MT Desk: History shows that since 1947, whenever the Indian government has faced internal chaos, administrative failures, or especially rising unrest in Kashmir, it has relied on a familiar tactic: deflect blame onto Pakistan and stir up nationalist sentiment. Mr. Mohammad Kunhi’s opinion piece, provocatively titled “India’s Missing Friends During Op Sindoor” is just the latest example in this 75-year-old pattern.
This article is not a genuine analysis but a deliberate piece of propaganda, based on a fictional premise to advance a specific political goal. This response will dismantle this fictional foundation and reveal how Kunhi dangerously politicizes a military operation as misinterprets diplomacy as treachery, mislabels commerce as friendship, and simplifies the complexities of global politics into a childish ‘friend-versus-foe’ story.
To begin with, the entire edifice of this article is built on a foundation of sand. “Operation Sindoor,” presented as a response to a so-called “Pakistan-sponsored” attack, is a fictional scenario. This is not an accident; it is a sophisticated technique of “narrative framing,” where one first fabricates an accusation and then, treating it as an established fact, builds an entire argument upon it.
Even more dangerous, however, is the choice of the name “Sindoor” for this operation. The name is not innocent; it is a deliberate reflection of Hindutva ideology, which seeks to paint every issue, whether political or military, in a specific religious hue. This attempt to co-opt a sacred cultural symbol for military aggression is a perilous strategy that puts the entire region’s peace at stake.
Furthermore, Mr. Kunhi’s commentary on global diplomacy exposes a remarkably immature and unserious worldview. He is incensed with Western powers, particularly the United States, for urging “restraint” and “dialogue” between two nuclear-armed states instead of unconditionally backing India. For him, the appeal for peace and the effort to avert war is a betrayal of friendship. This is a glaring double standard, especially coming from a country whose foreign minister, S. Jaishankar, frequently champions the philosophy of “strategic autonomy.”
It seems India celebrates this autonomy for itself but views its exercise by other nations as an act of hostility. The reality is that the international community’s response was a responsible one, perfectly in line with the principles of the UN Charter, aimed at preventing a catastrophic war in the region.Kunhi proceeds to label France, Russia, and Israel as “reliable friends,” primarily on the basis of their arms deals or supportive statements. This is a naive portrayal of international relations. As data from global institutions like the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) clearly shows, India is one of the world’s largest importers of arms.
For major arms exporters like Russia and France, India is less a strategic friend and more a crucial “customer.” Their statements and offers of military hardware are not proof of genuine friendship, but rather a commercial strategy to keep their largest market happy. To frame this commerce as “true friendship,” Kunhi is either deceiving himself or deliberately deceiving his readers.
