Like many fellow Indians, I was deeply disappointed by today’s ceasefire announcement made by our government. It’s increasingly evident that immense pressure—particularly from Western powers, and notably the United States—played a critical role in shaping this decision. Prime Minister Narendra Modi, often hailed for his assertiveness, seems to have yielded under international diplomatic pressure.
This development presents a potent moment for introspection and dialogue. Critics of the government—be it the opposition, secularists, leftists, or even disenchanted supporters—are well within their rights to question the motive and implications of the ceasefire. From tomorrow, we can expect headlines and soundbites placing blame squarely on Modi for bowing to American influence, especially under former President Donald Trump’s era of hard-nosed diplomacy.
As citizens of the world’s largest democracy, it is our constitutional right to voice opinions—whether in support of or in opposition to government policy. Personally, I, too, had hoped for a decisive and transformative outcome from this military engagement. Though it was not officially declared as a war with Pakistan, but rather a mission against terrorism and its enablers, many of us believed there existed a strategic opportunity to recapture part of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (POK). Sadly, that did not materialise.
A Pattern Rooted in History
This is not the first time India has been compelled to halt military progress under international pressure.
- 1947: As Indian forces pushed back Pakistani invaders and tribal militias from Kashmir, it was none other than the British viceroy, still technically the head of the Indian state on Prime Minister Nehru’s request, who—guided by British army generals—pressured Nehru to declare a ceasefire and approach the United Nations. That intervention led to an unresolved issue that persists to this day.
- 1965: During this conflict, when Pakistan pleaded at the UN for intervention, the Western bloc, led by the US and its European allies, forced India into another ceasefire—despite our army’s strategic advantage on the battlefield.
- 1971: After a historic military triumph that led to the creation of Bangladesh, the Indian army captured vast territory in POK and took 93,000 Pakistani soldiers as prisoners of war. Yet, during the Shimla Agreement between Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and Pakistan’s Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, India agreed to:
- Recognize the 1947 ceasefire line as the Line of Control (LOC),
- Hand back all captured territory without compensation,
- Release all 93,000 POWs under the Geneva Convention.
Despite this massive diplomatic generosity, Indira Gandhi failed to secure the release of 54 Indian soldiers and pilots held captive on the western front—many of whom remain unaccounted for even today. Some argue that these decisions were hers alone, but it is difficult to dismiss the enormous external pressure from global powers urging restraint.
And what did India receive in return? Bhutto returned home and famously declared a “1000-year war” against India, pledging to bleed us with a thousand cuts—a strategy Pakistan pursued through proxy wars and terrorism.
- 1999 Kargil War: Again, the Indian Army was under strict instructions not to cross the LOC, even at great tactical disadvantage. The reason? Unrelenting pressure from the Clinton administration on then-Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee.
A Geopolitical Truth We Must Acknowledge
Every time Pakistan has faced existential defeat at the hands of India, the Western powers—especially the United States—have rushed to its rescue. Not out of altruism, but out of strategic interest. A weakened or fragmented Pakistan could lead to a stronger, more stable, and globally influential India. That is something many global powers fear could tilt the balance of power in Asia.
To maintain Pakistan as a regional irritant, a buffer, and a counterweight to India’s rise, the West intervenes—again and again. This calculated containment is not just military or diplomatic—it is geopolitical engineering.
Time for Unity and Resolve
As Indians, we must reflect on these repeated patterns. Our internal divisions only strengthen external interference. Let us debate fiercely and question deeply, but stand united in our resolve to uphold national security and sovereignty.
At the end, regarding the current situation and the ceasefire declared by the government, I must say that what Mr. Shashi Tharoor and Mr. P. Chidambaram (leaders from the Congress party) said in support of the decision taken by the government is right. Additionally, the message delivered by our Prime Minister to the nation, emphasising that it is a time for peace and progress, but also stating that if our security is threatened or our sovereignty is challenged by external forces, we must respond with full force and strength, resonates with me. We must stand in unity with our government and demonstrate to the world that India is a unified nation. I stand in support of my government and the armed forces, and I urge every citizen to do the same, even if we may have differing opinions.
Respect is not given—it is commanded through unity, strength, and clarity of purpose.
Jai Hind. Jai Hind ki Sena.