LAWYER SIBLING LOGO (1)
  • Home
  • Blogs
  • News
  • Updates
  • Constitution
    • Constitutional Laws
  • Laws
    • Civil Law
    • Criminal Law
    • Family Law
    • Real Estate Law
    • Business Law
    • Cyber & IT Law
    • Employee Law
    • Finance Law
    • International Law
  • Special Act
    • Motor Vehicles Act (MV Act)
    • Consumer Protection Act
    • Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Act (NDPS)
    • The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO)
  • Bare Act

The Patriot’s Burden

24/05/2025BlogNo Comments

By Inderjit Badhwar

This week’s cover story captures an India virtually at war—and at a crossroads. The terror attack in Pahalgam was not just an assault on the lives lost, but on the very soul of a nation. It rightly stirred grief, fury, and calls for retribution. It is in the nature of democracies that when blood is spilled, emotions spill over. The national instinct for justice—sometimes indistinguishable from revenge—asserts itself. It is human. It is primal. But it is also incomplete.

Justice, to be just, must transcend the moment of anger. And so, this editorial does not call for restraint in emotion—it calls for responsibility in response. This is not a plea for pacifism. It is a call for purpose.

In the days following Operation Sindoor, as missiles fell silent and diplomatic cables flew, the ceasefire announcement gave pause to the nation’s collective momentum. The result was a familiar split-screen: border towns breathed relief; drawing rooms in cities further afield exploded with accusations of cowardice, appeasement, and unfinished vengeance.

Let’s be clear. The Indian state has not capitulated. On the contrary, our armed forces—once again—demonstrated the capability to inflict costs and create consequences. Pakistan felt the heat. The world took notice. But after the missiles, must come the message. And that message must be rooted not in shrillness, but in strength.

India’s long war against terrorism will not be won with hashtags, nor with TV war rooms foaming at the mouth. It will not be won by political opportunists leaping into every moment of grief to grab headlines and sling blame. It certainly will not be won by the hate machines that try to convert every tragedy into a pretext for internal division. If there is one thing terrorism thrives on, it is fracture—of trust, of unity, of resolve. We cannot hand it that victory.

Our response, therefore, must be threefold: strategic in vision, measured in execution, and united in spirit.

In this context, the government’s post-ceasefire initiatives, including diplomatic outreach across capitals, deserve more engagement than derision. If India is to increase the cost of terroristic adventurism over time, then building a wall of global consensus—block by careful block—is not an indulgence, it is a necessity.

Yes, the government must answer hard questions. Yes, it must be transparent to the extent national security permits. Yes, it must explain its choices with clarity and credibility. But let us not demand instant gratification in a theatre that demands infinite patience. The war on terror is not a one-act drama—it is a long, painful, often thankless play, whose scenes are written not just with bullets, but with ballots, books, and backroom diplomacy.

To all who insist that only fury and fire can avenge the fallen, let us ask: What then? What next? Will endless escalation bring closure, or just more coffins? Will it strengthen India, or exhaust it?

Let us not be blind to the geopolitical stakes. In a world riven by shifting alliances and cynical interests, India needs friends—steadfast and strategic ones. That requires moral authority. And moral authority is not earned through shrill TV studio baying, or by weaponizing the uniform of our soldiers for partisan gain. It is earned by dignity. By consistency. By purpose.

Which brings me to the role of government. The burden of clarity, the onus of credibility, falls squarely on the State. It must lead not by diktat, but by dialogue. It must carry the nation along—not behind, but beside. That means resisting the temptations of political point-scoring, and insulating our armed forces from the circus of partisan rhetoric. It means confronting disinformation not with censorship, but with candour. Above all, it means ensuring that long-term gains are not sacrificed at the altar of short-term applause.

Is that too much to expect from a government? I believe not. And if that is the path it is choosing, how can anyone not be with the government?

In today’s India, unity is not just a value—it is a compulsion. A strategic imperative. The most powerful weapon in our national arsenal.

Let us wield it wisely.

The post The Patriot’s Burden appeared first on India Legal.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Recent Posts

  • India-Canada: Critical Partners Must Reset Diplomatic Ties
  • Lawless Ambitions, Judicial Setbacks, And A Billionaire Rebellion
  • The Politics of Sindoor
  • CJI BR Gavai terms arbitration as strong pillar showcasing transformation of justice delivery system
  • “One Rank, One Pension”: SC Ends Discrimination in Judges’ Benefits

Recent Comments

  1. Phone Tracking In India - lawyer Sibling on The Constitution of INDIA
  2. Section 437A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - lawyer Sibling on The Constitution of INDIA
  3. The Evolution of Indian Penal Code 1860: Key Provisions and Relevance Today - lawyer Sibling on The Constitution of INDIA

Follow us for more

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
YouTube
Instagram
DisclaimerPrivacy PolicyTerms and Conditions
All Rights Reserved © 2023
  • Login
  • Sign Up
Forgot Password?
Lost your password? Please enter your username or email address. You will receive a link to create a new password via email.