New Delhi, 30 July — The Lok Sabha erupted into a battle of narratives during the debate over Operation Sindoor, as lawmakers from border states—Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and Jammu & Kashmir—voiced sharp, divergent reactions. With accusations flying across party lines, the session laid bare the human cost of conflict, alleged intelligence lapses, and political manoeuvring that followed India’s cross-border strike.
From Haryana, Congress MP Deepender Hooda delivered one of the day’s most scathing critiques, condemning the government’s decision to limit its military response. Calling it “a historic mistake,” Hooda accused the Modi administration of exonerating the Pakistani military by publicly declaring civilian and military targets would be avoided.
“There is no difference between Pakistan’s government, its military and the terrorists. They are one and the same. Yet, by sparing the Pakistani Army, we sent the wrong message to the world,” he said.
In contrast, Bathinda MP Harsimrat Kaur Badal of the Shiromani Akali Dal turned her criticism toward the Opposition. Her emotional intervention focused on the hardships endured by border residents amid shelling and shutdowns.
“We are not just numbers, we are India’s first line of defence,” she said, demanding compensation for affected families and a reopening of the Kartarpur Corridor. Addressing critics of the ceasefire, she asked: “Are we here to demolish Pakistan or give a befitting reply?”
Aam Aadmi Party MP Gurmeet Singh Meet Hayer from Sangrur raised questions over the intelligence and diplomatic lapses that preceded the operation. He pointed to the Pahalgam terror attack and the downing of an Indian jet, asking: “Was it because our External Affairs Minister informed Pakistan in advance?”
Citing Donald Trump’s claim of brokering the ceasefire, Hayer remarked: “So where do we stand in global diplomacy? Are we a regional power or a nation whose sovereignty can be switched off with a tweet?”
The tone escalated further with BJP’s Anurag Thakur, MP from Himachal Pradesh, who accused Congress leader Rahul Gandhi of aligning with enemy narratives.
“Rahul Gandhi echoes Pakistan’s propaganda. He is the Leader Opposing Bharat,” Thakur declared. Accusing Congress of undermining the Army through its statements and social media posts, he added: “There’s a half-front war going on, against Rahul Occupied Congress.”
Congress MP Amrinder Singh Raja Warring of Punjab sought to strike a more measured chord, expressing support for the armed forces while questioning the government’s strategic clarity.
“We stood with the Prime Minister when the strike happened. But this isn’t about politics—it’s about accountability. The country deserves answers,” he said. Warring questioned why Pakistan was forewarned and demanded clarity around the Rafale crash near Bathinda. “If I had been the Home Minister, I would have resigned,” he said.
Joining in, Congress MP Gurjeet Singh Aujla of Amritsar accused the government of disengagement in the face of national mourning.
“On April 22, 26 civilians were martyred. And the Prime Minister was attending Panchayati Raj Day celebrations,” he said. Aujla demanded a public display of the Rafale fleet to counter international speculation, including Donald Trump’s claim of five Indian aircraft losses.
“Prove him wrong. Show the country our strength,” he challenged.
He also raised concerns over continued trade with Pakistan and China amid both countries’ alleged links to terrorism and the narcotics trade devastating Punjab.
“Wars don’t end on Twitter. They end with treaties. Where is the Prime Minister’s statement? Where is the ceasefire agreement?” Aujla asked.
In one of the debate’s most poignant interventions, Independent MP Engineer Rashid from Baramulla urged the House to look inward.
“Everyone spoke of Pakistan. No one spoke of Kashmiris. Do you want Kashmir’s land or Kashmir’s people?” he said. “You can end militancy only by winning hearts—not with bombs.”
As the debate closed, what remained was not consensus, but a snapshot of India’s unresolved questions—about strategy, identity, and the cost of conflict borne by those closest to its borders.
