Dear Prime Minister, a thousand days of Gaza, many questions for India
Such moments compel us to confront our moral imagination and the choices we make when confronted by unbearable human suffering. Mr Prime Minister, such a moment confronts us now. A thousand days have passed since the tragedy that began on October 7, 2023. Since then, Gaza has witnessed unprecedented devastation. I have written to you on several other occasions, but this time, I request you to read this letter not as a note from a parliamentarian, but as a message from a fellow Indian who, like you and millions of our compatriots, has inherited a civilisation which has long believed that moral courage is the highest expression of political leadership. This is a moment when the consequences of the Indian state’s stance echo far beyond the calculations of diplomacy or the compulsions of statecraft. Experts have discussed military operations, diplomatic negotiations, strategic victories and geopolitical realignments, but I am convinced that future generations will look back at this period as something far more unsettling — as the moment when humanity itself was placed on trial, and much of the world struggled to answer whether its commitment to justice was truly universal or merely selective.Independent India’s greatest strength has been its moral vocabulary. Do we need to remind ourselves that it was Mahatma Gandhi who transformed the language of politics by insisting that the means were inseparable from the ends? This stance was not merely a strategy to achieve India’s freedom. Through this insistence, Bapu enabled India to possess and offer to the world a philosophy for humanity. When Jawaharlal Nehru spoke of non-alignment, peaceful coexistence, and international solidarity, he was building on this legacy. He consistently positioned India as a conscience keeper among nations, capable of speaking uncomfortable truths and defending human dignity without fear. I realised that when Rabindranath Tagore said, “where the mind is without fear, and the head is held high,” he may have been describing not only a moral state that every democracy must strive to preserve internally, but also an ethical condition it should push other nations to accept.
Discussion (0)