Five Questions That Indian MPs May Have to Face Abroad

As the all-party parliamentary delegations leave for more than 25 global capitals following Operation Sindoor, the Modi government’s aim is clear: present a united front as a secular country, expose Pakistan’s role in cross-border terrorism and shape the international narrative. But beyond the official talking points, Indian MPs are bound to face some sharp and uncomfortable questions. These will demand more than just rehearsed responses. 

Foreign capitals will judge India by its willingness to provide evidence, its respect for democratic processes, its clarity on diplomatic principles and its consistency in both domestic and foreign policy. 

Here are the five questions Indian MPs must be ready to answer, and why evasion may not be an option for them.

1. Where is India’s evidence on the Pahalgam Attack?

Global audiences will want specifics: Who were the attackers in Pahalgam? What proof does India have of their links to Pakistan? What was the real objective and outcome of Operation Sindoor? 

While the government claims to have struck terror infrastructure in Pakistan and PoK, foreign governments and media will press for verifiable evidence about the terror attack, either intercepted communications or captured militants. The world has seen too many conflicting claims in South Asia. MPs must be prepared with facts, not just rhetoric, if they want international support. India’s diplomatic moves after the Parliament attack in 2001 and the dossier after Mumbai, 2008, offer a model.

2. Why is there no clear accounting of India’s military losses, including downed aircraft?

The fog of war breeds confusion, and the recent conflict was no exception. Pakistan claimed to have shot down Indian fighter jets, including Rafale fighter jets while India has maintained silence and refused to provide details. Military spokespersons deflected the question in a briefing by focusing on strategic objectives rather than operational losses. This ambiguity undermines India’s credibility. When MPs visit foreign capitals, they will be pressed: What really happened in the skies on the first night? Did India lose any aircraft, particularly its most modern fighter jet? How much was loss to Indian military bases in Pakistani missiles and drone strikes? Why is there no clear accounting of military losses or operational outcomes? Was India aware of the nuclear connection to the site it chose to target with a missile strike? The world expects transparency, and if MPs do not answer these questions, they will only fuel speculation and erode trust in the Indian version of events.

3. Why is there lack of transparency at home, but briefings abroad?

A major criticism from opposition leaders and civil society is the Modi government’s opacity. CPI general secretary D Raja has slammed the government for briefing foreign governments on Operation Sindoor while keeping the Indian Parliament and the public in the dark. No special session of Parliament was called, and political parties were not consulted on the delegations’ mandate. Why, then, is the Modi government more forthcoming with foreign powers than with its own citizens? MPs abroad will be challenged on this double standard, especially by countries that value democratic accountability and transparency.

4. What is the truth about the ceasefire? Was there a US role that India accepted?

The ceasefire between India and Pakistan has been shrouded in confusion. US President Donald Trump claimed credit for brokering the truce, while Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri has categorically denied – though not officially – any American involvement, insisting the ceasefire was strictly bilateral. Yet, Modi the government has not publicly and unequivocally denied Trump’s claims, fueling speculation. Foreign interlocutors will ask: Did India accept third-party mediation in violation of its long-standing policy? Why the ambiguity? MPs would be asked to clarify whether India’s diplomatic principles have shifted, or if the government is simply unwilling to confront a powerful ally’s narrative.

5. Is Modi’s new counter-terror doctrine credible and consistent with being a responsible democracy?

PM Modi has outlined a doctrine of zero tolerance for terror and no distinction between terrorists and their sponsors. But critics may point out inconsistencies: Why were civilians not evacuated from border areas during the crisis? Why is dissent, such as the arrest of the Ashoka university professor over a social media post, being suppressed at home? MPs will be asked: Why is India refusing to acknowledge a ceasefire? Is the country going to be perennially at war? Is it casual about the threat of use of deadly nuclear weapons? Is India’s counter-terror policy about genuine security, or is it a tool for domestic political gain? And can India expect global solidarity if it does not uphold democratic norms and transparency at home?

If MP delegations are unable to respond to such questions, they risk undermining the very narrative they are sent to promote. In the age of instant information and global scrutiny, there is no room for opacity. The world is watching – and it expects definite answers.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.