Whether it was the 26/11 Mumbai attacks, 2001 parliament attack, or a multi-party delegation sent to the UNHRC in 1994 – in all such cases, the previous governments took parliament into confidence before any global outreach.
The Union government’s diplomatic outreach – in the aftermath of the Pahalgam terror attack, Operation Sindoor and the four-day military conflict with Pakistan – has begun with multi-party delegations fanning out to key countries including UN Security Council (UNSC) members.
The move to send multi-party delegations abroad comes amid calls from opposition parties for a special session in parliament. Opposition members have highlighted that “foreign governments will be briefed while India’s own parliament and people remain in the dark”.
While these delegations have been briefed by the foreign secretary on talking points – including cross-border terrorism originating from Pakistan, the objectives of Operation Sindoor, Pakistan’s attempts to hyphenate itself with India in the global community, and the Indus Water Treaty – opposition members part of the delegations have said that these questions remain to be answered by the Modi government at home.
Has the Modi government bypassed convention?
While no special session was held following terror attacks in the past and the decision to convene a parliament session rests with the government, during both the 1962 and 1971 wars, the parliament was kept in loop. The parliament was briefed after the last major terror attack on civilians – the Mumbai terror attack in November 2008 – as the winter session convened only days after the attack.
“[The] parliament should be told about what has happened and what has been done by India although there are no specific rules and it is for the government to decide to take the parliament into confidence,” said P.D.T Achary, former Lok Sabha secretary general.
“In 1971, the parliament session was already on and everything was disclosed in the House including all developments on the war front. In 1962, there was a demand from the opposition that parliament should have a secret session but Nehru said that there is nothing to hide and there will be an open session and government will place everything before the House.”
A look at significant global diplomatic outreach efforts by previous governments shows that in the aftermath of the 26/11 Mumbai terror attack, the parliament attack in 2001, and even the multi-party delegation sent to the UNHRC in 1994 following increasing violence in Kashmir – unanimous resolutions were passed in the parliament.
While no special session was called, both the 2008 Mumbai terror attack and the 2001 parliament attack saw discussions in parliament with then Prime Ministers Manmohan Singh and Atal Behari Vajpayee delivering statements.
The present diplomatic outreach comes after the Pahalgam terror attack when 26 civilians were killed on April 22 in the worst attack on civilians since 2008 and the largest military escalation between India and Pakistan since the Kargil war in 1999.
‘Unacceptable to brief foreign governments while Indian people remain in the dark’
As the first batch of the seven all-party delegations left on Wednesday, opposition parties said that it was “unacceptable” that foreign governments would be briefed while India’s parliament and people will remain in the dark.
“The government’s decision to send all-party delegations to key countries, including UNSC members, after Operation Sindoor has been marked by opacity and exclusion. Political parties were neither consulted nor briefed, and there is no clarity on the mandate of these delegations. It is unacceptable that foreign governments will be briefed while India’s own parliament and people remain in the dark,” said CPI general secretary D. Raja.
Raja said that the government must explain the growing confusion over the ceasefire terms and the role of US President Donald Trump, “who irresponsibly alluded to a nuclear conflict”, that was denied by foreign secretary Vikram Misri while briefing the parliamentary standing committee on external affairs when he said that the conflict remained in the conventional domain.
“Before reaching out to the world, the government must first respect its own people and institutions. India deserves transparency, unity, and dignity – not arrogance, opacity, and suppression,” he said.
Also on Wednesday (May 21), Congress MP and the party’s general secretary in-charge Jairam Ramesh shared a video of Vajpayee narrating how he was made a part of a UN delegation by Rajiv Gandhi. Ramesh accused Prime Minister Narendra Modi of stopping multi-party delegations only to use it now to “divert attention”.
“Since the 1950s, MPs from various political parties have been sent in delegations to the UN in New York every October or November. Modi ended this tradition in 2014. But now that he is desperate and his image globally has been shattered, he suddenly thought of such all-party delegations of MPs to visit different countries to divert attention from the tough questions he is being asked” he said.
Ramesh also said that the terrorists who carried out the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks were killed and one was arrested, which led India to receive support from countries across the globe.
“Look at the current situation, we are preparing a dossier and sending diplomatic delegations abroad but the terrorists are at large. They must be arrested and interrogated, that is the real issue,” he said.
While the government has convened two separate all-party meetings – one after the Pahalgam attack, and the other after Operation Sindoor – Prime minister Modi did not attend either. He did make a statement following the Pahalgam terror attack, but it was at a rally in Bihar.
His address to the nation following Operation Sindoor came only after the four-day long conflict ended with a ceasefire, which Trump claimed he had mediated, and 48 hours after the ceasefire itself. While Modi’s statement was a departure from the US’ claims, he did not make any direct references to Trump, who has since continued to reiterate the claims on various occasions. Trump went on to claim that he brought back the two countries from the brink of a nuclear war, and that trade was used as leverage to broker the ceasefire.
How parliament was briefed after 26/11
Days after the 26/11 terror attack in Mumbai in 2008, the parliament was due to be convened for its winter session. The parliament session which started on December 11 was adjourned after condolence notices were read out and discussion on terror was held the next day.
