Whenever there was an external attack on India since independence, the people of India stood solidly behind the government in power, forgetting all differences of religion, region, language, caste, etc. The brutal killing of 25 tourists and one pony driver at Pahalgam in Kashmir by terrorists on April 22, 2025, shocked the whole nation. The opposition parties, in unison, extended their unequivocal support to the government to take any action to bring the culprits to books and ensure the security and integrity of the nation.

'Operation Sindoor' was the response of India to destroy the hideouts of terrorists and terror infrastructure in Pakistan. Pakistan's involvement in proxy wars and the use of terrorist groups to achieve its strategic objectives against India has been a persistent issue. Therefore, it is natural for India to stop the proxy war. That is why India responded to the Pahalgam massacre through Operation Sindoor on May 7, lasting for 25 minutes. When Pakistan retaliated, India, too, responded with military action. The armed conflict was stopped abruptly by a ceasefire agreement reached between the two countries on May 10, 2025.

Various developments after the Pahalgam massacre, particularly after Operation Sindoor, have contributed to dividing the people of India rather than uniting them. War of words between the Congress, the main opposition party, and the ruling BJP is only an indication of the political divide that has been exacerbated by developments after the Pahalgam terrorist attack.

The BJP and its government at the centre have to share a large part of the blame. The government failed to take into confidence the opposition parties. Firstly, the absence of the Prime Minister from the two all-party meetings convened by the government is considered by the opposition parties to be an insult to them.

Secondly, the failure of the BJP and its governments to condemn violence on Kashmiris and Muslims in different parts of India in the aftermath of the Pahalgam attack has created doubts in the people about the sincerity of the government to unite all people of India. In the name of the Pahalgam massacre, hatred against Muslims was spread through social media despite the full support extended to the government by the Muslim community.

Thirdly, the government's reluctance to appoint a committee to investigate security lapses at Pahalgam, a popular tourist destination, has given the impression that the government is shying away from its accountability. In the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, the Central government is responsible for law and order and security.
Fourthly, choosing a religiously coloured name for the operation has not gone down well with all communities in India.

Many women have questioned the ethical correctness of the name "Operation Sindoor." Nalini Singh, in an article titled "The Women of Pahalgam" in The Indian Express on June 9, has posed a very relevant question. "Have we questioned the appropriation of the sindoor- the most tender and intimate moment when a groom adorns his bride's hair with a sprinkling of the sindoor, as a mystical covenant between two persons to live together - to be used as a symbol of muscular national outrage, where patriotism will be inscribed in a hair-splitting?"

Fifthly, the Central government decided to send seven all-party delegations to 32 countries to convey India's message of zero tolerance against terrorism following the Pahalgam terror attack and Operation Sindoor. The purpose was to rally international support and isolate state-sponsored terrorism by highlighting India's collective resolve and strong stance. The members from opposition parties were selected without consulting their party leadership.

Sixthly, most of the opposition parties asked the government to convene a special session of the parliament to provide an opportunity for the government to place before people's representatives the facts related to the Pahalgam massacre and Operation Sindoor. The government's reluctance to convene a special session of parliament suggests that it has something to hide from the people's representatives. The government should have welcomed the opposition's proposal.

Seventhly, a large section of the mainstream media amplified divisive narratives, demonising certain communities while glorifying heavy-handed state responses. This further eroded public confidence in objective journalism.

Eighthly, although the government claims that Operation Sindoor achieved its objectives, some experts hold the view that it exposed the weakness of India's Air Force and brought together Pakistan and China. China is reported to have provided Pakistan with significant military and technological support, including satellite technology, military equipment and training and support. According to a few experts, India's deterrence against Pakistan could not be enhanced as a result of Operation Sindoor due to the China factor.

Despite sending seven all-party delegations to 32 countries, India could not mobilise open support from any of them against Pakistan. Besides, India's relations with its neighbours do not seem to be on good terms. Moreover, the China-Pakistan axis poses a great challenge to India's security. The possibility of a two-front war cannot be ruled out if India responds militarily to Pakistan-sponsored terrorism in the future. In this context, strengthening unity within the country through a process of reconciliation appears to be urgent to face various challenges.

As a first step towards reconciliation, the government and the ruling party should adopt a more positive attitude towards the political opposition. An opposition-mukt India cannot remain a democracy. The government must consult with the opposition when making policy changes that affect all Indians. It could have accepted some relevant suggestions put forward by the opposition in the deliberations of the joint parliamentary committee. In that case, litigation in the Supreme Court and creating a feeling of insecurity in the Muslim community could have been avoided.

The opposition, particularly the Congress and the leader of the opposition, may desist from the personal attacks on the prime minister. Their criticism should be focused on the wrong policies or failures of the government, highlighting the harm caused to the people of India. Both the ruling party and the opposition, seeing each other as adversaries, should come together for the sake of national reconciliation. The ruling party and the opposition are like two sides of the same coin in the context of democracy. In the absence of a strong and vibrant opposition, democracy will degenerate into autocracy, as is happening in many countries.

Communal polarisation has a limit as a strategy for winning elections and remaining in power. The BJP has to give up polarising Hindus by focusing on communal issues like Love Jihad, alleged religious conversions, cow vigilantism, hate speeches, etc, if it really wants to make India a "Viksit Bharat" by 2047 and Vishwa Guru.

All communities should have access to justice on an equal footing. The rule of law should be strictly enforced, and radical organisations that take the law into their own hands should be controlled. True reconciliation involves acknowledging the pain of all communities, addressing injustices, and fostering inclusive platforms for dialogue and healing. Perpetrators of violence—whether insurgents or state actors—must be held accountable. Fast-track courts and independent commissions can ensure this.

There is a growing trust deficit among certain communities in state institutions, including the police, investigative agencies, the Election Commission, quasi-judicial bodies such as the Human Rights Commission, Women's Commission, Minorities Commission, the Judiciary, and the media. This is to be urgently rectified. Without trust, no democratic society can function effectively.

Diversity is a strength of India and not a weakness. Unity in diversity has been the heritage of India from time immemorial, and it has been inserted into the Constitution of India as a core value in the form of secularism or pluralism. Efforts to impose uniformity and curtail the autonomy of states guaranteed by the Constitution should be avoided in view of national reconciliation and the strengthening of national unity.

The media has a crucial role in promoting reconciliation in society. It must act as a vehicle of truth and reconciliation, not division. Ethical journalism, fact-based reporting, and platforms for marginalised voices are crucial to the process. The practice of arresting journalists who criticise government policies should be stopped. The Indian mainline media has to liberate itself from the nickname it has earned, the godi media, by refraining from biased and partisan reporting.

National dialogue forums involving political leaders, community representatives, youth, civil society, and religious groups should be institutionalised. These forums may not yield immediate results, but they will foster long-term understanding and consensus-building.

Civil society organisations, NGOs, interfaith groups, and peace activists play a crucial role in any reconciliation process. Their efforts in organising peace marches, facilitating inter-community dialogues, and offering humanitarian aid will certainly help to rebuild social cohesion at the grassroots level. The negative attitude of the government towards activist NGOs as supporters of Naxals and tukde-tukde gang should change.

The need for national reconciliation is about reclaiming the soul of India as a democratic, pluralistic, and humane society. It is about ensuring that every citizen, regardless of religion, region, or identity, feels heard, safe, and respected. The pain of Pahalgam and the shock of Operation Sindhur should awaken our collective conscience and willpower to build a more just and united nation.