In the aftermath of the recent Pakistan-sponsored brutal terror attack in Pahalgam, which claimed the lives of brave Indian soldiers and left innocent civilians mourning, one would expect a united response condemning the perpetrators. Yet, what we witness instead is a familiar and disturbing pattern, the same echo chamber of intellectuals, commentators and so-called peace advocates rushing to offer not solidarity, but sermons not to the aggressor, but to the defender.
It is astonishing and frankly appalling how some privileged so called intellectuals seated in their academic ivory towers rush to quote Rumi, the Gita and the Prophet’s restraint every time India retaliates to terror, but go mute when our civilians, children and soldiers are slaughtered by Pakistani-sponsored terrorists.
Recently, one academician from a so-called premier institute in his posts did not come across with an appeal for peace instead it was masked reprimand to India for daring to defend itself despite knowing very well that it is a national emergency and not an academic debate.
The professor’s eloquent prose asks India to introspect, but conveniently spares Pakistan the same scrutiny. His impassioned lament about war, violence and hatred becomes hollow when he fails to name the state, Pakistan that harbours breeds and exports terrorism as their state policy. Is it not the height of irony that while Indian jets neutralize imminent threats, liberals rush to cry foul not over our loss, but over Pakistan’s embarrassment?
These self-proclaimed guardians of peace have an extraordinary talent of blaming India. For them, India is guilty, whether it bleeds or defends itself. When terror strikes, they blame India’s policies and when India retaliates, they cry about aggression or blame India for provoking. Their moral compass doesn’t point to justice; it just obsessively circles back to blaming India. No matter the situation, their conclusion is constant, India is always at fault. The question is that, is this ignorance, ideological slavery or a deeper contempt for India’s strength or a deep-seated disdain for India’s assertion?
India is not a war-hungry nation. But let me remind them, silence in the face of terror is not peace, it is cowardice. When our soldiers fall and our civilians bleed, national defence becomes not an act of vengeance but of survival and sovereignty. War is never the first choice for India, that has remained its history, but peace cannot be begged from those who send killers across the border while preaching jihad at home.
Quoting the Bhagavad Gita to preach restraint is intellectually dishonest when one ignores the essence of Lord Krishna’s message. Arjun was not told to abandon the battlefield; he was instructed to fight, for it was his dharma when faced with adharma. Krishna did not counsel submission to evil, he called for righteous resistance. I wish this Professor had understood the scripture and then quoted. He has deliberately not put it, selectively only to serve anappeasing agenda, that has failed this nation for 75 years.
My question to this professor and every such empathy cartel of truth twister is that where is their poetic grief when Kashmiri Pandits and Sikhs were massacred in Wandhama, Nadimarg and Chatisinghpora? Where was this call for compassion when hundreds of innocent lives were lost during the 26/11 Mumbai attacks orchestrated from Pakistani soil? Where was this intellectual discomfort when Pakistan mutilated the bodies of Indian soldiers including Capt Saurabh Kalia and beheaded Lance Naik Hemraj in 2013?And just few days back, how could they forget Pahalgam?
When our jawans died defending the soil that gives us breath, not one liberal voice asked Pakistan to stop its dirty war. Instead, their outrage is reserved for India’s counter-response. Is the life of an Indian soldier so dispensable to these peace peddlers?
The same professor and his cheerleaders, who demand “restraint” from India, fall completely silent on Pakistan’s actual war crimes. Has this Professor ever written a letter to Islamabad asking it to dismantle Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Mohammed or Hizbul Mujahideen? Has he ever condemned Hafiz Saeed or Masood Azhar with the same fervour? Or does his pen dry up when it’s time to name the real perpetrators?
Let’s be clear, when a Pakistani drone launches an airstrike across the LoC, a direct violation of ceasefire, it is not “both sides” escalating. It is Pakistan committing an act of war. What would any responsible nation do? Apologize? Or act to protect its borders and people?
Let us not forget that India is the land of Buddha, Gandhi and Guru Nanak, but also of Shivaji, Ranjit Singh and Netaji. Peace is in our blood, but so is courage. It is not the pseudo-liberals sitting in lounges sipping coffee who are the custodians of peace, it is the Indian Army, the BSF and CRPF jawan and every defence and security personnel standing in the freezing heights of Himalayas and also that police constable diffusing IEDs in planes.
Being a professor or a pseudo intellectual does not grant one immunity from critique, especially when one’s discourse distorts geopolitical truths. Emotional show off, masked as scholarly humility is dangerous when it becomes a tool to blur the line between the victim and the aggressor.
Another disturbing case that also highlights a deeper and more unsettling irony is that many of the young individuals, in last few days, implicated in espionage activities are products of our own educational institutions. Groomed in an environment that should foster critical thinking and national responsibility, some among this emerging brigade of social media influencers and self-proclaimed patriots have instead become vulnerable to manipulation.
