For decades, American foreign policy has been criticized as short-term and opportunistic. Yet, when it comes to India, Washington displayed rare consistency. From the Clinton years onward, Democratic and Republican administrations alike invested in a careful, bipartisan project: drawing India closer to the United States as a strategic counterweight to China.
That patient diplomacy—built brick by brick over 25 years—now stands on shaky ground. President Donald Trump’s renewed hostility toward India risks unraveling the most significant U.S. strategic realignment since the Cold War.
The Long Arc of U.S.–India Engagement
When President Bill Clinton visited India in 2000, he signaled a dramatic shift from decades of suspicion to cautious partnership. The Bush administration deepened this approach, recognizing that a rising China posed a challenge to the global order and that India, the world’s second-most populous nation, was the natural counterbalance.
George W. Bush took the boldest step: offering India a historic civil nuclear deal. By treating India as a responsible nuclear power rather than an outlier, Washington effectively ended India’s global isolation on the nuclear issue. This was a turning point—expertly managed on the Indian side by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh—and it transformed bilateral relations.
The Obama years took cooperation further. India was positioned as a cornerstone of Washington’s “pivot to Asia.” Trade surged, and the U.S. formally supported India’s aspirations for a permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council.
Trump’s first term, despite its unpredictability, gave political heft to the “Quad”—a grouping of the U.S., India, Japan, and Australia—and projected a personal rapport between Trump and Prime Minister Modi. Biden inherited this trajectory and expanded it, pushing for joint manufacturing in defense and technology, from fighter jets to semiconductor chips.
By 2025, India was exporting more smartphones to the U.S. than China—a symbolic victory in supply-chain realignment.
Trump 2.0: A Sudden Reversal
All of this makes Trump’s current shift even more startling. Without warning, his administration has moved India into its most restrictive category of partner countries—lumping it with pariah states such as Syria and Myanmar—while simultaneously extending overtures to Pakistan.
Reports of private meetings with Pakistan’s army chief and alleged business ties between Trump-linked firms and Pakistani institutions have fueled speculation of backroom deals. More dramatically, Trump publicly mocked India’s economy, dismissing it as “dead.”
The irony is striking. India has been the fastest-growing major economy for several years, is now the fourth largest in the world, and is projected to surpass Germany by 2028 to become the third-largest, after only the U.S. and China. It is the world’s second-largest arms importer and a vital hub for digital technology and consumer markets. Far from “dead,” India is central to the 21st-century global economy.
The Risk of Strategic Miscalculation
India is not an easy partner. Its history of colonization, Cold War ties with Moscow, and a deeply independent foreign policy tradition have made it cautious. Prime Minister Modi’s strategy of “multi-alignment” allowed India to keep ties with Washington, Moscow, and even Beijing simultaneously.
Yet, persistent U.S. diplomacy—combined with anxiety over China’s rise—was steadily nudging India into a closer embrace with Washington. That slow but crucial alignment may now be undone.
Trump’s hostility has united India’s political spectrum in outrage. A country that was moving past its ambivalence toward America is once again asking whether Washington can ever be trusted. The result may be a stronger tilt back toward Russia—and perhaps even a thaw with China.
America’s Reliability Question
For years, American diplomats argued that the U.S.–India relationship was destined to be one of the great strategic partnerships of the century: the world’s oldest democracy working hand in hand with its largest. That vision now looks deeply uncertain.
Even if Trump reverses course again—as he often does—the damage may be irreversible. India has seen a glimpse of American unpredictability at its harshest. For a nation obsessed with strategic autonomy, the lesson is clear: never put all your bets on Washington.
Trump may believe he is playing a tactical game with India. But in reality, he risks undoing 25 years of hard-won trust, and with it, America’s most promising counterweight to China. History may remember this as the moment when the U.S. lost India.
“They expected India to bow. Instead, India built a backbone.”
In an age where many nations retreat under U.S. pressure, India stood tall. When Donald Trump returned to the White House in 2025 and announced sweeping 25% tariffs on Indian exports, many global observers braced for panic in New Delhi.
But that panic never came.
Instead, they saw a familiar face—Narendra Modi, calm, calculated, and completely unshaken.
No Panic. No Compromise. No Deal Under Duress.
The Modi government could have taken the easy route: Make a few trade concessions, appease Trump’s ego, beg for tariff exemptions—and spin it as diplomacy.
But this time, India chose something far more powerful: Dignity.
Despite looming tariffs, there was:
No sudden outreach from Indian envoys.
No last-minute offers on agriculture, dairy, or digital trade.
No weakening of India’s strategic relationship with Russia, which lies at the center of this trade conflict.
Instead, India waited. Watched. And sent a clear message to Washington:
We don’t trade our sovereignty—not for discounts, not for praise, not for fear.
Modi in Parliament: A Defining Moment
Just day before yesterday, in a charged Parliament session, PM Modi delivered a masterstroke without raising his voice:
“No foreign leader has ever asked me to stop any internal operation in India.”
This one line, subtle but piercing, was a direct counter to Trump’s old claims that he “mediated” between India and Pakistan—a lie that had embarrassed Indian diplomacy in the past.
By affirming that no leader has dared question India’s internal affairs, Modi wasn’t just defending Kashmir or Manipur or economic autonomy—he was drawing a red line for the world.
A line that says: This is New India. Strong, sovereign, and unafraid.
The India of 2025 Is Not the India of 1991
In the past, India bent.
In the ’90s, India opened markets under IMF pressure.
In the 2000s, India hesitated on nuclear autonomy until George Bush stepped in.
Even during the first Trump term, India showed restraint, trying to “keep the relationship warm.”
But today, the tone has changed.
Modi understands that India’s market of 1.4 billion, its tech and manufacturing potential, and its civilizational strength can’t be treated like a pawn in someone else’s game.
Why Modi’s Boldness Matters
Let’s be clear: Trump’s tariffs are real. They will hurt sectors like textiles, jewelry, and some pharma exports. But short-term pain is sometimes necessary for long-term independence.
Because if India caved now, it would set a dangerous precedent:
That Washington can dictate Indian trade partners.
That a tariff threat can reverse our Russia strategy.
That India must “ask permission” before doing business with the world.
But thanks to Modi, that precedent will never be set.
What the World Needs to Learn from India
China never compromises its red lines. Iran survives with zero Western sympathy. Even tiny Cuba resists American bullying.
So why should India, a rising global power, act like a junior partner?
By refusing to blink, Modi has elevated India’s position globally—from “strategic ally” to sovereign equal.
The U.S. now knows:
India won’t trade policy for praise.
It won’t choose between friends because someone shouted louder.
And it won’t let elections in Washington decide its trade map.
You can debate Modi’s domestic record. You can critique his style. But on the global stage, one fact is undeniable:
He is the first Indian Prime Minister who doesn’t flinch , not before China, not before Pakistan, and now, not even before America.
As Trump throws tariffs like tantrums, India responds not with fear but with strategic silence backed by steel nerves.
In the age of digital disinformation, wars are no longer fought just on the battlefield — they’re fought on WhatsApp, Twitter, and newsrooms. Operation Sindoor, India’s swift and precise military response to a Pakistan-backed terror attack, became not only a story of strategic success but also a case study in how facts are often buried beneath layers of political spin, foreign commentary, and media speculation.
