Pahalgam tragedy, global diplomacy, and rising tide of hate: How govt is shaping the narrative while silencing dissent

By Ram Puniyani* 
The Pahalgam terrorist attack has left a deep imprint on the people of India. While Prime Minister Modi resorted to bravado in his public statements, the Godi media echoed his claims, asserting that India had intruded into Pakistani territory. Pakistan, in turn, claimed to have shot down multiple Indian aircraft. U.S. President Donald Trump was the first to announce that he had brokered a ceasefire. Modi took credit for this, while the Indian Army spokesperson elaborated that Pakistan had requested a cessation of hostilities and that India responded affirmatively to prevent further bloodshed among both military personnel and civilians.
In an effort to shape the global narrative, the Indian government dispatched several delegations abroad to present its version of events. These delegations included members from opposition parties, such as the one to the United States headed by Congress MP Shashi Tharoor. Tharoor's remarks in America reveal the framing adopted for these delegations.
Speaking in the U.S., Tharoor said:
"While the intent behind the Pahalgam terror attack was to divide people, it brought people together in India, irrespective of their religion or any other divide... There was an extraordinary amount of togetherness, cutting across religious and other divides that people have tried to provoke. The message is very clear that there was a malignant intent..."
Were all delegations given a brief along similar lines? This narrative certainly contains truth — Indians across communities, including Hindus and Muslims, came together to condemn the heinous attack in Pahalgam. However, beneath this unity lies the grim reality of a continued campaign of hatred targeting Muslims. Even before the tragedy, anti-Muslim rhetoric and violence were on the rise; after the attack, this hate has escalated further.
In my article last week, I listed several such hate-driven incidents targeting this vulnerable community — many of which have been documented by the Centre for Study of Society and Secularism, Mumbai. Another article reported that, even as India mourned the loss of lives in the terror attack, a coordinated online and offline campaign was launched claiming that Muslims were a threat to Hindus and calling for their punishment through violence and boycotts.
Most disturbing among the recent developments was the arrest of Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad of Ashoka University, head of the Political Science Department. In a heartfelt social media post, he wrote:
"I am very happy to see so many right-wing commentators applauding Colonel Sofiya Qureshi... they should also demand that the victims of mob lynching, arbitrary demolitions [of houses], and others who are victims of the BJP's hate mongering be protected as Indian citizens."
Following this, the Haryana State Women's Commission lodged a complaint, accusing him of “disparaging” two women defence officers and “undermining” their role in the armed forces. How his post can be interpreted in this manner remains incomprehensible.
Another complaint was filed by a BJP youth activist. Based on these complaints, Professor Mahmudabad was arrested. Although the Supreme Court granted him provisional bail, it also asked him not to write further on the matter and to surrender his passport. The Court described his post as “dog-whistling” — suggesting it might carry subtly provocative messages. While the bail itself was a relief, this interpretation raises troubling questions about freedom of expression.
Meanwhile, BJP leader Vijay Shah, who claimed that Colonel Sofiya Quraishi is the sister of terrorists, received sharp criticism from the Court. His comment is arguably a blatant case of actual dog-whistling — an open expression of communal hatred targeting an exemplary army officer. While the Court rejected his apology, his arrest has been deferred.
What, then, is dog-whistling? Professor Mahmudabad’s post was a reflection of anguish and concern from a member of a marginalized community — not a covert provocation. In contrast, Vijay Shah’s statement borders on explicit hate speech. Professor Mahmudabad held up a mirror to society, while Shah exploited a national tragedy to further stoke communal tensions. Should a professor from a minority community be punished for speaking about lynchings and bulldozers — both of which have become normalized despite judicial disapproval?
In a related development, two satirists — Neha Singh Rathore and Madri Karkoti (known online as Dr. Medusa) — were also booked for sedition based on their social media posts critical of the Modi government following the Pahalgam attack.
What Vijay Shah said has not been condemned by his party — there has been no suspension, no expulsion, no arrest. Open hate from the highest levels of BJP leadership down to its grassroots is often not just tolerated, but rewarded. Just recall the lead-up to the 2019 Delhi violence: those calling for peace — like Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam — have spent over five years in jail without trial, while Union Minister Anurag Thakur, who incited crowds with “Goli Maro” slogans, was promoted to Cabinet rank.
The norms of civility and the constitutional ethos are being systematically eroded by a politics cloaked in religion. What democracy truly needs are voices like those of Ali Khan, Umar Khalid, Neha Singh Rathore, and Himanshi Narwal — people who speak truthfully, call for peace, and show us the mirror of our collective conscience.
---
*YouTube | Facebook | Instagram | WhatsApp | Twitter | Pinterest | My Website