In the immediate aftermath of the horrifying Pahalgam massacre, where dozens of innocent Hindu tourists were brutally killed, the Indian government responded with unprecedented force. Operation Sindoor, a deep-strike campaign launched by the Indian Armed Forces, destroyed key terror launchpads and military installations across Pakistan-administered territory. It wasn’t just retaliation—it was a strategic message to both terrorists and their state sponsors.
But as India mourned its dead and applauded the armed forces for their swift and decisive response, a familiar pattern re-emerged in the Indian political landscape: Congress sympathizers, liberal media and opposition influencers began to downplay the significance of Operation Sindoor.
Instead of standing united in the face of terror, many chose this moment to resurrect nostalgia for the Congress era, particularly invoking Dr. Manmohan Singh’s “measured” diplomacy after the 26/11 Mumbai attacks. They hailed his restraint, his silence, and the now-infamous Sharm el-Sheikh Joint Statement (2009) as examples of “mature leadership.” But is this nostalgia rooted in reality—or a convenient rewriting of history?
What Did the UPA Actually Do After the Mumbai Attacks?
On 26 November 2008, ten heavily armed Pakistani terrorists unleashed three days of carnage in Mumbai, killing 166 people and wounding hundreds more. The evidence of Pakistani involvement was overwhelming. Yet, no military response followed.
Instead, the Congress-led UPA government, under Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, opted for diplomatic engagement. Within eight months of the attacks, Singh signed the Sharm el-Sheikh Joint Statement with Pakistan’s PM Yousaf Raza Gilani. The document delinked dialogue from terrorism, allowing talks to resume even as Pakistan failed to act decisively against perpetrators like Hafiz Saeed.
To make matters worse, for the first time ever in a bilateral document, India acknowledged Pakistan’s mention of Balochistan—a move that gave Islamabad international ammunition to accuse New Delhi of meddling in its internal affairs, despite no credible evidence.
Far from holding Pakistan accountable, the UPA government gave it diplomatic breathing space.
Operation Sindoor vs. UPA’s Inaction: A Stark Contrast
Compare this to the Modi government’s approach post-Pahalgam. Within days of the terror strike, India:
-
Carried out airstrikes and drone attacks on high-value targets in Pakistan.
-
Hit radar sites, ammunition depots, and terrorist training facilities.
-
Reportedly disrupted strategic assets near Kirana Hills—believed to house nuclear infrastructure.
This was not just about retribution—it was a doctrine shift. For the first time, India pre-emptively hit strategic assets and stood its ground internationally, refusing to bow to pressure or diplomatic hedging.
And yet, Congress loyalists continue to question it, calling it “provocative” or “chest-thumping,” all while pointing fingers back to an era where terrorists walked free, and India appeared hesitant to act.
Congress sympathizers argue that diplomacy is strength. But diplomacy without deterrence is just appeasement. The 26/11 aftermath saw zero military pushback, even as Kasab’s confessions were televised and Pakistani links confirmed.
Today, when India demonstrates military precision and resolve, these same voices ask, “But what about civilian casualties?” or “Isn’t this risking war?”
The truth is: peace isn’t maintained by weakness, especially when confronting a state that harbors terrorists. Operation Sindoor was a demonstration that India’s red lines exist—and they will be enforced.
In conclusion, it’s easy to romanticize the past when facts are inconvenient. But let’s not forget: post-26/11, the Congress-led UPA took no military action, signed questionable diplomatic agreements, and ultimately allowed Pakistan to dodge accountability.
Today, the Modi government has not only avenged a brutal massacre but sent a message that terror has a price. Those who choose to overlook this in favor of stale Congress-era talking points may be more interested in political point-scoring than national security.
For the anti-Modi gang that keeps gushing about Manmohan Singh let me tell you what sort of a disgrace this man was as a leader.
The Sharm El Sheikh Joint Statement (2009)
This statement, signed on July 16, 2009,(the Mumbai attacks happened on 26th Nov 2008) by Indian Prime…
— KishoreIyer (@KishoreIyer5) May 13, 2025
Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.