By Raj Shah
This is in response to Parthiv Parekh’s Khabar: Editorial: “Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds” in the June 2025 edition of Khabar Magazine.
First of all, the title and subtitle of the article—“Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds: Reflections on the recent India-Pakistan military skirmishes and concerns of escalation towards nuclear war”—are deliberately misleading and alarmist. Borrowing from Oppenheimer’s tortured invocation of the Gita, the title frames a limited and conventional military response as though the world stands on the brink of nuclear annihilation. It is a textbook case of sensationalism—designed not to inform but to provoke anxiety. There is no basis, factual or strategic, to suggest that India’s measured airstrikes against terror infrastructure could spiral into global catastrophe. The subtitle compounds this distortion by falsely implying that a nuclear escalation is imminent, when in truth, what occurred was a legitimate exercise of sovereign self-defense.
Next, the reference to the Bhagavad Gita is not only misplaced but ghastly ironic. The war context of the Gita was never pacifism—never an invitation to do nothing in the presence of evil. Lord Krishna did not ask Arjuna to retreat under the pretext of moral confusion; he asked him to rise up with courage to uphold dharma. If there is a religious lesson that can be derived from the Gita, it is that inaction in the face of adharma is itself an act of complicity.
Similarly, Oppenheimer’s quote is completely irrelevant to the context of a conventional and proportionate military response to terrorism. And then comes Mr. Parekh’s dramatic dive into the physics of thermonuclear explosions—complete with descriptions of vaporized bodies, skin-melting temperatures, and global famines—is not only grotesque but completely out of context. No nuclear weapons were used, threatened, or even hinted at during India’s response to the Pahalgam terror attack. To describe scenarios involving “300 million degrees Celsius” and “babies born with deformities” in the midst of discussing a limited, conventional airstrike is intellectually dishonest and emotionally manipulative. It serves no analytical purpose beyond fear-mongering. Invoking apocalyptic imagery in response to a calibrated counterterrorism operation is like describing volcanic eruptions in response to a firecracker—it deliberately confuses scale, intent, and consequence to provoke irrational fear.
India did not release nuclear destruction; it made a tactical, measured attack on terrorist infrastructure—a right enshrined in Article 51 of the UN Charter. To equate such a limited action with global nuclear annihilation is intellectually dishonest as well as factually exaggerated.
Furthermore, let me remind my friend Parthiv that India has formally proclaimed a “no-first-use” policy on nuclear weapons, meaning they will only retaliate with nuclear weapons should they first be attacked using nuclear weapons. With land-based, air-based, and sea-based nuclear delivery systems, India’s triad offers a credible second-strike capability, therefore enabling effective retaliation even in cases when its nuclear forces are initially targeted. Pakistan thus never considers a nuclear attack.
Mr. Parekh romanticizes the principle of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) but denies India the right to self-defense as a sovereign state. MAD is a Cold War artifact. It worked in the era of bipolar international stability—not in regions that suffer from asymmetric warfare, rogue terror proxies, and nuclear extortionists. Pakistan, whose deep state has routinely bankrolled non-state actors, cannot be managed with Cold War coolness.
While Mr. Parekh spares all his venom for India’s response instead of directing his focus to Pakistan’s decades-long export of terror, how many more such attacks at Pahalgam, Pulwama, Uri, and Pathankot can India endure before self-defense becomes “acceptable”? Should moral excellence be quantified by the number of days one swallows terror without retaliating?
In fact, India’s earlier restraint had been expensive. After the horrific 26/11 Mumbai terror attack of 2008, in which over 170 innocent individuals lost their lives, the Indian government at the time chose not to retaliate against Pakistan. That reluctance was met in Islamabad as a sign not of maturity or diplomacy, but of weakness. Emboldened by that response—or lack thereof—Pakistan continued to fund cross-border terrorism more freely.
The lesson is clear: inaction can be far more dangerous than a proportionate show of strength.
To mock Indian citizens who protest against terror as “WhatsApp warriors” and “TRP-chasing warmongers” reflects not contempt for war but for democratic feeling. No sane person may celebrate war, but citizens can at least demand justice. In fact, the jubilation after India’s action is not a celebration of violence, but a catharsis long overdue—a warning that India shall no longer be a punching bag of choice.
After reading such a controversial and negative article, someone could argue that Mr. Parekh, the sole proprietor and publisher of his magazine, is trying to pamper his anti-Modi, anti-BJP, and even anti-India advertising community and gain greater exposure and readership for his publication.
The article also takes a pointed jab at Prime Minister Modi’s “56-inch chest” comment, labeling it a symbol of hyper-nationalism and communalism. But such a characterization is both unfair and misleading. The phrase is not about machismo—it symbolizes strength, resolve, and an unwavering commitment to national self-respect. Patriotism is not hyper-nationalism. It is the moral and civic duty of a leader to stand tall and reassure citizens in times of crisis.
