When the Prime Minister of India addressed the nation in Hindi, there was an expectation that after a prolonged absence, he would address significant concerns that have been troubling the public regarding the Pahalgam incident, the ensuing Indo-Pak conflict, and the ceasefire. However, several critical questions remained unaddressed.
Who were the terrorists involved, where did they originate, and how did they infiltrate?
Who were the terrorists involved, where did they originate, and how did they infiltrate? Was there any investigation into these matters? What prompted the decision to withdraw security from Pahalgam despite the influx of tourists, and what was the rationale behind this process? Who is accountable for this oversight, the intelligence failures, and the security lapses? What actions have been taken against those responsible?
If he wished, the Prime Minister could have expressed remorse for the shortcomings. Furthermore, why did he choose to attend an election rally and the Adani event when the situation in Pahalgam was so dire, as he himself acknowledged? Why was he absent from all-party meetings? The nation remains unaware of the number of Indian casualties and injuries.
In his speech, he mentioned the elimination of 100 terrorists, although such round figures often suggest careless reporting.
Notably, Azhar Masood, a key figure, reportedly survived, while his associates were said to have been killed. Despite extensive diplomatic engagement, including lavish gifts and arms purchases, why did he not take a firmer stance against Pakistan during this crisis? The nation was left in the dark regarding the outcomes of the attack and the implications of the ceasefire.
Why does Trump repeatedly claim to have mediated ?
The American President’s sudden dissemination of misleading information regarding India raises questions. Why does he repeatedly claim to have mediated and facilitated reconciliation and a ceasefire between the two nations, suggesting that both countries agreed to this due to trade incentives?
If India’s stance on Kashmir has shifted, it would have been prudent to involve the nation in this decision. Is Kashmir now open to mediation? While Modi has not clarified this, Trump and other diplomats seem to imply so. Given Trump’s public initiative for mediation in Kashmir, it is essential for the Prime Minister to articulate India’s position clearly.
Throughout his speech, Modi referenced Sindoor multiple times yet chose to remain silent about the disrespect shown by his supporters towards those whose Sindoor was affected. The ceasefire decision may have originated from Modi’s level, possibly facilitated by Trump, but he neglected to address the unwarranted trolling of Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri on social media, who announced it.
Finally, he did not find it important to acknowledge the people of Kashmir, who bravely protested against terrorism for the first time, nor did he mention the violence and other atrocities faced by children and youth who sought education and business opportunities in the rest of India. All these matters are significant for the country, even if they were omitted from his message.