What Triggered Operation Sindoor?
On April 22, 2025, a brutal terror attack in Pahalgam, Jammu & Kashmir, claimed the lives of 26 civilians, including pilgrims. Intelligence traced the plot to Pakistan-based terrorist groups, prompting India to launch Operation Sindoor — a 23-minute air and missile operation that began at 4:03 AM on May 7, 2025.
Targets of the Operation Included:
Nur Khan Airbase (Rawalpindi)
Mushaf Base (Sargodha)
Rahim Yar Khan airbase
Shahbaz Airbase (Jacobabad)
Radar sites in Pasrur and Lahore
Satellite images later confirmed damage to runways, bunkers, and radar systems. The strikes were precise, time-bound, and aimed at disabling Pakistan’s offensive capabilities while avoiding civilian casualties.
Ceasefire: No Mediation, Just a Phone Call
Contrary to various media reports and speculative comments, especially from former U.S. President Donald Trump, the ceasefire was not the result of international mediation.
On May 10, 2025, Pakistan’s Director General of Military Operations (DGMO) made a direct hotline call to his Indian counterpart, requesting a halt to hostilities. India’s DGMO and the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) confirmed that the ceasefire was arranged bilaterally.
MEA Statement:
“There was no international mediation. The ceasefire was arranged solely via military channels.” — Vikram Misri, Foreign Secretary, Government of India
Then why didn’t Prime Minister Modi publicly respond to Trump’s claim? Because diplomacy is about clarity, not volume. When the Ministry of Defence and MEA have issued a formal position, repeating it from the Prime Minister’s podium only adds fuel to unfounded rumors.
Rafale Jet Shot Down? Absolutely False
Following Operation Sindoor, Pakistani media and some fringe outlets claimed that a Rafale jet was shot down during the operation.
The Reality:
India’s Defence Secretary R. K. Singh confirmed that no Indian aircraft, including Rafale, was lost in combat.
Dassault Aviation, the Rafale manufacturer, also denied any loss.
India’s Press Information Bureau (PIB) flagged the Pakistani claim as “completely false.”
The truth? One Rafale returned early due to a minor sensor malfunction. It was back in the skies within three days. There was no shoot-down, no crash, and no damage. Just a lie wrapped in clickbait.
The “3 Jets Down” at Shangri-La? Misinterpretation
At the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore, India’s Chief of Defence Staff, General Anil Chauhan, mentioned that three aircraft were grounded for checks during the operation.
This was twisted by some commentators into claims that “three Indian jets were downed.” In reality, these aircraft were not hit by enemy fire — they were temporarily grounded as a safety measure and were operational again within 48 hours.
What the CDS Actually Said:
“We studied a tactical mistake that temporarily grounded three jets. But within 48 hours, they were back in action.”
There is a big difference between a strategic review and a battlefield loss. The former makes you stronger. The latter didn’t happen.
Who Saved Indian Skies? Not Just S-400s
Another myth that made the rounds was that India’s Russian-made S-400 missile defence system saved the country from Pakistan’s drone and missile strikes.
While the S-400 was deployed to cover high-altitude sectors, the real heroes were India’s indigenous air defence systems:
Akash SAMs
MR-SAMs (jointly with Israel)
L/70 Anti-Aircraft Guns
Akashteer Command & Control Network
These systems intercepted over 90% of incoming drones and missiles, particularly low-cost swarms launched by Pakistan. The indigenous network played the lead role, not the imported ones.
Strategic Outcome: India Won the Fight and the Message
Category
Outcome
Military Response
India disabled 4 airbases, 2 radar sites, and multiple launch pads.
Diplomacy
No mediation accepted. Ceasefire on India’s terms via DGMO hotline.
Disinformation
Rafale claims, Trump mediation, and aircraft losses debunked.
Defence Systems
Indigenous systems proved highly effective — a win for Atmanirbhar Bharat.
Operation Sindoor showcased India’s technological edge, military precision, and diplomatic maturity. But it also revealed how easily misinformation can dilute real victories.
In today’s world, where narratives move faster than missiles, citizens must learn to verify before they amplify.
So next time someone says, “Trump stopped the war” or “Pakistan shot down a Rafale,” ask them for evidence — and show them this article.
Today, as India reflects on its historical milestones, the 1971 India-Pakistan War remains a defining moment in the nation’s geopolitical journey. Led by Smt. Indira Gandhi, India’s decisive intervention resulted in the creation of Bangladesh, a humanitarian triumph that reshaped South Asia. However, debates persist over whether India could have secured greater strategic gains, such as annexing the Rangpur area to widen the Siliguri Corridor—transforming the “Chicken’s Neck” into a “Chicken’s Chest”—and ensuring the return of its soldiers still missing in Pakistan. This article examines the war’s outcomes, evaluates the decision to forego territorial annexation, and explores the unresolved issue of Indian POWs, assessing the long-term implications for India.
The 1971 War and Bangladesh Liberation
In 1971, East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) faced brutal repression after the Awami League’s electoral victory was denied by West Pakistan’s military regime. The ensuing crackdown, which killed an estimated 300,000 to 3 million people, triggered a humanitarian crisis, with 10 million refugees fleeing into India, primarily West Bengal, Assam, and Tripura. Smt. Indira Gandhi, recognizing both the humanitarian imperative and strategic opportunity, supported the Mukti Bahini (Bangladesh liberation forces) with military training, arms, and diplomatic backing. Following months of preparation, India intervened militarily in December 1971, leading to a 13-day war that ended with Pakistan’s surrender on December 16, 1971. The war resulted in the creation of Bangladesh and the capture of 93,000 Pakistani soldiers as prisoners of war (POWs)—one of the largest military surrenders in modern history.
Humanitarian and Strategic Triumph
Refugee Crisis Resolution: The war alleviated the burden of 10 million refugees on India, with over 90% returning to Bangladesh by 1973, reducing economic and social strain.
Weakening Pakistan: The division of Pakistan into two nations diminished its military threat, eliminating its two-front strategy against India.
Global Recognition: India’s intervention earned international praise for halting a genocide, enhancing its soft power. The Indo-Soviet Treaty of 1971 ensured Soviet support, countering US and Chinese opposition.
Regional Influence: The 1972 India-Bangladesh Treaty of Friendship initially solidified Bangladesh as a friendly neighbor, giving India a strategic buffer against Pakistan.
The Chicken’s Neck Dilemma: Should India Have Taken Rangpur?
The Siliguri Corridor, a narrow strip (20–40 km wide) connecting India’s mainland to its northeastern states, is a strategic vulnerability known as the “Chicken’s Neck.” Bordered by Nepal, Bhutan, and Bangladesh, it is susceptible to being severed in a conflict, particularly by China via the Chumbi Valley, 130 km away. Some strategists argue that India, at the peak of its post-1971 influence, could have annexed the Rangpur area in northern Bangladesh to widen this corridor into a “Chicken’s Chest,” enhancing security and connectivity.
Potential Benefits of Annexation
Strategic Depth: Widening the corridor would have reduced the risk of the Northeast being isolated in a conflict. In 2025, with China’s military buildup in the Chumbi Valley and border tensions (e.g., post-2020 Galwan clash), this vulnerability remains a concern. A broader corridor would have improved military logistics, crucial for addressing insurgencies like the ongoing Naga peace talks.
