Modi Ends Cong's Post-1971 Silence

 

As an Indian who has followed our nation’s security trajectory for decades, I’ve often heard Congress leaders proudly proclaim that they "created" Bangladesh in 1971. And yes, the victory was significant — a military triumph led by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, resulting in the surrender of 93,000 Pakistani troops. But every time this gets mentioned, I find myself asking: is that all? What did India really gain from that victory, and what did Congress fail to secure in its aftermath?

Today, under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, we are witnessing a fundamental shift — a new normal in how India deals with Pakistan. The ongoing Operation Sindoor has shattered decades of passivity. For the first time since Kargil, India has conducted covert operations that have dismantled terror infrastructure in Pakistan-occupied territories. Pakistan’s DGMO sought de-escalation, a telling sign of the success and pressure. This is not just tactical brilliance; it’s a bold message: India will not tolerate terror, and it will not be reactive anymore.

Compare this with the Congress era. I remember the years between 2004 and 2014 — the UPA decade — when India suffered one terror attack after another: Mumbai train blasts, Delhi markets, Hyderabad, Pune, and, of course, the horrifying 26/11 attacks. I kept waiting for a response. A statement of strength. A strike. But none came. All we got were dossiers and empty condemnations. At a time when Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was a figurehead and Sonia Gandhi wielded real power, India's silence was interpreted as weakness.

That’s why Operation Sindoor matters. It is a continuation of the post-Uri and post-Pulwama doctrine — the idea that Indian lives will not be cheap, and cross-border terrorism will carry a cost. Modi’s leadership has drawn a red line that previous governments refused to even acknowledge.

And then there’s 1971. Yes, Indira Gandhi led a victorious war. But if she truly had India’s long-term interests in mind, why did she not negotiate a land corridor through Bangladesh to connect the Northeast directly to the mainland? The Siliguri Corridor — or the Chicken’s Neck — remains one of our most vulnerable points. That strategic opportunity was lost when we held all the cards. Why?

Moreover, we were told Bangladesh would be a secular ally. Today, it is an Islamic republic — another fundamentalist state on our borders. Was this really a geopolitical victory, or just a symbolic one?

Had Indira Gandhi been alive today, patriots would have asked her: You won the war — but why did you settle for so little? Why didn't you secure long-term strategic gains when India held all the leverage? And to the Congress party of today, the question is equally pointed: How long will you hide behind the laurels of a 50-year-old war while turning a blind eye to your more recent failures? How do you justify doing nothing when Pakistani terrorists were spilling Indian blood in our streets — from Mumbai to Delhi to Hyderabad?

We are living in a different era now. Modi has shifted the rules of engagement. This new normal is not about adventurism; it’s about deterrence. It tells our enemies that the cost of aggression will be unbearable. And as an Indian, I feel a sense of clarity and strength in our national posture that I have not felt for years.

Congress must stop living in the past. It must answer for the strategic drift that followed 1971, for the decade of silence during the UPA, and for its inability to adapt to modern security realities. India has changed. The threats have changed. Thankfully, so has the response.