The Hindu Editorial Analysis
20 May 2025
In the wake of crisis, the need for bipartisanship
(Source – The Hindu, National Edition – Page No. – 08)
Topic: GS 2: Governance | Internal Security | Centre-State Relations | Political Ethics and National Interest
Context
- The recent terrorist attack in Pahalgam, Kashmir on April 22, 2024, which claimed innocent lives, has again reignited debates on India’s counter-terror response and national security policy.
- The editorial argues that such crises must not become fodder for political point-scoring, but rather occasions for national unity, bipartisan strategy, and long-term planning.
Introduction
In times of national tragedy, politics must pause, and statesmanship must prevail.
The Pahalgam attack serves as a grim reminder not only of terrorism’s threat but also of the need for collective political will to frame a robust, enduring, and inclusive security strategy.
India must rise above electoral expediency and forge a bipartisan consensus on national security, transcending ideological divides.
The Problem: Politicisation of Security
1. Post-Crisis Polarisation
- Like after Pulwama (2019), retaliatory action after Pahalgam risks being swept into campaign rhetoric, rather than informed strategic thinking.
- Political parties often respond with blame games, selective patriotism, or opportunistic criticism, undermining public trust.
2. Weaponising Terror for Electoral Gain
- Security actions, when politicised, divide national consensus and erode long-term clarity.
- This weakens India’s institutional response and shifts focus away from systemic reforms in intelligence, diplomacy, and border control.
Lessons from History: When Unity Prevailed
1. Kargil War (1999)
- Despite political differences, ruling NDA and opposition UPA stood united, defending the nation and lauding the armed forces.
- Congress President Sonia Gandhi openly supported the Vajpayee-led government, marking a rare but vital moment of solidarity.
2. U.S. & Europe Post-Terrorism
- After 9/11, 7/7 (London), and Christchurch (2019), Western democracies came together across party lines, prioritising shared security over partisanship.
The Path Forward: Security as a Shared Doctrine
1. National Security Must Be Apolitical
- Security planning needs coordinated decision-making, not ad-hoc, reactionary steps driven by electoral compulsions.
- India needs a codified security doctrine—covering counterterrorism, cyber defence, and strategic diplomacy—irrespective of political shifts.
2. Examples of Constructive Bipartisanship
- The Shastri-Bhajpai episode on Kashmir, or Narashima Rao’s engagement with the BJP on foreign policy, showed that cross-party collaboration is possible and often more effective.
The Stakes: National Unity and Global Credibility
1. Impact on Diplomacy and Internal Cohesion
- Divisive rhetoric weakens India’s global narrative as a responsible, democratic power.
- It emboldens adversaries and creates public confusion, especially when counter-terror strategies are questioned in political forums.
2. Rebuilding Public Trust in Crisis Response
- India must demonstrate that security and human life outweigh electoral gain.
- A transparent, united political response builds public resilience and national morale, especially after terror attacks.
Conclusion
Terrorism is a challenge to the Indian nation, not to any one party.
Only when our political leaders act as guardians of national interest—not contenders for votes—can India build a cohesive, long-term security doctrine.
India needs more than strong words—it needs cooperative, bipartisan action to defend its democracy from those who seek to divide it.