The terrorist attack in Pahalgam, on April 22, 2025 has once again shaken our collective conscience, reminding us of the fragility of peace in a region long burdened by the weight of history. As India grieves the loss of innocent lives and strengthens its resolve against terror, we must also recognise the critical importance of bipartisanship — both in shaping our response and in ensuring that national security does not become another theatre for political posturing.
There is a distressing pattern that emerges whenever India faces a crisis of this nature: political parties, instead of closing ranks in defence of the nation, often resort to scoring points — weaponising grief for electoral advantage rather than forging a unified front. We saw this after the Pulwama attack in 2019, where swift retaliatory action became intertwined with campaign narratives. That was perhaps inevitable, since the general election was only weeks away from being called, and the national discourse swiftly veered from security imperatives to domestic politicking. But there is no doubt that this cycle weakens our ability to formulate a cohesive and long-term strategy, one that can fortify our defences without compromising our democratic integrity.
Security beyond partisan interests
The challenge before us is clear: terrorism is a scourge that demands a decisive, well-coordinated response, not knee-jerk reactions shaped by party ideologies. Whether dealing with counter-terror operations, diplomatic negotiations, or intelligence reforms, decisions must be made collectively, informed by strategic foresight rather than short-term gains. National security is too vital an issue to be circumscribed by party affiliations; it must transcend ideological divides.
Take, for instance, the Kargil conflict of 1999 — a moment when India, despite political differences between the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party and Opposition Congress, stood together in defence of the nation. The war effort saw bipartisan cooperation, ensuring that security strategies were aligned with national interests rather than partisan agendas. The Opposition, led by Congress President Sonia Gandhi, largely supported the government’s military response. She praised the armed forces, stating: “The bravery of our soldiers in Kargil has made every Indian proud. Their sacrifice will never be forgotten.” Similarly, when India conducted surgical strikes in 2016 in response to the Uri terror attack, it was done with clear messaging — demonstrating strength without overstepping into prolonged conflict — and the nation was united in applauding the action across political lines.
Recent global history is replete with examples of bipartisanship across political divides in response to terrorism in various democracies. Following the September 11 attacks, both parties in the United States recognised the need for a more unified approach to national security, and a bipartisan effort ensured a swift and coordinated response to terrorism. After the terrorist attack on two mosques in Christchurch in 2019, then New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern led a bipartisan effort to reform gun laws. Within weeks, the government passed legislation banning military-style semi-automatic weapons, with support from both major parties. More recently, after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, bipartisan support emerged across Western Europe for military aid to Kyiv and sanctions against Russia. Traditionally neutral countries such as Sweden and Finland joined the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), with broad political consensus across party lines.
The greys are now blacks and whites
These examples highlight how, despite political differences, nations can unite in times of crisis to prioritise security, unity and effective action. Should Pahalgam and its aftermath be any different?
When I first became Chairman of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on External Affairs, I declared that “there is no such thing as a Congress foreign policy and a BJP foreign policy; there is only Indian foreign policy, and Indian national interests.” I was reminded of a famous episode of Indian diplomatic history in 1994, when Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao picked Opposition Leader (and then Chairman of the External Affairs Committee) Atal Bihari Vajpayee to lead the Indian delegation to present India’s case on Kashmir, and counter Pakistan’s falsehoods, at a United Nations session in Geneva. The Congress Minister of State for External Affairs, Salman Khurshid, was named as A.B. Vajpayee’s deputy. Later, as Prime Minister, A.B. Vajpayee recalled with amusement just how bewildered the Pakistani governing class was at seeing an Opposition leader representing his nation’s interests at such a prestigious forum, and at such a crucial moment. But such, he concluded, is our “vichitra loktantra” — as clamorous and chaotic as it is miraculous and mesmerising.
Sadly, this episode has not been repeated in the last three decades, as our politics has turned ever more rancorous and bitter. There is very little mutual respect and friendship on display between the ruling party and the Opposition. The core assumption of democratic politics is supposed to be that both sides understand that the other is as committed to the national interest as itself, even if they disagree on how best to ensure the nation’s well-being. In that sense the two sides are not enemies but adversaries. But that assumption has yielded to a bitter polarisation in recent years. One could, of course, argue that this is merely a natural consequence of the pushes and pulls that are inevitable in a democratic polity. But the Indian discourse has taken on extreme hues that imperil any possibility of consensus. The Overton’s Window of political mobilisation (in other words, what is considered acceptable in the political arena) has become more vengeful, driven by resentment and an obsession to expiate past wrongs. And social media has emerged as an important tool for divisive discourse, through which the political benefits of this polarisation are reaped. From public debates to dinner-table conversations, the greys have given way to Manichaean blacks and whites.
The result is that in recent years, political discourse on security has frequently devolved into blame games, sidestepping the actual need for strategic recalibration. India’s relationship with Pakistan, though complex and fraught, requires clarity. There can be no ambiguity in condemning acts of terror; the line between national security and political point-scoring is not a thin one. It is in India’s interest to unite in the response to terror, because a perception of division at home always emboldens the enemy. Inflammatory rhetoric, though politically expedient, serves no substantive purpose. If India is to emerge as a responsible power, it must ensure that its politics is mature, that the nation always comes ahead of party interests, and that its diplomacy walks in step with defence preparedness — balancing deterrence with restraint, security with stability, and democratic politics with national unity.
Need for a non-partisan security doctrine
What India needs today is a structured national security doctrine that remains insulated from electoral cycles — one that provides a clear vision on counter-terrorism, intelligence-sharing, and strategic deterrence without becoming a tool for political one-upmanship. Policies regarding defence, zero-tolerance of terror, the security of the homeland, regional strategy and global diplomacy, must be formulated with bipartisan consensus, ensuring that they remain consistent, regardless of which party is in power.
True political leadership demands statesmanship over populism, clarity over chaos. If our lawmakers recognise this imperative, they will understand that safeguarding India’s security is not a party matter but a collective responsibility. In moments of grief and crisis, let bipartisanship be the force that unites us — not just in words, but in action. The promise of a secure, stable, and resilient India depends on it.
Shashi Tharoor is a fourth-term Member of Parliament (Congress), Lok Sabha, for Thiruvananthapuram, Chairman of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on External Affairs, and the Sahitya Akademi Award-winning author of 27 books, including ‘The Battle of Belonging: On Nationalism, Patriotism, and what it Means to Be Indian’
Published – May 20, 2025 12:16 am IST