Economic Integration: Enhanced connectivity would have boosted trade and infrastructure in the Northeast, a region lagging economically. The 2025 Economic Survey notes the Northeast’s GDP growth at 5.2%, below the national average of 6.8%, partly due to connectivity bottlenecks.
Geopolitical Leverage: With 93,000 Pakistani POWs in custody and Bangladesh’s gratitude under Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, India could have negotiated territorial adjustments as a mutual security arrangement, offering economic or diplomatic concessions in return.
Challenges and Risks
Diplomatic Fallout: Annexing Rangpur would have contradicted India’s humanitarian narrative, risking its global image as a defender of self-determination. It would have violated the 1972 India-Bangladesh Treaty of Friendship, potentially turning Bangladesh into a resentful neighbor.
International Backlash: The US and China, already hostile during the Cold War, could have rallied global opposition, isolating India. The USSR, India’s ally, might have opposed such a move as a violation of sovereignty norms.
Regional Instability: Annexation could have destabilized Bangladesh’s fragile post-independence government, fueling anti-India sentiment. In India’s Northeast, where separatist movements like the Mizo National Front (1966–1986) were active, it might have escalated ethnic tensions.
Long-Term Costs: By 2025, India-Bangladesh relations are strained over water sharing, migration, and Bangladesh’s ties with China (e.g., the $1.2 billion Padma Bridge project). Annexation in 1971 would likely have made Bangladesh a hostile neighbor, aligning it with China or Pakistan, undermining India’s regional influence.
Verdict on Rangpur
Indira Gandhi’s decision to forego annexing Rangpur was strategically prudent. While widening the Chicken’s Neck offered clear benefits, the diplomatic, ethical, and practical costs—international condemnation, regional instability, and long-term hostility—outweighed the gains. A hostile Bangladesh could have provided China with a foothold closer to the Siliguri Corridor, negating any strategic advantage. However, India might have explored diplomatic negotiations for a mutual security arrangement, such as joint control or transit rights, to address the corridor’s vulnerability without territorial annexation.
The Unresolved POW Issue: A Lingering Grievance
Despite India’s release of 93,000 Pakistani POWs by 1974 under the Shimla Agreement, the fate of Indian soldiers believed to be held in Pakistan remains unresolved. Known as the “Missing 54″—30 Army and 24 Air Force personnel—these soldiers were captured primarily on the Western Front. India claims a total of 83 personnel are missing, with some families believing they are still alive in Pakistani jails, facing harsh conditions. Pakistan has consistently denied holding them, with its latest statement in 2025 reiterating this position, though earlier contradictions fuel India’s suspicions.
Missed Leverage: Public sentiment on X in 2025 reflects frustration that India did not use the 93,000 Pakistani POWs as leverage to secure the return of its soldiers or other concessions, such as addressing the Chicken’s Neck vulnerability. Some argue this was a diplomatic oversight, prioritizing goodwill over strategic gains.
Emotional Toll: Families of the Missing 54 have waited over five decades for closure. Advocacy groups, as noted in recent articles by CAPS India, highlight the emotional toll, with daughters of these soldiers continuing their fight for justice.
Diplomatic Stalemate: India’s repeated demands, including the latest exchange of lists in July 2024, have yielded no progress. The recent Operation Sindoor (May 2025) and ongoing tensions with Pakistan further complicate resolution, with Pakistan’s allies like China and Turkey reducing international pressure on this issue.
Long-Term Implications for India
Strategic Lessons
The 1971 war was a tactical triumph but highlighted missed strategic opportunities. While India weakened Pakistan and gained regional influence, the failure to secure its POWs or address vulnerabilities like the Chicken’s Neck underscores the need for a balanced approach in geopolitics. The Shimla Agreement prioritized short-term stability over long-term gains, a decision debated in strategic circles in 2025.
India-Bangladesh Relations
By 2025, India-Bangladesh relations are strained, with Bangladesh’s growing ties with China and unresolved issues like migration (e.g., the 2019 NRC in Assam identifying 1.9 million potential illegal immigrants) fueling tensions. Annexing Rangpur would likely have worsened this dynamic, potentially creating a hostile neighbor aligned with India’s adversaries.
Geopolitical Vulnerabilities
The Siliguri Corridor remains a strategic concern, with China’s presence in the Chumbi Valley and Bangladesh posing risks. The 2025 Economic Survey emphasizes the need for infrastructure development in the Northeast, suggesting that India must address this vulnerability through diplomatic and economic means rather than territorial adjustments.
Conclusion
The 1971 India-Pakistan War, under Indira Gandhi’s leadership, was a defining moment that showcased India’s military prowess and humanitarian resolve, leading to the creation of Bangladesh. However, strategic decisions made in its aftermath have left lasting challenges. Not annexing Rangpur to widen the Siliguri Corridor was likely the right choice, avoiding diplomatic fallout and regional instability, though India could have pursued non-territorial solutions to address this vulnerability. The failure to secure the return of its POWs, however, remains a significant oversight, with the “Missing 54” symbolizing a lingering grievance as of today. The war’s legacy underscores the complexities of balancing humanitarian ideals with strategic interests, a lesson India must heed as it navigates contemporary geopolitical challenges with Pakistan, China, and Bangladesh.
India’s role as a global humanitarian leader shone brightly during the COVID-19 pandemic, when its “Vaccine Maitri” initiative supplied free vaccines to numerous countries, reinforcing its image as the “pharmacy of the world.” Similarly, India’s swift disaster relief efforts, from Nepal’s 2015 earthquake to Turkey’s 2023 quake, have saved countless lives. Yet, the 2025 India-Pakistan conflict, triggered by the horrific Pahalgam terror attack on April 22, 2025, which killed 26 civilians, reveals a troubling paradox: many nations India selflessly aided are either supporting Pakistan or remaining neutral, despite India’s Operation Sindoor targeting alleged terrorist infrastructure. This article examines the countries that received India’s free COVID-19 vaccines, their stances in the current conflict, the reasons behind their positions, and the contentious notion of labeling those supporting Pakistan as “traitors.” It argues that India must navigate this diplomatic challenge with strategic pragmatism rather than emotional rhetoric.
India’s Humanitarian Legacy
India’s humanitarian efforts are guided by the principle of “Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam” (the world is one family). During the COVID-19 pandemic, India launched the Vaccine Maitri initiative on January 20, 2021, supplying free vaccines to 98 countries, totaling 14.3 million doses by February 2022 (Vaccine Maitri – Wikipedia). Beyond vaccines, India provided disaster relief as a first responder in crises such as:
Nepal (2015 Earthquake): Operation Maitri delivered 520 tonnes of supplies (India’s Role in Disaster Relief).
Turkey (2023 Earthquake): Operation Dost sent medical teams and supplies.
Maldives (2004 Tsunami): Operation Rainbow provided a $5 crore aid package.
These acts of generosity, often without expectation of reciprocity, underscore India’s commitment to global solidarity.
