I advised him to maintain his cool and convinced him to take it easy and trust the government. When the time is right, the world will witness the full range of action. I told him that in 1971, a similar war hysteria was building up in India. The then Prime Minister (PM), Indira Gandhi, summoned the Army chief, General Sam Manekshaw. She asked if the Army could immediately attack East Pakistan and help it become an independent country — Bangladesh. Manekshaw, the brilliant strategist, explained that the monsoon was due in a few months. During the rains, the fields in Bangladesh turn into swamps. The movement of tanks and the army personnel would have been mired in such terrain, making them sitting ducks for the enemy. Attack at such a time would have meant large-scale death of the soldiers. Manekshaw wasn’t going to issue any hasty orders. Those at the helm of the State were far more sensitive towards the loss of their men and material than the destruction of the enemy.

After nine months of careful planning, coordination, and precise strategy, when the Indian forces attacked East Pakistan, the enemy not only collapsed, but more than 90,000 of its soldiers were forced to surrender. In the history of humanity, never has such a large military force surrendered to an opponent. On December 16, 1971, Bangladesh was born while the Indian military basked in the glory of its finest hour, scripting a golden chapter in our military history.

Since the conversation, PM Narendra Modi has authorised the Indian armed forces to take appropriate action. Strategic meetings have been held at 7, Lok Kalyan Marg, North Block, and South Block. Military actions have economic and diplomatic consequences. Ensuring a quick victory with minimum casualties requires commitments from powerful allies for support to our cause or at least neutrality during any kinetic engagement. US general Norman Schwarzkopf, who led the coalition army during the first Gulf War in 1991, had said, “The more you sweat in peace, the less you bleed in war.”

This is the reason defence minister Rajnath Singh and external affairs minister, S Jaishankar, are conducting hectic parleys with their counterparts in various countries, including the US. The actions are reminiscent of 1971. While Manekshaw and the chiefs of navy and air force were preparing for war, Indira Gandhi was scouting for dependable diplomatic partners.

India struck a landmark deal with the erstwhile USSR in the nick of time as an insurance against possible western interference. Later, during the war, events like the appearance of the US Sixth Fleet in the Bay of Bengal and Soviet submarines turning up to counter them validated India’s diplomatic masterstroke.

The situation is equally treacherous today; if anything, it has become more complicated in the Trump 2.0 era. Bereft of any ideology, geopolitics -- driven under the constant gaze of social media -- is far more transactional, with nations changing sides at the slightest hint of economic discomfort.

Unlike in 1971, both India and Pakistan are now nuclear powers. There’s no USSR to support us. Russia is fighting Ukraine, with limited ability to extend any help. Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi’s comments reveal Beijing’s cautious posture: “Conflict is not in the fundamental interests of either India or Pakistan.” Its sympathies are towards Pakistan, though. The only superpower in the world, the US, is sending mixed signals. Consider vice president JD Vance’s statement: “Our hope here is that India responds to this terrorist attack (in Pahalgam) in a way that doesn’t lead to a broader regional conflict.”

Unaware of complexities tying the government’s hands and limiting its options, innumerable voices are babbling incessantly on social media. They are ignoring PM Modi’s glorious track record of keeping his words, whether it is surgical strikes or the Balakot air strike. Our social media activities become cannon fodder for enemies. It’s time to quietly stand with the government and not indulge in unnecessary rants.

Some are using the situation to sow the seeds of communalism. A few days ago, in Vrindavan, a group of people protested in front of the Banke Bihari temple demanding a boycott of the Muslims involved in the service of the temple. The temple trust was unequivocal in its response, asserting that they have been making Lord Krishna’s clothes for centuries.

On April 29, the Jammu & Kashmir assembly unanimously condemned the terror attack and expressed solidarity with the rest of the country. The legislators think the end of terror in the Valley has begun.

Ignoring such a show of solidarity, the hate mongers forget the nationwide condemnation of the terror attack from many mosques around the country. There’s no Muslim leader who hasn’t openly condemned Pakistan. This is the time to stand with the government and work towards social unity and not fan hatred and provocation.

Shashi Shekhar is editor-in-chief, Hindustan. The views expressed are personal