Congress leader Jairam Ramesh criticized Prime Minister Narendra Modi in relation to the recent Pahalgam terror attack, highlighting a stark contrast between Modi's government and that of former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee. Ramesh pointed out that during Vajpayee's tenure, accountability was prioritized, as seen with the establishment of a Kargil Review Committee shortly after the 1999 war. He noted that such measures are lacking under the current BJP leadership.

Ramesh emphasized that the attackers responsible for the Pahalgam incident on April 22, 2025, have not yet faced justice and mentioned their involvement in previous attacks. He also questioned Modi's commitment to national unity during crises, referencing an all-party meeting held after the attack which was chaired by the Defense Minister instead of Modi.

Additionally, Ramesh took issue with President Donald Trump's claims about brokering a ceasefire between India and Pakistan while highlighting perceived inconsistencies in U.S.-Pakistan relations. His comments came just before a parliamentary discussion on both the Pahalgam attack and Operation Sindoor.

Original article

Here is my assessment of the article's value to the reader:

Actionable Information: The article does not provide any immediate actions or steps that readers can take. It primarily focuses on criticizing the government's response to a terror attack and comparing it to past administrations. While it mentions an upcoming parliamentary discussion, it does not offer any guidance on how readers can engage with or influence this process.

Educational Depth: The article offers some historical context by comparing the current government's approach to that of a previous administration. It also provides details about the Pahalgam terror attack and Operation Sindoor. However, it does not delve deeply into the causes, motivations, or potential solutions to the issues it raises. The educational value is limited to a basic understanding of the events and a comparison of government responses.

Personal Relevance: The topic of the article, a terror attack and the government's response, has potential relevance to readers' lives. It could impact their sense of safety, their trust in the government's ability to protect them, and their understanding of the country's political and security landscape. However, without more depth and analysis, it may not provide enough information for readers to make informed decisions or take meaningful action.

Public Service Function: The article does not serve an immediate public service function. It does not provide official warnings, emergency contacts, or safety advice. While it raises concerns about the government's response to a terror attack, it does not offer any practical tools or resources that readers can use to address these concerns or improve their safety.

Practicality of Advice: As the article does not offer any specific advice or steps, the practicality of its content cannot be assessed.

Long-Term Impact: The article's focus on a specific terror attack and the government's response may not have a significant long-term impact on readers. While it raises important questions about accountability and national unity, it does not provide a clear path forward or a lasting solution to the issues it highlights.

Emotional or Psychological Impact: The article's criticism of the government's response and its comparison to past administrations could evoke emotions such as frustration, anger, or concern among readers. However, without offering any constructive solutions or a sense of hope, it may leave readers feeling helpless or despondent.

Clickbait or Ad-Driven Words: The article does not appear to use sensational or clickbait-style language. It presents the information in a relatively straightforward manner, focusing on the facts and the comparison between governments.

Missed Opportunities: The article could have been more helpful by providing readers with resources or guidance on how to engage with the parliamentary discussion, offering suggestions for constructive actions they can take to address the issues raised, or providing in-depth analysis of the causes and potential solutions to the problems it highlights. For instance, it could have linked to relevant government reports, academic studies, or expert opinions for further reading.

In summary, while the article provides some basic information and raises important questions, it falls short in offering real help, in-depth learning, or clear steps that readers can take to address the issues it raises. It could have been more valuable by providing practical guidance, resources, or a deeper analysis of the topics it covers.

The critique of the given text reveals a concerning shift in societal priorities, one that threatens the very fabric of kinship bonds and community resilience.

The criticism levied against the current leadership for its lack of accountability and commitment to national unity during crises is a direct challenge to the fundamental duty of protection and care that binds families and communities together. When leaders fail to prioritize the safety and well-being of their people, especially in the face of terror attacks, it erodes the trust and responsibility that are essential for the survival and prosperity of local communities.

The mention of the Kargil Review Committee, established under a previous administration, highlights a stark contrast in leadership styles and their impact on community protection. The absence of such measures under the current regime suggests a neglect of the duty to learn from past experiences and improve preparedness, thereby leaving communities vulnerable and potentially diminishing their ability to defend themselves and their kin.

The critique also draws attention to the perceived inconsistencies in international relations, specifically the claims made by a foreign leader about brokering a ceasefire. This not only undermines the trust and respect between nations but also has the potential to create confusion and division within local communities, especially when it comes to the defense of their land and the protection of their families.

Furthermore, the criticism of the all-party meeting, chaired by the Defense Minister instead of the Prime Minister, suggests a lack of respect for the traditional roles and responsibilities within a community. The Prime Minister, as the head of the government, is expected to take a leading role in times of crisis, especially when it comes to matters of national security and the protection of citizens. By delegating this responsibility, the leadership may be seen as shirking its duty to the people, which could lead to a breakdown of trust and a sense of abandonment among the community.