The 2025 India-Pakistan Conflict
On April 22, 2025, a terrorist attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, killed 26 civilians, mostly Hindu tourists, after attackers reportedly targeted victims based on religion (2025 India-Pakistan Standoff). The Resistance Front, linked to Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba, initially claimed responsibility but later retracted. India accused Pakistan of sponsoring the attack and launched Operation Sindoor on May 7, striking alleged terrorist infrastructure, killing at least 31 people, per Pakistan’s claims (India Strikes Pakistan). Pakistan denied involvement, called for an international investigation, and vowed retaliation, escalating tensions between the nuclear-armed neighbors.
Countries Receiving Free COVID-19 Vaccines from India
India’s Vaccine Maitri initiative gifted 14.3 million doses of Covishield and Covaxin to 98 countries, with a focus on South Asia, the Indian Ocean region, and the Caribbean. Below is a list of key recipient countries, based on available data from 2021, and their stances in the 2025 conflict (India Sends 22.9 mn Doses, Vaccine Maitri – Wikipedia):
Country
Free Vaccine Doses (2021)
Stance in 2025 Conflict
Supporting Pakistan?
Bangladesh
2,000,000
Neutral
No
Myanmar
1,700,000
Neutral
No
Nepal
1,000,000
Neutral
No
Sri Lanka
500,000
Neutral
No
Afghanistan
500,000
Supports India
No
Maldives
100,000
Neutral
No
Mauritius
100,000
Neutral
No
Seychelles
50,000
Neutral
No
Bahrain
100,000
Neutral
No
Oman
100,000
Neutral
No
Barbados
100,000
Neutral
No
Dominica
70,000
Neutral
No
Bhutan
150,000
Neutral
No
Notes on the List:
Data Limitations: The full list of 98 recipient countries is not explicitly detailed in sources, but the above includes major recipients cited in 2021 reports. Additional countries (e.g., Caribbean and African nations) received vaccines, but their 2025 stances are largely undocumented due to their limited geopolitical involvement.
Pakistan’s Inclusion: Pakistan received 45 million India-made doses via the COVAX initiative, not as a direct grant from India, and thus is not listed as a recipient of free vaccines (Pakistan to Receive 45 Million Doses).
Stance Assessment: Countries are classified as “Supporting Pakistan,” “Supporting India,” or “Neutral” based on diplomatic statements, military actions, or silence in the 2025 conflict.
Countries Not Supporting India
Among the countries that received free vaccines, the following are not supporting India in the 2025 conflict (i.e., they are neutral or support Pakistan):
Supporting Pakistan: None of the listed vaccine recipients explicitly support Pakistan, as Turkey, China, Malaysia, Azerbaijan, and Iran were not direct recipients of free vaccine grants in 2021. However, Malaysia received commercial or COVAX supplies, and its support for Pakistan’s call for an investigation aligns with Pakistan Juliet (India-Pakistan Tensions.
Why Are They Not Supporting India?
The lack of support from these countries stems from:
Geopolitical Neutrality: Nations like Nepal, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka balance ties with both India and Pakistan to avoid entanglement in a nuclear standoff.
Domestic Priorities: Smaller nations (e.g., Seychelles, Dominica) focus on internal issues and lack the geopolitical weight to take sides.
Economic Ties: Countries like Bahrain and Oman maintain strong trade relations with both India and Pakistan, prioritizing stability.
Non-Alignment: Many developing nations adhere to non-aligned policies, avoiding involvement in great power rivalries.
The “Traitor” Label: A Dangerous Oversimplification
Labeling countries that support Pakistan or remain neutral as “traitors” is both inflammatory and counterproductive. For instance:
Turkey, China, Malaysia, Azerbaijan, Iran: These countries support Pakistan due to historical alliances, religious ties, or strategic interests (e.g., China’s CPEC, Turkey’s Kashmir stance). Only Malaysia received indirect vaccine supplies via COVAX, not direct grants, so their stance is not a betrayal of India’s aid.
Neutral Countries: Nations like Nepal and Bangladesh, despite receiving free vaccines, have deep cultural and economic ties with India but also engage with Pakistan. Their neutrality reflects a pragmatic approach to regional stability, not disloyalty.
Calling these nations “traitors” risks alienating potential partners and escalating diplomatic tensions. It also ignores the reality that international relations are driven by self-interest, not gratitude for past aid.
Implications for India
The 2025 conflict highlights several challenges for India:
Limits of Vaccine Diplomacy: India’s generous aid has not guaranteed loyalty, suggesting a need to align future aid with strategic goals.
Diplomatic Isolation: With only the US, Afghanistan, and possibly Israel explicitly supporting India, New Delhi must counter Pakistan’s narrative more effectively.
Regional Dynamics: Neutral stances from South Asian neighbors underscore India’s challenge in rallying regional support against Pakistan-based terrorism.
Recommendations
India should adopt a strategic approach:
Engage Diplomatically: Avoid inflammatory rhetoric and engage neutral countries to build a coalition against terrorism.
Strengthen Alliances: Deepen ties with supportive nations like the US, Israel, and Quad members (Japan, Australia) to counter Pakistan’s backers.
Refine Aid Strategy: Prioritize aid to nations that align with India’s security and geopolitical interests, ensuring mutual benefits.
Counter Narrative: Amplify evidence of Pakistan’s terrorism links globally to shift neutral stances.
Conclusion
India’s Vaccine Maitri initiative showcased its humanitarian leadership, gifting free COVID-19 vaccines to countries like Bangladesh, Nepal, and the Maldives. Yet, in the 2025 India-Pakistan conflict, most of these nations remain neutral, prioritizing regional stability or domestic concerns over supporting India’s anti-terrorism efforts. Countries like Turkey and China, which back Pakistan, act out of longstanding alliances, not betrayal of India’s limited aid to them. Labeling them “traitors” oversimplifies complex geopolitics and risks further isolation. Instead, India must leverage diplomacy, strengthen strategic alliances, and refine its aid strategy to navigate this crisis and secure its interests in a volatile region.
Human rights are meant to protect the dignity, freedom, and well-being of every individual, regardless of nationality, race, or belief. These principles are supposed to be universal and applicable to all people. However, a disturbing trend has emerged over the years—one where terrorists are granted the very protections intended for innocent victims, often in stark contrast to the silence or neglect of the victims of terrorism themselves. This hypocrisy of human rights advocacy is especially evident in the tragic story of Daniel Pearl, the Wall Street Journal journalist who became a victim of one of the most horrific terrorist acts of the early 21st century.
Daniel Pearl’s Tragic Murder
In 2002, Daniel Pearl, an investigative journalist based in Pakistan, was abducted by a group of Islamist extremists while he was working on a story about the growing threats of radical terrorism in the region. His investigation had led him to Al-Qaeda links and the global jihadist network, and his work focused on uncovering the connections between Islamic extremists and various state and non-state actors.
On January 23, 2002, while researching, Daniel was kidnapped in Karachi by a group led by Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh, a British-Pakistani terrorist who was later convicted for his role in the crime. Shortly thereafter, Pearl’s captors made it clear that his life was at risk, and on February 21, 2002, they released a gruesome video showing his brutal beheading. This heinous act shocked the world and exposed the true face of radical Islamic terrorism.
Daniel Pearl was not just a journalist; he was a man dedicated to revealing the truth about the growing terror networks operating under the guise of religious extremism. His murder was a tragic loss not only to his family but also to the world of journalism and the pursuit of truth. But what happened in the aftermath of his murder speaks volumes about the hypocrisy in the treatment of terrorists and terror victims.
