In the wake of crisis, the need for bipartisanship, Pg8

• The Pahalgam terror attack (April 22, 2025) has reignited debates on India's counter-terrorism response and the need for political unity in times of national crisis.

  • The article criticizes the recurring pattern of partisan politics post-terror attacks, undermining long-term strategic planning.

  • Calls for a bipartisan national security doctrine to ensure coherent, coordinated, and resilient policy.

Detailed Insights:

• National security requires continuity, not opportunism. Responses should be based on informed strategy, not political ideology.

  • Examples from history (e.g., 1999 Kargil War, 2019 Pulwama) reveal how national tragedies are often politicized, weakening unity and strategic clarity.

  • Global parallels: New Zealand, U.S., and Western Europe have demonstrated how bipartisan cooperation enhances effective anti-terror response.

  • Indian political discourse often devolves into blame games and adversarial rhetoric, reducing the space for cooperative problem-solving.

Key Concepts:

• Bipartisanship: Cooperation between major political parties to address national issues beyond electoral considerations.

  • Security Doctrine: A comprehensive strategy outlining a nation's approach to internal and external threats.

  • Weaponisation of Grief: Using national tragedies for political mileage rather than unity.

Significance:

• A non-partisan security approach can enhance strategic planning, ensure consistent foreign policy, and bolster India’s internal resilience.

  • Recommends institutionalizing cross-party consultations on defence, intelligence, and diplomatic matters.

  • Emphasizes the need for strategic continuity across electoral cycles.

Mains Mock Question:

India's internal security strategy must transcend party lines to ensure national interest. Discuss the need for bipartisan consensus in shaping India’s counter-terrorism doctrine.”