May 15, 2025
NEW DELHI – Many in India expressed relief after a sudden ceasefire was announced between India and Pakistan on May 10, bringing a welcome halt to four days of escalating hostilities between the two nuclear-armed neighbours, marked by shellings, drone attacks and even tit-for-tat missile launches.
But as the guns on the border fell silent, a brigade of angry and disappointed Indians emerged online to mount an attack with bellicose posts on India’s decision to cease fighting when, they argued, the country had the upper hand in its conflict with Pakistan.
“Ceasefire wasn’t peace, it was surrender in slow motion. We had them cornered, and instead of finishing it, we folded under global pressure,” posted one Ashish Anand on X. He identified himself as a financial planner from Jammu and Kashmir as well as someone who is “unapologetically Hindu”.
“We failed to hammer the final nail in the coffin of Pakistan..!! Disappointed..!” added another X user @angryopinionatd.
Questions on the ceasefire were also directed at Prime Minister Narendra Modi, with right-wing Hindus, who make up a strong support base for his Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), openly expressing their displeasure at the “unfinished task” of ending Pakistan’s support for terrorism and even reclaiming Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK), a term used in India to refer to the part of the disputed region of Kashmir under Pakistan’s control.
One such post came from Mr Shakti Singh, a member of the BJP’s youth wing. Tagging Mr Modi, he listed some of India’s wanted men who are believed to be in Pakistan, such as Dawood Ibrahim and Hafiz Saeed, and added that “as long as these terrorists are alive, a ceasefire makes no sense”.
Hafiz Saeed is the co-founder of Lashkar-e-Taiba, a terrorist group linked to multiple attacks in India, including the 2008 Mumbai attacks. Dawood Ibrahim is a drug lord and terrorist suspected of involvement in the 1993 serial bombings in Mumbai.
The Prime Minister was attacked online by a section of right-wing Hindus – one felt he “had chickened out” by agreeing to the ceasefire.
“We can’t risk our National Security in (the) hands of Incompetent PM,” posted @HinduDharma1 on X.
Right-wing trolls did not even spare India’s top diplomat, Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri, who announced the ceasefire to Indians, a decision endorsed by the country’s top leadership.
He quickly became the lightning rod for trolls, who called him a traitor, despite Mr Misri countering Pakistani narratives daily at the press briefings held during the conflict.
His daughter, a lawyer who has reportedly worked to defend Rohingya refugees – a group that often attracts the ire of right-wing Hindus – also came under a vicious attack, with her phone number made public.
An old photograph of Mr Misri with his daughter that he had posted on X attracted a volley of unwelcome comments. “Grow a spine,” said one of the more docile ones, while another added: “You have embarrassed us as a nation. Hope you resign.”
The firestorm, laced with unprintable expletives, prompted Mr Misri to lock his account on X.
The warmongering and personal attacks targeting one of India’s distinguished diplomats have shocked many, inviting condemnation from opposition parties and many others, including associations representing India’s bureaucrats and diplomats.
Mr Sudheendra Kulkarni, an author and commentator, as well as a former BJP member, described Mr Misri as “truly an outstanding diplomat” who has been “doing his job with exemplary composure and firmness”.
“To malign him at such a point, including the act of maligning his daughter and what she may or may not have said, and thereby questioning his patriotism, was despicable,” he told The Straits Times.
Ms Himanshi Narwal, the widow of an Indian Navy officer who was killed in the Pahalgam attack on April 22 that triggered the recent hostilities, was also exposed to similar attacks posted on right-wing social media accounts after she urged Indians not to target Muslims or Kashmiris and instead seek justice without hate.
The recent “war-like conflict fought in the age of social media”, said Mr Kulkarni, had given “ultra-jingoists” the opportunity to comment “without much knowledge or accountability”.
“There is a need to moderate sentiments at times like these, and that’s the responsibility of social, political and media leaders,” he added.
But neither the BJP nor the BJP-led government has issued any statement condemning the attacks on Mr Misri, a silence that has invited criticism.
“Shame on the trolls. Why is the government silent?” the Communist Party of India (Marxist) tweeted on its official account on X on May 12.
The ceasefire – announced first by US President Donald Trump – has also been opposed because it is seen as one that has been dictated to India by Washington, a move that runs counter to India’s long-held stated policy of not allowing third-party mediation on the Kashmir dispute.
Mr Arnab Goswami, a popular right-wing Indian news anchor, described the US President’s intervention as a “typical Trump overreach” on a show on Republic TV on May 10. “It is not the job of the President of the United States to make a claim when we haven’t even agreed that this is a matter which requires his intervention,” he said.
India on May 13 reiterated that any issue related to Jammu and Kashmir will have to be addressed bilaterally by India and Pakistan.
The failure to extract desired strategic gains before agreeing to a ceasefire has been another issue.
“Why did #India agree to a #ceasefire?” asked Mr Prakash Singh, a retired chief of India’s Border Security Force.
“Did #Pakistan agree to dismantle its infrastructure of #terrorism? Did they make any commitment that there would be no #terrorist actions in India? Disappointing that #OperationSindoor was not pursued to (its) logical conclusion.”
But India’s armed forces maintain they achieved the objectives of Operation Sindoor, the name given to the military operation against alleged terrorist training camps located in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir.
On May 12, Mr Modi delivered a firm televised speech, one that has been seen as an attempt to placate those who have criticised his government for stopping the conflict too soon.
He said it was Pakistan that had reached out to India seeking a ceasefire “after suffering heavy losses”. He added that India had “just suspended” its retaliation against Pakistan’s terror and military camps, with its future course to be determined by Islamabad’s actions.
“If there are talks with Pakistan, it will be only on terrorism; and if there are talks with Pakistan, it will be only on Pakistan-occupied Kashmir,” said Mr Modi.
Professor Priyankar Upadhyaya, Unesco Chair for Peace and Intercultural Understanding at Banaras Hindu University, told ST that de-escalating a crisis is always challenging, particularly in the wake of a gruesome terrorist attack like the one in Pahalgam on April 22, which sparked widespread anger, a sentiment that was further amplified in public discourse and on social media.
Public anger was also whipped up in India during the recent conflict through false mainstream media reporting as well as misinformation campaigns online that suggested widespread destruction of Pakistani cities and harm to its defence establishment, raising expectations of a sweeping and decisive Indian victory.
Moreover, Mr Modi’s strongman image had further aroused public expectations of a befitting response this time after the horrific Pahalgam incident.
Back in 2016, following a fatal attack on an Indian Army brigade headquarters in Jammu and Kashmir, Indian commandos crossed the Line of Control, a de facto border between India and Pakistan, to carry out strikes on alleged terror camps in Pakistan-administered Kashmir.
Then in 2019, following the Pulwama bombing, which killed 40 Indian paramilitary personnel, India launched air strikes deep into Balakot in Pakistan – the first such action since 1971.
Senior BJP ministers had earlier claimed India would take back PoK, another expectation that emerged among Indians during the recent conflict.
“Public mobilisation reached its zenith, and emotionally charged stereotypes spread without a clear understanding of what was actually feasible,” said Prof Upadhyaya.
“In such an environment, where rhetoric and polemics are used to stir public sentiment, it becomes extremely difficult for political leaders to step back or change course.”