The Failure to Hold Terrorists Accountable
In the years following Pearl’s murder, his killers—especially the mastermind, Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh—became a symbol of the international community’s inability to take decisive action against those who commit acts of terrorism. Despite being sentenced to death by a Pakistani court, Sheikh’s trial was mired in controversy, and in 2020, a Pakistani court shockingly acquitted him of charges related to Pearl’s death, citing a lack of evidence and pointing to the possibility of political motivations behind the case.
While Daniel Pearl’s family and the global community sought justice, the Pakistani government, a key ally in the War on Terror, showed a disturbing reluctance to fully investigate and prosecute those involved in Pearl’s murder. The question remains: why did the world remain largely silent in the face of such a blatant act of terror? And more importantly, why did human rights organizations often choose to focus their energies on protecting terrorists, rather than demanding justice for victims like Daniel Pearl?
Human Rights Hypocrisy: Terrorists and Victims in the Same Light
The tragic story of Daniel Pearl serves as a glaring example of the hypocrisy inherent in certain aspects of the human rights movement. In many instances, terrorists—individuals who destroy lives, spread fear, and violate the most basic rights of others—are often given legal protections and media attention, while their victims are left behind in the shadows.
This hypocrisy is particularly evident when we look at the way certain human rights organizations rallied around individuals linked to terrorist acts. Take the example of Aafia Siddiqui, often referred to as the “Lady al-Qaeda.” Siddiqui was convicted in 2010 for attempting to murder U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan and for her connections to terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda. Yet, despite her involvement in terror, human rights groups began campaigning for her release, focusing on her alleged mistreatment in U.S. custody, rather than her role in terrorism.
At the same time, the victims of the terrorism Siddiqui and others like her supported were often left out of the discussion. For example, the 9/11 attacks left nearly 3,000 people dead, yet those who died are often overshadowed by campaigns that prioritize the rights of terrorists over those of the victims.
The case of Daniel Pearl fits perfectly into this pattern. While the terrorists responsible for his murder have, in some cases, received legal protections, the victim’s rights—the rights of a journalist who was simply doing his job to report on the truth—were ignored by both the Pakistani authorities and many in the international community. Human rights organizations that often rally behind accused terrorists conveniently overlook the impact of their violence on innocent people.
The Double Standard: Victims of Terror vs. Terrorists
The human rights double standard becomes even more troubling when examining the global response to the terrorist threat. On one hand, human rights groups demand that those accused of terrorism be afforded due process, even when there is clear evidence of their involvement in heinous acts. On the other hand, these same organizations often remain silent or downplay the rights of victims, such as Daniel Pearl and others who have been affected by terrorism.
Take, for example, the Paris terrorist attacks in 2015, where dozens of innocent civilians were slaughtered by Islamic extremists. While there was outrage over the attacks and support for the victims’ families, there was also considerable attention on the rights of the attackers. Human rights groups, once again, were quick to argue that the accused terrorists must be afforded their legal rights, including protection from torture and inhumane treatment, but the voices of the victims and their families were often drowned out in the debate.
Conclusion: The World Must Choose Justice Over Hypocrisy
The death of Daniel Pearl should serve as a stark reminder of the hypocrisy inherent in the selective application of human rights principles. While the terrorists responsible for his death—and those like them—are often shielded by human rights activists, the victims of their violence are often ignored or forgotten. The world must recognize that human rights should be about justice for everyone, not just those who commit atrocities. Terrorists should not be shielded by legal protections while their victims continue to suffer in silence.
Daniel Pearl’s death was not just a tragedy for his family but for the world. It was a reminder of the need to hold terrorists accountable and protect the rights of the innocent. Until the international community truly upholds human rights for all—victims and perpetrators alike—the hypocrisy of human rights will continue to tarnish the ideals that should be protecting us all.
This story serves as a call to action for justice, truth, and a true commitment to universal human rights. Only then can we begin to create a world where victims of terror are protected and terrorists are held to account for their actions.
On May 7, 2025, the Indian Armed Forces launched Operation Sindoor in response to the April 22 terror attack in Pahalgam, Jammu & Kashmir, which claimed 26 lives, mostly Hindu tourists. This military operation marked a decisive and symbolic turning point in India’s counter-terrorism strategy, targeting multiple terror infrastructure hubs across Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK). As events continue to unfold, Operation Sindoor has not only altered regional dynamics but also ignited new debates on diplomacy, strategy, and national identity.
1. Casualties and Cross-Border Escalation
Operation Sindoor involved 24 precision airstrikes on nine terror-linked sites, reportedly neutralizing over 70 militants affiliated with groups like Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), and Hizbul Mujahideen. India claims over 60 additional injuries, including close aides of JeM chief Maulana Masood Azhar. Pakistan, however, reports 26–31 deaths—many allegedly civilians—and 46 injuries, citing damage to civilian structures in Muzaffarabad, Kotli, and Bahawalpur.
In retaliation, Pakistan conducted cross-border shelling along the Line of Control (LoC), resulting in 12 civilian and one soldier death on the Indian side, with 51 more injured. Pakistan claimed 10 civilian deaths and 38 injuries from Indian shelling. While both sides provide conflicting casualty numbers, the human cost remains undeniable.
2. Regional Disruptions and Security Response
The operation triggered sweeping regional disruptions. Pakistan shut its airspace for 48 hours, grounding international flights and disrupting regional connectivity. In India, 27 airports including Srinagar, Leh, Jammu, and Amritsar were closed until May 10, causing over 300 flight cancellations.
India also conducted “Operation Abhyaas,” a nationwide civil defense drill across 244 districts—the first of its scale since the 1971 war. Additional security measures included nightly blackouts in border regions like Gurdaspur, Punjab, and the closure of public ceremonies at Indo-Pak retreat points. Police leaves were canceled in Punjab, Rajasthan sealed its borders, and schools in frontier districts were shut for up to 72 hours.
3. Political and Diplomatic Reactions
Domestically, the operation garnered near-unanimous political support. Prime Minister Narendra Modi chaired high-level strategic meetings, while opposition leaders such as Mallikarjun Kharge and Jairam Ramesh supported the action, emphasizing national unity.
International reactions were mixed. The United Nations and China called for “maximum restraint,” whereas the U.S. and UK acknowledged India’s right to self-defense but urged de-escalation. Russia expressed concern over potential regional instability, and Sweden advised against travel to affected Pakistani regions. India’s Ministry of External Affairs briefed members of the UN Security Council, reaffirming its anti-terror position.
4. Strategic and Symbolic Dimensions
Operation Sindoor marked a doctrinal shift in India’s counter-terrorism approach, blending conventional military precision with psychological messaging. Key targets included:
Muzaffarabad & Kotli: Known JeM and LeT training hubs
Gulpur & Barnala: Linked to attacks in Poonch and IED production
Muridke & Bahawalpur: High-profile bases, including those that trained 26/11 attacker Ajmal Kasab
India deployed state-of-the-art technology, including SCALP cruise missiles, HAMMER bombs, and indigenous SkyStriker suicide drones. This reflects a significant leap in India’s military capabilities and its intent to project deterrence beyond the LoC.