The fusion of unchecked digital freedom, performative nationalism and politicized campus narratives is creating a fragile cohort, one that wears the garb of nationalism but lacks the ethical compass and intellectual depth to safeguard the very nation it claims to serve. This is not just a security lapse; it’s a systemic failure that demands urgent introspection.
Professor and those defending his misplaced moral compass must understand, India is not the same country it was in 1947, 1965 or even 2008. We do not seek conflict, but we will not tolerate terror anymore, especially not when it’s dressed up in ideological poetry.
I think that the compulsions of these pseudo-seculars and truth twisters in India stem from a dangerous cocktail of ideological bias, political opportunism, misplaced moral superiorityand in some cases, external influence or intellectual insecurity.
These individuals are often trapped in a rigid ideological framework, largely leftist, post-colonial or rooted in a Western liberal guilt complex, that views the Indian state as inherently oppressive and its security apparatus as suspect. To them, any strong assertion of Indian sovereignty, especially through military or diplomatic action, is seen as “majoritarian” or “aggressive”, even if it is a rightful response to terrorism.
For many, criticizing India, particularly its government, armed forces or majoritarian sentiment, is a shortcut to relevance. It helps them gain attention, media space and international approval. They know that aligning with a fashionable “victim narrative” garners them awards, speaking slots and social currency, nationally and internationally.
Their definition of secularism is deeply flawed. Instead of equal respect for all religions, it has turned into appeasement of some and vilification of others. They oppose any assertion of Indic identity, even cultural or philosophical, as “communal”, while romanticizing regressive ideologies of others. They have been taught to see their own civilization with suspicion and view India’s rise as dangerous rather than empowering. They trust Western narratives over lived Indian realities.
Surprisingly, I also think, they get this courage from our own political institutions run by opportunists who speak the same language of scepticism, directed not at the enemy, but at their own nation. We have seen in recent days, while nation is bleeding, they started demanding data and information. Instead of standing with the jawan, they stand with the microphone, questioning strategy, seeking statistics and subtly sowing distrust.
While our forces fight with courage, these voices fight for attention, often aiding the enemy’s narrative more effectively than any cross-border propaganda. Their allegiance is not to peace or patriotism, it is to relevance. In their desperate chase for political clout or intellectual relevance, they forget a simple truth that national security is not a seminar, it is a sacrifice. This cabal of convenience operates with striking predictability where one cloaks their bias in academic jargon and the other parades it as political dissent. Yet both find common ground in sowing doubt exactly when the nation demands unity and resolve.
I wonder, what are they teaching in their classrooms? What kind of India are they shaping behind those institutional walls? What kind of citizenship is being cultivated when national pride is questioned and terror is rationalized? I think, when academic and political spaces begin echoing the language of the adversary, it is not education, it is indoctrination.
Perhaps they need to be reminded that this is a new India, one that no longer rolls out the red carpet for those who spill the blood of our Air Force officers, nor glorifies their assassins with titles like ‘Gandhian’ while hosting them in the highest offices of power. The era of appeasement is over; the nation now stands with spine, not folded hands.
For all these peace pretenders, let me make it clear, this is not a war of choice. It is a war of necessity, forced upon us by a neighbour that refuses to coexist in peace. And if defending our nation’s sovereignty offends your fragile sensibilities, then perhaps your discomfort lies not with India’s response but with India’s refusal to be a doormat anymore.
At the end, let me restate the Ram Charitra Manas Chaupai and its context that Air Marshal Bharti stated, during his press briefing of Operation Sindhoor. “Vinay na maanat jaladhi jad, gaya teen din beet, bole Ram sakop tab, bhay binu hoye na preet,” which translates to (The ocean, dull and unmoved by polite requests, wasted three days. Then lord Ram said with anger, without fear, there can be no love).
This chaupai is about an incident, when Lord Ram was on his way to Lanka, despite equipped with his armoury, requested ocean to allow him to pass. For three days, Lord makes humble requests, even though he had an arrow which he could had used to simply dry up the ocean but he didn’t and finally we know what happened. Rama takes up his bow and aims at the ocean and it is then that the King of the ocean appears, begs him for forgiveness and allows Rama and his army to pass through.
This moment teaches a timeless lesson, that deterrence is essential. Unless the other side is made to realise that their actions may invite decisive retaliation, there is no incentive for restraint. Power commands respect and peace is honoured only when it stands on the foundation of strength. In the context of a rising, assertive Bharat, this chaupai holds profound relevance, a reminder that compassion must be guarded by the capability to punish.
Let it be clear that in this new Bharat that has endured the agony of a thousand cuts doctrine, will no longer bow its head, bite its tongue or bleed quietly. It has finally decided to rise with the will to strike back, not just to survive but to assert and no provocation will go unanswered, no aggression will be ignored
Jai Hind.
(The Author is OSD to CM Haryana)