The potential consequences of these behaviors and ideas, if left unchecked, are dire. The erosion of trust and responsibility within communities can lead to a breakdown of social structures, making it harder for families to protect and care for their children and elders. This, in turn, could result in increased vulnerability to external threats, both physical and ideological, and a diminished ability to steward the land and resources for future generations.

The continuity of the people and the survival of their culture and traditions are at stake. Without a strong sense of community, the natural duties of parents and extended kin to raise children and care for the elderly may be neglected, leading to a decline in birth rates and a weakening of the clan's ability to thrive and endure.

In conclusion, the ideas and behaviors described in the text, if adopted widely, have the potential to fracture the very foundations of community life, threatening the survival and prosperity of future generations. It is essential that leaders and communities alike recognize the importance of their ancestral duties and the need to uphold the moral bonds that have kept their people alive for generations. Only through a renewed commitment to these principles can they ensure the protection of their kin, the care of their land, and the peaceful resolution of conflicts, thereby securing a future for their children and their children's children.

"He noted that such measures are lacking under the current BJP leadership." This sentence shows political bias towards the BJP leadership. It implies that the BJP's leadership is lacking in comparison to Vajpayee's, favoring the Congress party's viewpoint. The use of "lacking" is a strong word that suggests a negative assessment.

"Ramesh emphasized that the attackers responsible for the Pahalgam incident... have not yet faced justice." Here, the text uses a trick with words to create a sense of urgency and injustice. By saying "have not yet faced justice," it implies a delay or failure in the legal process, evoking emotions and potentially influencing readers' perceptions.

"His comments came just before a parliamentary discussion on both the Pahalgam attack and Operation Sindoor." This sentence suggests a connection between Ramesh's comments and the parliamentary discussion, implying that his criticism is timely and relevant. However, it may also create a false sense of urgency, as the timing could be coincidental.

"He also questioned Modi's commitment to national unity during crises..." Ramesh's questioning of Modi's commitment to national unity is a political attack. It suggests that Modi's actions or inactions are not in line with the values of national unity, potentially damaging his reputation.

"President Donald Trump's claims about brokering a ceasefire between India and Pakistan..." The text criticizes Trump's claims, implying that his statements are not trustworthy. This bias against Trump's administration is evident, as it questions the validity of his diplomatic efforts.

The text conveys a range of emotions, primarily through the Congress leader's criticism of the current government's handling of the Pahalgam terror attack and its perceived lack of accountability. The emotions expressed are complex and serve to shape the reader's perception of the situation and the political landscape.

The text evokes a sense of anger and frustration, especially when Ramesh highlights the contrast between the current BJP leadership and the former Prime Minister Vajpayee's administration. The use of words like "lacking" and "not yet faced justice" indicates a strong emotion of dissatisfaction with the government's response to the attack. This anger is further intensified when Ramesh questions Modi's commitment to national unity, implying a lack of leadership during a critical time. The emotion of anger here serves to create a sense of outrage and dissatisfaction, encouraging readers to share the same sentiment and potentially take action or support the Congress leader's stance.

There is also an underlying emotion of fear and concern. The mention of the attackers' involvement in previous incidents and the lack of justice suggests a potential threat to national security. This fear is heightened by the reference to an all-party meeting chaired by the Defense Minister instead of the Prime Minister, implying a lack of urgency or seriousness in addressing the crisis. The emotion of fear is a powerful tool to capture attention and create a sense of urgency, prompting readers to demand immediate action and accountability.

Additionally, the text conveys a sense of skepticism and distrust towards President Trump's claims about brokering a ceasefire. The perceived inconsistencies in U.S.-Pakistan relations further add to this skepticism. This emotion of distrust is carefully crafted to question the reliability of information and potentially challenge the reader's existing beliefs or perceptions about international relations.

The writer effectively uses emotional language and rhetorical devices to persuade the reader. The comparison between the current and former governments is a powerful tool to evoke emotions of nostalgia and disappointment, suggesting that the country has lost its way under the BJP leadership. The repetition of the word "justice" emphasizes the lack of it and creates a sense of urgency and moral obligation. The reference to an all-party meeting, usually a symbol of unity and collaboration, is used ironically to highlight the absence of Modi, thus creating an emotional contrast and a sense of disappointment.

By skillfully employing these emotional strategies, the writer aims to sway public opinion, create a sense of shared outrage and concern, and potentially influence political decisions or public perception of the government's performance. The emotions expressed are not merely descriptive but are carefully chosen to shape the reader's interpretation and response, ultimately serving the Congress leader's political agenda.