The name “Sindoor” carries deep cultural symbolism. Referring to the vermilion worn by married Hindu women, it was chosen to honour the widows of the Pahalgam victims. However, critics argue that the symbolism reinforces gender stereotypes, placing women in the frame of passive victims rather than empowered agents.
5. Societal and Economic Consequences
The shockwaves of Operation Sindoor extended to the civilian sphere. Panic gripped Pakistani cities like Lahore, as videos circulated of civilians fleeing explosions. In India, civilians in border towns faced movement restrictions, school closures, and economic uncertainties.
The government prepared to invoke the Essential Services Maintenance Act to ensure stable supplies and prevent profiteering. PM Modi also postponed a diplomatic tour to Europe, reflecting the operation’s seriousness. Public sentiment in India, particularly in Jammu & Kashmir, was buoyant. In Srinagar’s Lal Chowk, locals gathered in solidarity, while families of the Pahalgam victims expressed gratitude.
6. Ongoing Developments and Risks Ahead
As of May 8, 2025, tensions remain high. India conducted large-scale air force drills near the western border, involving Rafale and Jaguar aircraft. Pakistan intensified shelling across multiple LoC sectors, while the BSF neutralized a suspected infiltrator in Punjab.
India’s Ministry of Defence claimed to have foiled a Pakistani cyber-attack targeting air defense radars. Meanwhile, misinformation campaigns have emerged, with Pakistan falsely claiming Indian aircraft losses. Home Minister Amit Shah directed strict monitoring of media and social platforms to counter propaganda.
India has signaled that it seeks no further escalation but remains prepared to respond decisively to any additional aggression.
7. Conclusion
Operation Sindoor has underscored a new phase in South Asian geopolitics—one where assertiveness, symbolism, and technology intersect. While India portrays the operation as a necessary response to terror, Pakistan’s retaliatory posture and civilian impact raise serious questions about the path forward.
The international community watches closely, urging both nuclear-armed neighbors to exercise restraint. As of now, the border remains volatile, the region tense, and the future uncertain. The next steps—diplomatic, military, and humanitarian—will determine whether Operation Sindoor becomes a precedent for proactive counter-terrorism or a flashpoint in South Asia’s fragile stability.
On May 7, 2025, India launched Operation Sindoor, a major military strike against terrorists in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK), in response to a deadly terror attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, on April 22, 2025. That attack killed 26 people—25 Indians and one Nepali, mostly tourists. Imagine losing your family on a vacation—that’s the pain these families felt. India hit back hard, and now the leader of a major terror group has spoken out. Here’s the full story, updated with the latest news, for regular people like us.
What Happened in Operation Sindoor?
Operation Sindoor targeted nine terrorist hideouts in Pakistan and PoK, focusing on groups like Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) in Bahawalpur and Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) in Muridke, plus other spots like Kotli, Ahmadpur Sharqia, Muzaffarabad, and Faisalabad. These groups have been behind many attacks on India, including the Pahalgam massacre.
For the first time since the 1971 India-Pakistan war, the Indian Army, Air Force, and Navy worked together. India used a clever strategy called air defense saturation, which is like sending so many distractions that the enemy’s radar gets confused and can’t spot the real attack. They sent drones, loitering munitions (like smart flying robots), SCALP missiles, BrahMos, Spice 2000 bombs, Gaurav bombs, and HAMMER bombs (used by Rafale jets). The Army hit 70% of the targets, and the Air Force handled 30%. No Indian jets were lost, showing how well-planned this was.
India says the strikes killed at least 17 terrorists and injured 60, but unofficial reports claim up to 120 people might have died. Pakistan says civilians, including a child, were killed. No one outside has checked these numbers, so the real human cost isn’t clear yet.
A Terror Chief Speaks: Maulana Masood Azhar’s Statement
A big update came on May 7, 2025, around midday. Maulana Masood Azhar, the leader of Jaish-e-Mohammed, issued a statement admitting that 10 of his family members, including his elder sister, her husband, a nephew, and his wife, were killed in the Indian missile strikes on his headquarters in Bahawalpur. Azhar also said four close associates died, bringing the total to 14 deaths he acknowledged. He vowed revenge, calling the strikes an attack on his group’s mission. This is the first time Azhar has publicly confirmed such losses, and it shows the strikes hit hard at the heart of JeM—his own family.
But let’s think about this critically. Azhar’s statement, shared through posts on X, confirms the strikes were effective, but it also raises questions. Why is Azhar, a known terrorist under Pakistan’s protection, able to issue statements so freely? And does his vow of revenge mean more attacks are coming? This could make things even more tense between India and Pakistan.
Why Call It “Sindoor”?
The name “Sindoor” has a deep meaning. In Indian culture, sindoor is the red powder married Hindu women wear to show their husbands are alive. The Pahalgam attack targeted Hindu men, including newlyweds, leaving their wives heartbroken. One story that touched many was of Himanshi Narwal, who lost her husband, Navy officer Lt. Vinay Narwal, just six days after their wedding. Sindoor also stands for a warrior’s courage—soldiers often wear it before battle. The name was a message of justice for the victims and a show of bravery.
At around 1 AM on May 7, 2025, the Indian Army posted on X to hint at the coming strikes. They shared a Sanskrit sloka, a short poem with a big meaning:
प्रहाराय सन्निहिताः, जयाय प्रशिक्षिताः
This means “Ready to Strike, Trained to Win.” It’s like saying, “We’re prepared to fight, and we’ll win.” The Army wanted the world to know they were serious about stopping terrorism.
What Did the World Say?
United States: U.S. President Donald Trump called the India-Pakistan situation a “shame” and hoped it would “end very quickly,” pointing out their long history of conflict.
United Nations: UN leader Antonio Guterres was worried and asked both countries to stay calm, saying the world can’t afford a big fight between them.
Other Countries: India told the U.S., UK, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and UAE about the strikes, saying they only targeted terrorists, not Pakistan’s military. But most of these countries haven’t said much, which might mean they’re not fully supporting India’s actions.
Proof of Pakistan’s Role: A Hospital Visit
Two people named Jen and Arminal visited a hospital in Pakistan after the strikes and found something shocking. They saw terrorists injured in the attack being treated under the protection of Pakistan’s Army. This suggests the terrorists work closely with the Army, which could explain why these attacks keep happening. It’s like finding out a bully is being helped by a teacher—now you know why the trouble doesn’t stop. Azhar’s statement adds to this picture, showing how deeply JeM is tied to Pakistan’s system.
Steps India Took Before the Strikes
Before Operation Sindoor, India had already taken big steps against Pakistan after the Pahalgam attack. They stopped sharing river water under the Indus Waters Treaty and cut off trade with Pakistan. It’s like telling a troublesome neighbor, “We’re done.” These actions showed India’s anger, and the strikes were the next step.
Pakistan’s Trick to Hide the Damage
Pakistan is trying to cover up the damage from India’s strikes. They’re using bulldozers in three or four areas to clear away the destroyed terrorist sites, hoping Western media won’t notice the real impact. It’s like cleaning up a messy room before your parents see it—you don’t want them to know what happened. This makes it harder for the world to see the truth about Pakistan’s role in supporting terrorism.
