Congress Sharpens Critique on Modi Government’s Ceasefire with Pakistan: A Crisis of Accountability

On May 27, 2025, the Indian National Congress intensified its scrutiny of the Narendra Modi-led government, raising pointed questions about the sudden ceasefire with Pakistan following the deadly Pahalgam terror attack on April 22, 2025. Congress leader Pawan Khera, addressing a press conference in New Delhi, accused the government of evading accountability, outsourcing foreign policy to "trolls," and failing to deliver justice for the victims of the attack that claimed 26 lives. This critique, laced with references to Prime Minister Modi’s theatrical “Garm Sindoor in my veins” remark, underscores deeper concerns about India’s national security, diplomatic isolation, and the opaque terms of the ceasefire brokered by U.S. President Donald Trump. The Congress’s questions demand a rigorous examination of the Modi government’s handling of the crisis, revealing a troubling pattern of rhetorical flourish over substantive action.

The Pahalgam attack, which targeted innocent tourists in Jammu and Kashmir, triggered a swift Indian response through Operation Sindoor, a series of precision strikes on nine terrorist camps in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) on May 7, 2025. The operation, hailed by Modi as a decisive blow against terrorism, was followed by a brief but intense military confrontation, with Pakistan launching counterattacks on May 8–10. The conflict culminated in a ceasefire announced on May 10, with Trump claiming credit for mediating a “full and immediate” truce through trade leverage. Congress, however, has seized on the government’s silence regarding Trump’s claims, questioning whether India’s sovereignty was compromised under external pressure.

Khera’s press conference highlighted a critical issue: the failure to apprehend the perpetrators of the Pahalgam attack, including notorious terrorists like Hafiz Saeed and Masood Azhar, who reportedly escaped due to alleged forewarnings by External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar. This accusation, if true, points to a grave intelligence lapse, undermining the efficacy of Operation Sindoor. The Congress argues that the Modi government’s inability to capture these terrorists, combined with its abrupt halt of military operations, raises suspicions about the ceasefire’s terms. Khera pointedly asked, “On what conditions did the ceasefire happen? Do the terms include bringing back these terrorists?” These questions resonate with a public still reeling from the attack, demanding clarity on whether justice was sacrificed for diplomatic expediency.

The Congress’s critique extends beyond operational failures to India’s broader foreign policy under Modi. Khera argued that the government’s diplomatic missteps have left India isolated, noting that even traditional allies like Nepal and Bhutan did not publicly support India during the standoff. He cited Kuwait’s removal of visa restrictions for Pakistan and the UAE’s five-year visa policy for Pakistani nationals as evidence of India’s waning regional influence. The alignment of China with Pakistan during the conflict further underscores India’s geopolitical challenges, with Khera accusing the government of inaction in the face of this emerging axis. This narrative of isolation is particularly damaging for Modi, whose foreign policy has often been projected as a cornerstone of his leadership.

Moreover, the Congress has criticized the Modi government’s reliance on “trolls” to shape political discourse, accusing it of prioritizing optics over substance. Khera’s reference to Modi delivering “filmy dialogues” like a Bollywood villain reflects frustration with the Prime Minister’s penchant for rhetoric over accountability. The government’s decision to dispatch all-party delegations to counter international isolation, while BJP MPs allegedly engage in divisive social media rhetoric, further fuels this perception. The Congress contrasts its own actions—such as Rahul Gandhi’s visit to Pahalgam to meet victims’ families—with Modi’s absence from all-party meetings and his focus on political rallies, like one in Bihar shortly after the attack. This juxtaposition paints a picture of a government more invested in electoral gains than national unity.

The sudden ceasefire announcement by Trump, rather than Indian or Pakistani authorities, has also sparked concerns about the “internationalization” of the Kashmir issue. The Congress Working Committee (CWC) resolution on May 14, 2025, condemned Trump’s claims as a “dangerous and unprecedented hyphenation of India with Pakistan,” arguing that it undermines India’s long-standing position that Kashmir is a bilateral matter. Modi’s silence on Trump’s assertions, despite repeated claims by the U.S. President, has fueled speculation that India acquiesced to external pressure, possibly linked to trade threats. The Ministry of External Affairs’ rebuttal that trade was never discussed with U.S. officials fails to address why Modi has not directly refuted Trump’s narrative.

The Congress’s demand for a special parliamentary session to discuss the Pahalgam attack, Operation Sindoor, and the ceasefire reflects a broader call for transparency. The party argues that national security cannot be managed through “public relations exercises” but requires “professional rigour” and institutional accountability. The government’s reluctance to convene such a session, coupled with its organization of a BJP-led “Tiranga Yatra” to celebrate Operation Sindoor, suggests an attempt to politicize the crisis for electoral gain. This approach risks alienating a public seeking answers about security lapses and the fate of the terrorists responsible.

In conclusion, the Congress’s aggressive questioning of the Modi government exposes critical gaps in India’s response to the Pahalgam attack and the subsequent ceasefire. The failure to capture key terrorists, the abrupt halt of military operations, and the government’s silence on Trump’s mediation claims raise legitimate concerns about competence and sovereignty. Khera’s critique of India’s diplomatic isolation and the government’s reliance on rhetoric over action strikes at the heart of Modi’s leadership narrative. As the Congress mobilizes through “Jai Hind” rallies to demand answers, the Modi government faces a pivotal moment to demonstrate that its commitment to national security transcends political posturing. Without clear responses to these questions, the specter of the Pahalgam attack will continue to haunt India’s security and diplomatic landscape.