What Prompted the Ceasefire Declaration When India Was Close to Occupying PoK?
Click to start listening
Synopsis
Kalyan Banerjee raises pressing questions about the ceasefire declaration against Pakistan during a critical military operation. His concerns highlight the implications of external influences on national security decisions, especially when the Indian armed forces were on the brink of significant territorial gains.
Key Takeaways
- Kalyan Banerjee questions the rationale behind the ceasefire with Pakistan.
- He compares the ceasefire to a sports team prematurely ending a match.
- Concerns about US influence on India's military decisions were raised.
- Banerjee insists on reclaiming PoK.
- He highlights serious lapses in intelligence and security that led to the tourist killings.
Kolkata, July 28 (NationPress) Kalyan Banerjee, a four-time Lok Sabha member representing the Trinamool Congress, questioned the Centre on Monday regarding the rationale behind the Indian government's decision to declare a ceasefire against Pakistan during Operation Sindoor. This occurred at a pivotal moment when the Indian armed forces were almost ready to secure Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir (PoK).
"Can you imagine a cricket match where a team declares its innings just as a batsman approaches a century? This is analogous to the ceasefire declaration against Pakistan when the nation was anticipating justice for the tragic killing of 26 tourists by four terrorists in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, earlier this year. The Indian forces were prepared to take PoK, making the ceasefire a strategically misguided choice," Banerjee articulated while addressing the Parliament during the Monsoon session on Operation Sindoor.
He further expressed his dismay that the announcement of the ceasefire was delivered to the public through a social media post from US President Donald Trump, rather than the Indian government.
"Why did the Indian government yield to US pressure to announce a ceasefire? Even while we were in opposition, we stood firmly with the government amid rising tensions with Pakistan. Yet, you ultimately conceded to external pressure," Banerjee continued.
He reiterated his desire for the Indian government to reclaim PoK, which has been unlawfully occupied by Pakistan for years.
Earlier in his address, Banerjee described the horrific killings of 26 tourists at Pahalgam by just four terrorists in April as a result of complete failure in intelligence and security.
"How did these four terrorists manage to enter India, commit the murders, and then return to Pakistan? What was the Border Security Force doing? What about the Intelligence Bureau? What actions did the Union Home Ministry take?" Banerjee questioned.
He also remarked that while Prime Minister Narendra Modi is quick to claim credit for successes, he rarely takes responsibility for failures.
Point of View
My perspective emphasizes the importance of national security and sovereignty. Kalyan Banerjee's questions reflect a broader concern among citizens regarding the government's decisions in times of crisis. It is crucial for the government to communicate transparently about such decisions to maintain public trust and ensure national unity.
NationPress
30/07/2025
Frequently Asked Questions
Why did Kalyan Banerjee question the ceasefire?
He questioned the ceasefire declaration amidst Operation Sindoor when Indian forces were about to occupy PoK, suggesting it was a strategically poor decision.
What were the implications of the ceasefire?
The ceasefire raised concerns about national security and the influence of external pressures, particularly from the US.
What incident prompted Banerjee’s remarks?
Banerjee referred to the tragic killing of 26 tourists in Pahalgam as part of a larger failure in intelligence and security.
What does Banerjee want regarding PoK?
He expressed a desire for the Indian government to reclaim PoK, which he believes should be Indian territory.
How does this situation reflect on leadership?
Banerjee criticized Prime Minister Modi for taking credit for successes but avoiding accountability for failures.
