Accompanying the announcement of Operation Sindoor and the Union government’s declared resolve to uproot cross-border terrorism were shrill cries on television news channels and social media, suggestive of a full-scale war between India and Pakistan. It was not a full-blown war, but the self-styled nationalists turned it into one, at least on television and social media.
Those questioning the name of the Operation, or making even mildly critical remarks about the government, were pilloried into silence and submission by relentless trolls. The opposition also reacted cautiously, preferring not to say anything that might portray them as working against national interests.
On May 14, Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) in New Delhi suspended its Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Türkiye’s Inonu Universitesi citing “national security”, in response to Türkiye’s open support of Pakistan in the military confrontation following the Pahalgam attack. Other universities and institutions, including Jamia Millia University and IIT Bombay,followed in JNU’s footsteps and suspended academic partnerships with Turkish institutions.
In the period following the horrific Pahalgam attack and the response to it, an advisory was issued to all media platforms and social media users, urging them to refrain from live coverage or real-time reporting of defence operations and troop movements. Such disclosure of sensitive or source-based information could jeopardise operational effectiveness and endanger lives, it stated. The advisory—issued twice, first by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting on April 26, and the second time (a slightly modified one) by the Ministry of Defence on May 9—cited “past incidents like the Kargil war, Mumbai 26/11 attacks and the Kandahar hijacking” to highlight the risk of “premature reporting”.
The April 26 directive, which referred to the previous advisories to TV channels to adhere to Cable Television Networks (Amendment) Rules, 2021, and especially Rule 6(1)(p), stated: “No programme shall be carried in the cable service which contains live coverage of any anti-terrorist operation by security forces, wherein media coverage shall be restricted to periodic briefing by an officer designated by the appropriate government, till such operation concludes.”
Despite the advisories, sections of the media went overboard, declaring the “takeover” of “enemy” territory by the armed forces. After the ceasefire announcement on May 10, even the spokespersons of the government were not spared.
Also Read | The war has paused—will peace get a word in?
Ironically, not once did the Union government issue any directive to stop the hate propaganda unleashed on social media against minorities and individuals who sought clarity and answers from the government. Questions about reported third-party mediation that resulted in the ceasefire were also not answered satisfactorily. The third party, in this case, was the US President, who continued to insist that his government had successfully mediated between India and Pakistan.
Amid the heightened rhetoric, voices from both sides of the border called for peace, insisting that war was not in the interest of ordinary people. These calls for peace, both collective and individual, were ignored by the media, including by most of what is called the “legacy” media. However, despite the media blackout, the voices persisted. Women’s groups, peasant and farmer organisations, trade unions, and student organisations took the lead. The Left parties organised a joint rally for peace and against communalism in Kolkata.
On May 14, Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi suspended its Memorandum of Understanding with Türkiye’s Inonu Universitesi citing “national security”, in response to Türkiye’s open support of Pakistan in the military confrontation following the Pahalgam attack.
| Photo Credit:
SUSHIL KUMAR VERMA
In Punjab, the Samyukta Kisan Morcha, the front that spearheaded the successful farmers’ agitation against the controversial farm laws in 2020-21, organised meetings at all district headquarters, calling for peace. The All India Kisan Sabha called for “forceful diplomatic measures” and “de-escalation”, and an end to “war-mongering”, “jingoism”, and communal polarisation. Those killed at the border were mainly peasants and agricultural workers, it said, adding that the government should take steps to invoke provisions of the Financial Action Task Force, the inter-governmental body that combats terror funding, to put pressure on the Pakistan government.
On May 11, Indian and Pakistani feminists gave an urgent call for peace while welcoming the ceasefire. They decried the “war economy” which “thrived on violence and destruction and the deeply patriarchal structures that fuel and sustain it”. The joint letter signed by hundreds of people from both countries condemned the horror in Pahalgam and asserted that “war was not a solution”. The statement castigated the Pakistani establishment and opinion makers for being “uncaring of the catastrophic consequences of war and the immense devastation it would cause”. The signatories said that they “advocated for dialogue, de-escalation and diplomacy”. They said their voices were “consistently sidelined and overwhelmed by the inflammatory rhetoric and assertive militarism that dominate the public sphere”.
Among the organisations that endorsed the call were the Saheli Women’s Resource Centre and the All India Democratic Women’s Association from India, and the Women’s Action Forum and Aurat Manch from Pakistan. More than 70 women representing various fields from both the countries also endorsed the call.
Highlights
- In Punjab, the Samyukta Kisan Morcha, the front that spearheaded the successful farmers’ agitation against the controversial farm laws in 2020-21, organised meetings at all district headquarters, calling for peace.
- The All India Kisan Sabha called for “forceful diplomatic measures” and “de-escalation”, and an end to “war-mongering”, “jingoism”, and communal polarisation.
- On May 11, Indian and Pakistani feminists gave an urgent call for peace while welcoming the ceasefire.
The Left parties supported the government’s initiative to fight terror and welcomed the ceasefire. At the same time, they urged the government to take action against jingoistic attacks on Kashmiris and minorities. The CPI(M) condemned the Pahalgam killings and urged the government to take action against those who were intimidating traders and students from Kashmir. In an editorial, the party pointed out that India needed to “pile up more credible evidence to put more pressure, diplomatic and political, on the Pakistani establishment” to bring the Pahalgam perpetrators to book. “The people in both countries do deserve peace and stability above anything else for prosperity and progress,” stated the CPI(M) editorial.