When Prime Minister Modi is asserting India’s right to self-defense, he is not “weaponizing nationalism”—he is claiming national pride centuries too late. Accusations of “communalism” are too readily and carelessly hurled at any politician who asserts national identity loudly. Real nationalism, in the form of this government, has nothing to do with exclusion—it is about sovereignty, unity, and trusting the republic again.
Calling Vikram Misri’s online trolling “proof” of toxic nationalism distorts the point. Such online abuse, though regrettable, exists in every democratic society during high-tension moments. But to then generalize that the entire nation suffers from “pseudo-nationalism” based on isolated trolling is simplistic and reductionist.
Contrary to the impression of the article, India’s military response was no knee-jerk reaction to media hysteria. It was a calibrated message that the tolerance limit of India has changed. Deterrence is created not by emotional but by credible action. Had India stayed quiet, it would have emboldened terrorists and their sponsors further—at the cost of future civilian lives.
Mr. Parekh’s contention that “no country came to India’s support” is erroneous and misleading. Several countries condemned the attack and supported India’s right to self-defense. For example, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio affirmed support for India’s right to self-defense. UK leaders, including former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and MP Priti Patel, supported India’s right to defend itself and dismantle terrorist infrastructure. The French Foreign Ministry expressed understanding of India’s desire to protect itsetlf from terrorism and supported its right to self-defense.
Strategic neutrality is not moral parity. The world can clearly perceive the distinction between a beleaguered democracy and an enabler of terror. That Mr. Parekh included Turkey and Azerbaijan among the list of Pakistan’s allies is telling—they are hardly liberal diplomacy models.
India does not require world approval to validate its sovereign choices. National security, as much as economics, is guided by the philosophy of atma-nirbharta (self-reliance). To wait for international approval before safeguarding one’s citizens is dereliction of duty.
Second, the argument that Pakistan itself is a “victim of terrorism” does not excuse its military-intelligence complex from harboring the same forces it supposedly fights against. Hafiz Saeed roamed around for years. Osama bin Laden was found in a Pakistani garrison town. The argument that Pakistan has “lost control” of terror is not comforting—it is repulsive. It makes Pakistan less a victim and more a Frankenstein of its own creation.
And let’s be clear: the air raids or surgical strikes were not punitive missions against ordinary Pakistanis. They were all about sending a message of consequences against a military-industrial terror machine that hides behind civilians. The canard that military action “doesn’t work” in anti-terrorism ignores history—again, from the U.S. Abbottabad raid to serial Israeli retaliations. Deterrence is not fantasy—it is earned.
In Trump’s mediation, India never requested nor consented to third-party mediation for Kashmir. President Trump’s claim was his own political theater, not a diplomatic reality. It is very clear now that Pakistan’s DGMO made a first direct call to India’s DGMO and requested the ceasefire, and India agreed to pause the operation Sindoor and not stop or ceasefire. The fact that Mr. Parekh repeats Trump’s boasts as reality reflects an underestimation of both diplomatic finesse and domestic compulsions in U.S. politics.
The charge that India “muzzled dissent” post-attack is also misplaced. No country under a state of heightened security will allow misinformation or hate speech to freely disseminate. Transient restrictions do not equate to authoritarianism. The same critics who decry cyber jingoism remain curiously silent when misinformation threatens national unity in times of distress.
To suggest that “soft power” will secure India’s future by itself is utopian. Cultural diplomacy is needed—but insufficient while Indian soil is soaked in blood. Realpolitik matters. Gandhian idealism must be balanced with Chanakyan pragmatism. The present world order compensates for not merely moral high ground but also strategic deterrence.
Mr. Parekh also requests India’s military victories in context. Yes, Pakistan used Chinese technology—precisely the reason why India had to retaliate so swiftly to deter yet more tactical and technological preparatory work on their side. India’s retaliation shattered momentum, restored strategic equilibrium, and warned the world that terrorism will have a price.
Finally, the notion that combating terrorism is somehow unpatriotic or escalatory is perilous. It is actually escalatory that the world is normalizing Pakistani duplicity as “regional complexity.” If India has to wait for international opinion every time it’s attacked, then it will keep on being drained by a thousand cuts.
Rather than warmongering, India’s response has been cautious, strategic, and ethical. It desires not war, but peace through power. If anything, India’s actions show exactly the restraint of a democracy that has suffered much and acted only when absolutely necessary.
The actual world-destroyers are not the retaliators in self-defense, but those who—through freezing public will with fear—permit evil to run its course and remain unpunished. Let us be able to distinguish between caution and cowardice and dissent from disloyalty. And let us recall, too, that indecision has its cost—in blood, in dignity, and in sovereignty.