Fake News in India: The Hindu’s False Story
Not everyone in India is helping during this time. A big newspaper, The Hindu, spread false news by showing old pictures of a grounded Indian jet and claiming three Indian jets had crashed in Jammu and Kashmir areas like Aknoor, Ramban, and Pampora. They said government officials told them this, but it wasn’t true—no jets crashed during Operation Sindoor. This kind of fake news can scare people and help India’s enemies. Some call this the “0.5 front”—Indians who work against their own country, almost like hidden enemies. If they’re harming India by spreading lies, why aren’t they called terrorists too?
The Big Questions: Casualties, Risks, and Politics
There are many unanswered questions. India says they only hit terrorists, but Pakistan claims civilians, including a child, died. No one has independently checked who really died, so we don’t know the full truth. Some unofficial reports say 120 people might have died—much more than India’s numbers. Azhar’s statement confirms 14 deaths in his circle, but what about others? It’s like two kids fighting and each blaming the other—we need someone neutral to find out what happened, but there’s no one doing that.
There’s also a risk of a bigger fight. Pakistan fired back by shelling Indian areas, killing three civilians, and their Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif called the strikes an “act of war.” Azhar’s vow of revenge adds fuel to the fire. Even though India said they didn’t want to make things worse, Pakistan’s reaction and Azhar’s words show how quickly this could get out of hand.
Some people wonder if the timing of the operation was political. The Pahalgam attack made Indians very angry, and Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Defence Minister Rajnath Singh were closely involved. Doing something big like this can make the government look strong, especially when people are upset. It’s like a student doing extra work before a test to impress the teacher—sometimes it’s more about looking good than solving the problem.
Will Opposition Leaders Ask for More Proof?
Opposition leaders like Arvind Kejriwal, Rahul Gandhi, and Mamata Banerjee might ask for more proof about the operation. The Indian Army recorded everything using drones, so there’s video evidence. But Kejriwal might say, “Show us the videos to prove no civilians were harmed.” Rahul Gandhi, who praised the operation at first, might ask, “How do we know this won’t lead to a bigger war, especially with Azhar’s threats?” Mamata Banerjee might focus on border safety, saying, “What are you doing to protect our people if Pakistan or JeM attacks back?” They’ll likely push for more details to make sure the government is telling the truth, even if they support fighting terrorism.
What Might Satya Pal Malik Say?
Satya Pal Malik, a former governor of Jammu and Kashmir, has criticized the government before. He might say the Pahalgam attack was planned by Modi’s team to justify this operation and gain public support—like a conspiracy to make the government look good. Malik has made claims like this before, saying the 2019 Pulwama attack happened because of the government’s mistakes. He might ask, “Did Modi’s team plan the Pahalgam attack to start this fight?” Most evidence points to Pakistan-backed terrorists being behind the attack, but Malik’s words could still make people wonder.
What Does This Mean for You?
Operation Sindoor shows India is serious about stopping terrorism, especially with Azhar’s admission proving the strikes hit their target. But it also shows how complicated things are with Pakistan. Here’s what it means for regular people:
Stay Safe: If you live near the border, be careful. Schools and airports in places like Srinagar and Jammu were closed for safety after the strikes.
Bigger Picture: A small fight can turn into a big one, especially with Azhar’s vow of revenge. Let’s hope both countries calm down.
Ask Questions: We should support the Army but also ask for the truth, especially when lives are lost. And we should be careful about fake news—like what The Hindu spread—that can make things worse.
The Army’s message, “Justice is served. Jai Hind,” made many Indians proud, and locals in Jammu and Kashmir were chanting “Indian Army Zindabad” and “Bharat Mata ki Jai.” But as citizens, we should keep asking questions to make sure our leaders are doing the right thing—for today and for a peaceful tomorrow.
In a world plagued by violence and ideological conflicts, the provocative assertion that “terrorists are the second most dangerous, seculars are the first” challenges us to confront an uncomfortable question: do those who champion secularism, in their pursuit of political correctness or electoral gain, inadvertently enable heinous acts of terrorism? This article delves into the claim that secular narratives, driven by vote-bank politics or fear of communal backlash, may downplay or justify atrocities committed by Islamist groups targeting non-Muslims. By examining cases like the 2025 Pahalgam attack in Kashmir, the targeting of Jews in Israel, the Yazidi genocide in Iraq, and grooming scandals in Great Britain, we explore whether secular apologism emboldens perpetrators. The role of figures like Priyanka Gandhi, whose symbolic gestures amplify certain narratives, underscores the broader implications of prioritizing political agendas over justice and security.
The Pahalgam Attack: Religious Targeting in Kashmir
On April 22, 2025, a horrific terrorist attack in Pahalgam’s Baisaran Valley, Jammu and Kashmir, claimed the lives of 26 tourists, predominantly Hindus, with one Nepalese national among them. The attackers, reportedly linked to the group Kashmir Resistance, allegedly singled out victims based on their religion, shooting those who could not recite Islamic verses or identified as non-Muslims (News18: ‘Label Pakistan As State Sponsor Of Terrorism’). Survivors recounted chilling details, such as being asked to recite the Kalima or strip to confirm their identity before being executed (Times of India: Pahalgam terror attack). This attack, deemed one of the deadliest since the 2019 Pulwama bombing, reignited debates about targeted violence against Hindus in Kashmir.
The response from some global media outlets, such as The New York Times, BBC, and Al Jazeera, drew criticism for using terms like “militants” or “gunmen” instead of “terrorists,” which critics argue sanitizes the ideological and religious motives behind the attack (Times of India: US House panel slams NYT). The US House Foreign Affairs Committee condemned this framing, accusing outlets of “whitewashing” the attack’s religious targeting (Times of India: US House panel slams NYT). Such language, critics contend, reflects a secular tendency to downplay Islamist violence to avoid offending certain communities, potentially driven by political considerations or fear of backlash.
Israel: Targeting Non-Muslims and Hostage Crises
The claim extends to Israel, where terrorist groups like Hamas have been accused of targeting non-Muslims, particularly Jews, in attacks such as the October 7, 2023, assault. This attack killed over 1,200 people, with Hamas taking 251 hostages, many of whom remain in captivity (Reuters: Hamas attack on Israel). The deliberate targeting of Jewish civilians, including at a music festival, mirrors the religious profiling seen in Pahalgam. Michael Rubin, a former US official, likened the Pahalgam attack to Hamas’s tactics, noting that both targeted specific religious groups to sow fear (News18: ‘Label Pakistan As State Sponsor Of Terrorism’).
Some secular voices, particularly in Western media and activist circles, have been criticized for framing these attacks as resistance against occupation rather than terrorism driven by religious extremism. For instance, narratives emphasizing “Justice for Palestine,” as seen in Priyanka Gandhi’s public display of a bag with this slogan in 2019, are accused of overshadowing the plight of victims and hostages ([X Post: @sankrant]). Such rhetoric, while advocating for Palestinian rights, can inadvertently legitimize or downplay the actions of groups like Hamas, which explicitly target non-Muslims, according to critics.
