Akhilesh Yadav said that the security of the country is a national issue, it should not be made a political equipment.
Meanwhile, questions were also raised by the Trinmool Congress. He said how this action was presented globally? Did we tell the world what we have done? Or Trump’s statement strong on our statement? Have we failed to make an effective diplomatic statement? BSP President Mayawati appealed to both the opposition and the government on the occasion to increase politics and discuss the issue of national security. He said that such opportunities send a message of solidarity to the nation, but we are making it a spectacle.

In this entire situation, the role of media has also been extraordinary. Some channels presented it as a great national victory, checking without details and truth. The claims of the government were blocked by blindly and the questions raised were declared treason and enmity. But many serious questions arose on social media. A section of people is asking if the problem of terrorism is only related to enemies across the border or to end hatred, prejudice and division in our own society? Do measures like surgical strikes only create excitement on time or can you guarantee permanent peace?