Politics on ceasefire is not right

Even though ceasefire has been declared between India and Pakistan, but now politics has started on it. The series of allegations and counter-allegations is continuing. Within India, it is being compared with the Indo-Pak war of 1971 and the strategic acumen of the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. There is a heated debate on this issue on social media. The Congress Party and its supporters shared pictures of Indira Gandhi, reminded of her strong warnings to US President Richard Nixon and took a dig at the current government's dependence on America.

It is natural that when there is a feeling of repetition of a historical event, public memory starts doing comparative analysis of it, but the question is whether the circumstances of 1971 can be compared with today? In 1971, the eastern part of Pakistan was burning. There was a severe violation of human rights, millions of refugees were migrating to India, and an unbearable socio-economic burden was increasing on India. Indira Gandhi made it a national security issue, not just a humanitarian crisis, and opted for military intervention.

The result of this war was not only Pakistan's military defeat, but also the birth of a new nation called Bangladesh. In this entire process, the Soviet Union became India's strong diplomatic and strategic partner. At the same time, the US, especially President Nixon and National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger, were in favour of Pakistan's General Yahya Khan. America's covert support was with Pakistan and Nixon-Indira's relations were bitter. Despite this, Indira Gandhi ignored US pressure and took decisive military action and not only saved India's dignity, but also changed the map of South Asia.

However, the circumstances of 2025 are completely different. Pakistan is a nuclear power, America's influence on the global economy is more widespread than ever before, and India prefers strategic partnership with the US on global forums. In such a situation, the international reaction to any kind of military action is more intense, and limiting confrontation is considered a sign of diplomatic prudence.

The confirmation of ceasefire by the Indian government after Trump's tweet sparked a debate on social media. Many people asked whether India still needs the mediation of the US? Is an emerging global power like India still taking strategic decisions at the behest of others? This criticism can be considered relevant only when it is seen from two angles. First, did India take this ceasefire under pressure? And second, did India take this decision only after presenting its military position strongly enough? The action of the Indian Army under 'Operation Sindoor' had caused a lot of damage to Pakistan. The Indian Army itself confirmed that several Pakistani targets were attacked on the night of May 6-7. This makes it clear that India took this decision not under unilateral pressure, but after gaining a strategic advantage. It can certainly be believed that the role of the US was decisive, but it can be called the role of a 'facilitator' rather than a 'mediator'.

But, the Congress Party took this as an opportunity to term it as the weakness of the current government. From old photographs of Indira Gandhi and Nixon to their harsh remarks, everything was quoted. A viral tweet read, the time is gone when a country sitting three-four thousand miles away orders Indians to act according to its will. Many Congress leaders recalled the achievement of dividing Pakistan into two parts in 1971 and compared Prime Minister Modi to Indira Gandhi, and said that there is a difference between contesting elections and fighting a war. One does not become Indira Gandhi just like that.

It is clear from these reactions that in Indian politics, there has been a constant attempt to test history on the touchstone of the present, but there should be a limit to it. Historical events are contextual, and it is not appropriate to praise or criticize the same decisions in different circumstances. BJP also responded to the attacks of Congress. BJP pointed to the Shimla Agreement signed after 1971, in which questions were raised on the release of 99,000 Pakistani prisoners of war without any concrete strategic benefit. It was said that, “Neither was any condition for the evacuation of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir laid down, nor was the border formally fixed. Nor was any compensation demanded for the war or the refugee crisis imposed on India.

This argument can be understood from a political point of view, but it should also not be forgotten that the global pressure and strategic balance that India was facing at that time did not make it easy to take a decision. If the Shimla Agreement was a mistake, it was also part of a broader diplomatic agreement. In 1971, the US openly supported Pakistan. The deployment of the US fleet in the Bay of Bengal was a kind of threat. India's response at that time was to counter that challenge with the help of the Soviet Navy. Today the relationship between India and America has completely changed.

Now both countries are strategic partners, are cooperating in forums like the Quad, and are strategically united against China. In such a situation, the role of America is no longer threatening, but balancing. This is a relationship moving towards maturity, not a matter of surrender. Overall, the ceasefire between India and Pakistan It is welcome, provided it paves the way for lasting peace. America's role can be criticised, but in global diplomacy, dialogue and mediation are considered proof of prudence, not cowardice.

Indira Gandhi's courage and victory in 1971 is a golden chapter, but given the complexities of the present time, we should neither compare every decision on the same yardstick, nor should history be used as a weapon for political gain. Indian politics should take inspiration from history, but should not criticise the present in its name just because it does not match the current circumstances. Today's Indian government has to move ahead by maintaining balance in challenging global situations, and that is possible only when there is a right balance between national interest, dignity and prudence.