Yazidi Genocide: Atrocities and Sexual Slavery
The Yazidi community in northern Iraq faced unimaginable horrors at the hands of the Islamic State (ISIS) in 2014, with over 5,000 murdered and thousands of women and girls abducted as sex slaves (Radio Times: Will Yazidi women get justice?). ISIS justified these acts by labeling Yazidis as “heretics” due to their non-Muslim faith, claiming that raping non-Muslims was a form of worship (Reuters: Captive Islamic State militant). Survivors like Kovan, who endured a decade of captivity, recounted being sold multiple times, raped daily, and forced into conversions (Radio Times: Will Yazidi women get justice?).
Despite international recognition of these acts as genocide, justice remains elusive. Few perpetrators have faced trial, with many detained in Syrian prisons like Panorama without prosecution for their crimes against Yazidis (Radio Times: Will Yazidi women get justice?). Some secular narratives, particularly in academic and activist circles, have been accused of framing ISIS’s actions as a byproduct of geopolitical failures (e.g., Western interventions in Iraq) rather than religious extremism, thus diluting accountability (Just Security: Rape as a Tactic of Terror). This reluctance to confront the ideological roots of such violence is seen as a form of apologism that enables impunity.
Grooming Scandals in Great Britain: Vote-Bank Politics?
In Great Britain, the grooming gang scandals, particularly in cities like Rotherham and Rochdale, involved the systematic sexual abuse of thousands of minor girls, predominantly by men of Pakistani descent (The Guardian: Rotherham child abuse scandal). Between the 1990s and 2010s, over 1,400 girls in Rotherham alone were abused, with authorities accused of failing to act due to fears of being labeled racist or alienating Muslim communities ([X Post: @sankrant]). A 2014 report by Alexis Jay revealed that police and social services ignored evidence of abuse to avoid “community tensions,” a decision critics attribute to vote-bank politics (BBC: Rotherham child sexual exploitation report).
Secular politicians and institutions, wary of losing support from minority communities, allegedly prioritized political correctness over justice. This inaction allowed perpetrators to operate with impunity for years, reinforcing the narrative that secularism, when driven by electoral motives, can enable heinous crimes. The claim that secularists justify such acts to preserve a “united vote bank” stems from this perceived reluctance to confront criminality within specific communities ([X Post: @sankrant]).
Secularism and Vote-Bank Politics: The Role of Priyanka Gandhi
The reference to Priyanka Gandhi carrying a bag with “Justice for Palestine” highlights how political figures can shape narratives around contentious issues. In 2019, Priyanka Gandhi, a prominent Indian National Congress leader, was photographed with a bag bearing this slogan, sparking debate about her stance on Israel-Palestine conflicts ([X Post: @sankrant]). Critics argue that such gestures, while symbolic of solidarity with Palestinians, risk aligning with narratives that downplay or justify violence by groups like Hamas, which target non-Muslims. This aligns with the broader claim that secular leaders, in pursuit of minority votes, may overlook or rationalize acts of violence to maintain political support.
In India, secularism is often equated with protecting minority rights, particularly for Muslims, who constitute a significant voting bloc. Critics contend that this leads to selective outrage, where violence against Hindus, such as in Pahalgam, is underplayed to avoid alienating Muslim voters. For instance, the lack of strong condemnation from some secular leaders after the Pahalgam attack, compared to their vocal support for other causes, fuels perceptions of bias (Times of India: Pahalgam terror attack).
The Psychology of Secular Apologism
The article’s central claim—that seculars are more dangerous than terrorists—draws on the idea that enabling or justifying violence indirectly causes greater harm than the acts themselves. This perspective invokes the concept of Stockholm syndrome, where fear leads individuals to sympathize with or rationalize the actions of oppressors (Hindu Post: Why Liberals Justify Islamic Terrorism). The 2019 Pulwama attack, which killed 40 CRPF personnel, saw some liberal intellectuals framing the attacker’s actions as a response to socio-economic marginalization, a narrative critics argue excuses terrorism (Hindu Post: Why Liberals Justify Islamic Terrorism).
This phenomenon is attributed to a desire to maintain a comfortable narrative that avoids confronting the religious or ideological roots of violence. By focusing on geopolitical or socio-economic factors, secularists may inadvertently provide cover for perpetrators, allowing them to evade accountability. This is particularly evident in media coverage that avoids the term “terrorist” or downplays religious motivations, as seen in the Pahalgam attack (Times of India: US House panel slams NYT).
Counterarguments: The Role of Secularism
Defenders of secularism argue that it promotes equality and protects minority rights in diverse societies. In India, secularism is enshrined in the Constitution to ensure no community is marginalized, particularly in the context of historical communal tensions ([Indian Constitution: Preamble]). Critics of the “seculars are dangerous” narrative contend that attributing terrorism to secularism oversimplifies complex issues. For instance, the Pahalgam attack’s religious targeting may reflect local insurgent dynamics rather than a global secular conspiracy (Al Jazeera: Kashmir attack).
Moreover, secular leaders like Priyanka Gandhi may argue that advocating for causes like Palestine is about human rights, not endorsing terrorism. The grooming scandals in Britain, while a failure of governance, are attributed to institutional lapses rather than secular ideology per se (BBC: Rotherham report). Proponents of secularism emphasize that condemning terrorism unequivocally does not require abandoning minority rights or fostering communal division.
The Broader Implications
The claim that seculars enable terrorism by prioritizing vote-bank politics or political correctness has significant implications:
Erosion of Trust: Perceived double standards in addressing violence (e.g., strong condemnation of Hindu hardliners but softer responses to Islamist terrorism) fuel distrust in institutions and media (Hindu Post: Why Liberals Justify Islamic Terrorism).
Impunity for Perpetrators: Failure to confront the ideological roots of terrorism, as seen in the Yazidi genocide or grooming scandals, allows perpetrators to operate without fear of justice (Radio Times: Will Yazidi women get justice?).
Polarization: Accusing seculars of enabling terrorism risks deepening communal divides, particularly in diverse societies like India, where Hindus and Muslims coexist amidst historical tensions (Outlook India: Post-Pulwama Violence).
Recommendations
To address these concerns, a balanced approach is needed:
Clear Condemnation: Political leaders and media must unequivocally condemn terrorism, regardless of the perpetrators’ identity, to avoid perceptions of bias.
Transparent Justice: Governments should prioritize accountability for crimes like the Pahalgam attack or Yazidi genocide, ensuring perpetrators face trial without political interference (Just Security: Rape as a Tactic of Terror).
Media Accountability: Outlets should adopt consistent terminology (e.g., “terrorist” for ideologically driven attacks) to avoid sanitizing violence (Times of India: US House panel slams NYT).
Community Engagement: Secular leaders should engage with all communities to address grievances without appeasing vote banks, fostering trust and unity.
Conclusion
The assertion that seculars are more dangerous than terrorists is a provocative critique of perceived apologism for heinous acts. Cases like the Pahalgam attack, Hamas’s targeting of non-Muslims, the Yazidi genocide, and Britain’s grooming scandals highlight instances where secular narratives may downplay religious extremism for political gain. While secularism aims to promote equality, its misapplication—through vote-bank politics or fear of communal backlash—can enable impunity and erode trust. A critical examination of these dynamics is essential to ensure justice for victims and prevent further polarization. By prioritizing accountability and consistent condemnation of violence, societies can address the root causes of terrorism without sacrificing the principles of fairness and inclusivity.
Unmukt 