The discussion was followed by a resolution moved by Prime Minister Singh which was unanimously passed. The resolution expressed unequivocal “condemnation of the heinous terrorist attacks in Mumbai by terrorist elements from Pakistan, claiming hundreds of innocent lives and seeking to destroy the values that India stands for.”
In his reply to the discussion, Singh apologised to the people of India on behalf of the government and said that he was “acutely cautious of the fact that in the recent months, the acts of terror have been on the increase” and that systems and procedures “dealing with terrorism need a review”.
“On behalf of our government, I would like to apologise to our people that these dastardly acts could not be prevented,” he said.
Advani in his speech, while questioning the lapses and intelligence failures by the government that led to the attacks, also said that the resolution passed by the House should “convey the unshakeable resolve of the Indian parliament and Indian people that, in this War against Terror, we stand together, and not apart.”
In the next parliament session, then Union external affairs minister Pranab Mukherjee gave a suo motu statement in parliament on the followup to the Mumbai terror attack on February 13, 2009. In his statement, Mukherjee informed the parliament about “diplomatic activity to achieve the goals set for us, namely, to bring the perpetrators of the terrorist attacks on Mumbai to book, and to seek credible steps by Pakistan to ensure that there would be no recurrence of such attacks.”
Mukherjee told the parliament how investigations had progressed in the three months to the point that details could be shared with the international community and specific information, material and leads could be provided to the government of Pakistan.
“A full dossier of the Mumbai attack was also prepared and forwarded to all my counterpart foreign ministers. At the same time, detailed briefings for all resident Heads of Missions in New Delhi were organised in the Ministry of External Affairs,” he said.
Despite fierce domestic pressure, India then opted for strategic restraint rather than immediate military retaliation against Pakistan, which yielded relative peace from terror in the years that followed.
Multi party delegations sent after 2001 parliament attack
After the attack on the Indian parliament on December 13, 2001, the Vajpayee government had sent multi-party delegations to brief world leaders. Then too, a day after the attack, the parliament had adopted a resolution condemning the terror attack.
“This House condemns the cowardly terrorist attack on the Parliament House on 13th December, 2001. The cult of violence and hatred promoted by senseless elements having no faith in democratic institutions has claimed seven innocent lives. Such attacks reinforce our determination to fight the evil of terrorism. Let us rededicate ourselves to protect the sovereignty and integrity of the country at all costs,” the resolution said.
A week later, then home minister Advani delivered a suo motu statement and provided details of the progress of investigations. He said five Pakistani terrorists who were involved had been killed and their Indian associates arrested.
In his statement Advani called the attack on Parliament “undoubtedly the most audacious, and also the most alarming, act of terrorism in the nearly two-decades-long history of Pakistan-sponsored terrorism in India.”
On December 19, when Vajpayee spoke at the end of a discussion that was held on the attack, he said that the need was for “collective resolve” and no decision on war should be taken in haste. “No party can take such a decision alone. That would be the decision of the country,” he said.
While questions regarding lapses that led to the Pahalgam attack have been criticised, Vajpayee at the time, while stating that a tragedy was averted due to preparations made to fight terrorism, had said in parliament that shortcomings need to be pointed out.
“Terrorists were not able to succeed in their plan. We should not ignore these arrangements and we should point out the shortcomings. Suggestions are welcome to overcome these shortcomings, but this is not a question of ruling party and opposition party. The first thing is to ensure peace and brotherhood in the country,” he said.
Multi-party delegations were sent to brief countries around the world about the evidence India had about the role of Pakistan-based terrorists.
“The PM took the view that India should brief countries around the world about the evidence we had about the role of Pakistan-based terrorists and the complicity of the Pakistani state and that simply going to war would not have served the purpose,” said an MP who had been part of such delegations.
“Now things are being done in reverse order. We used military force first and now we are sending delegations to convince other countries about Pakistan’s role,” he added.
1994 Multi party delegation in the UN following parliament resolution
Multi-party delegations were also sent to the United Nations in the aftermath of the Babri Masjid demolition and increasing violence in Kashmir in the early 1990s. In March 1994, as Pakistan planned a resolution on Kashmir at the UNHRC, then Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao sent a delegation led by leader of opposition Vajpayee.
In February that year, parliament had already passed a unanimous resolution on Jammu and Kashmir that condemned “strongly the continued support and encouragement Pakistan is extending to subversive and terrorist activities in the Indian state of Jammu & Kashmir”.
The need to send multi party delegations
While the Pahalgam attack was the worst terror attack on civilians since 2008, the focus then was to build diplomatic pressure on Pakistan and gather evidence of its complicity.
India’s foreign secretary at the time, Shiv Shankar Menon, told The Wire that “the world came to us” after the 26/11 and that there was no need for India to send delegations of MPs abroad.
Questions are also being raised about the efficacy of sending parliamentarians abroad even as Pahalgam perpetrators remain at large. “They (attackers) are roaming around in Jammu and Kashmir and all our MPs are roaming around the world. The priority should be arresting the terrorists. The priority should not be to send MPs abroad,” said Ramesh.
“Terrorists who conducted terror attacks in Poonch, Ganderbal are roaming free. Who will answer these questions? There should be a parliament session, but it has not been called. If such questions are raised in the all-party meeting, the prime minister is not there and does not give answers,” he added.
Reference Link:- https://thewire.in/government/parliament-kept-in-dark-how-modi-govts-multi-party-global-outreach-differs-from-the-past