The CPI (Marxist-Leninist) Liberation said efforts must be made to prevent a war between the two nuclear-powered neighbours and explore the whole range of non-military diplomatic options to curb terrorism and de-escalate tensions. It also cautioned that while the mock drills were “techniques of bolstering security by spreading public alertness, we must make sure that such drills do not vitiate India’s internal climate and create a jingoistic clamour for war”.
The CPI (Marxist-Leninist) Liberation said efforts must be made to prevent a war between the two nuclear-powered neighbours. In the picture, leftist activists holding placards demanding peace and justice for victims of the Pahalgam attack at a rally in Kolkata on May 13.
| Photo Credit:
DIBYANGSHU SARKAR/AFP
The statement observed that while the flow of fake news and misinformation needed to be checked, the right to freedom of expression and dissent should not be suppressed. The party also called upon the government of Pakistan to shut down the terror camps and appealed to the people of Pakistan to raise their voice against terror and war.
The All India Forward Bloc (AIFB), a constituent of the Left Front, said, “Dialogue, diplomacy and mutual understanding must form the foundation of peaceful coexistence in the subcontinent.” It added that it “stands in solidarity with all people striving for justice and condemns all forms of terrorism, occupation and foreign intervention”. Central trade unions like the Centre of Indian Trade Unions welcomed the ceasefire and appealed to the working-class people of both countries not to allow the subcontinent to become a “theatre for any terrorist conspiracy”.
But the talks about peace came with their own set of consequences. The mention of peace itself appeared to be a seditious, anti-national act. The Hindu right-wing trolls on social media did not even spare Himanshi Narwal, a young woman from Haryana, whose husband, navy officer Vinay Narwal, was among the Pahalgam victims. Himanshi, in one of her earlier statements, had called for peace and suggested that the tragedy should not be instrumentalised to target Muslims and Kashmiris. Another young woman from Kerala, Arathi Menon, who lost her father Ramachandran in the same attack, was criticised because she was grateful to her “Kashmiri brothers”, the local Kashmiris, for helping her.
Just as there was complete apathy from government authorities over the attacks on her, an equally opportunistic silence prevailed when none other than Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri and his daughter were trolled. Misri was trolled solely because he was the government’s face and authorised spokesperson who announced the ceasefire on May 10. He had even warned that the terrorists were attempting to trigger communal polarisation. Personal details of his family members were leaked and published online, forcing him to lock his X (formerly Twitter) account.
Strangely, no Minister in the Union government or any senior leader in the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) spoke a word about the online abuse, including against the senior bureaucrat. However, members of the opposition parties and senior diplomats took it up. The National Commission for Women (NCW) took belated cognisance of the vicious trolling of Himanshi but qualifiedits concerns by adding that the country was “hurt and angry” over the Pahalgam attack.
It also dubbed the trolling of Misri and his daughter as “morally indefensible” and “unacceptable”. The IAS Association and other officers’ associations also rallied behind their colleague. The NCW, however, was silent when several women were viciously trolled on social media for raising questions in the wake of the Pahalgam attack, many of whom also had to lock their accounts following the abuse.
Meanwhile, Ali Khan Mahmadubad, the head of the department of political science at Ashoka University, was arrested by the Haryana police on the basis of two separate complaints, one by the Haryana Women’s Commission and the other by the general secretary of the State unit of the BJP’s Yuva Morcha. The State Women’s Commission alleged that he had made objectionable remarks on Operation Sindoor, misrepresented facts, made disparaging comments of women in uniform, and undermined their role as professional officers through his social media posts.
Two separate FIRs were registered against the academic under Sections 196(1)B (promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion), 197(1)C (assertions prejudicial to national integration), 152 (act endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity of India), 299 (malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings), 353 (statements conducing to public mischief) and 79 (word, gesture or act intended to insult modesty of a woman) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The first four sections were invoked in the FIR based on the Yuva Morcha leader’s complaint; sections 353, 79, and 152 were invoked based on the women’s commission’s complaint. Section 152 was common to both FIRs.
Also Read | What a war with Pakistan could really cost India
Mahmudabad maintained that the women’s commission had no jurisdiction in the matter and that his remarks were completely misunderstood. He defended his Facebook posts, terming the complaints against him as a new form of censorship and harassment. In fact, a perfunctory reading of his posts indicates that he was rather appreciative of the government’s calibrated response to the Pahalgam attack. He was also critical of Pakistan, its military, and the nexus between the military and non-state actors. He also lauded the Operation Sindoor briefings by the two women officers.
He bemoaned the loss of civilian lives and the brutality of war. He lauded Indian diversity as exemplified by the two women officers from different religious backgrounds. This was, he wrote, a “fleeting glimpse- an illusion and allusion perhaps- to an India that defied the logic on which Pakistan was built”. After the FIRs were registered, Ashoka University dissociated itself from his views. However, the Ashoka University Faculty Association, the JNU Teachers Association, the Democratic Teachers’ Front and two national women organisations—the All India Democratic Women’s Association and the National Federation of Indian Women—expressed outrage over his arrest and appealed for his release.
Amid all this, a BJP Minister in Madhya Pradesh, Vijay Shah, made disparaging communal remarks against Colonel Sofiya Qureshi, one of the two women officers briefing the media. No one from the Central leadership of the NDA pulled him up. The Madhya Pradesh High Court, however, came down heavily on the Minister, likening his words to the “language of the gutters” and directing the registration of an FIR under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
The guns have fallen silent for now. The clamour for war has also died down. There is little doubt that the Pahalgam attack was aimed at communal polarisation. However, the question will remain whether enough was done to protect the rights of ordinary citizens targeted in the aftermath.
