Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri faces vicious trolling: Civil Service and Opposition leaders rally in support......by KBS Sidhu

When Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri announced a carefully calibrated ceasefire agreement between India and Pakistan on the evening of May 10, 2025, following days of intense cross-border hostilities under Operation Sindoor, few could have predicted the vitriol that would follow

What was a routine diplomatic responsibility quickly spiraled into a digital lynching.

Analysts and observers have since pointed to a darker political undercurrent—suggesting that Misri may have been deliberately cast as a scapegoat to contain the embarrassment caused by an unexpected diplomatic ambush: a pre-emptive claim by US President Donald Trump that he had brokered the India-Pakistan ceasefire himself.

Think tanks, media commentators, and self-styled geo-strategic experts have since attempted to stitch together a counter-narrative—portraying Pakistan as having “come crawling” under the weight of Indian military assertiveness, and India as having “magnanimously” agreed to a ceasefire under the “decisive and muscular leadership” of Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

However, this subsequent version of events does not cut much ice, considering that President Donald Trump announced—prior to Misri’s official disclosure—that it was his intervention which had brought the two nuclear-armed neighbours back from the brink. Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif promptly expressed public gratitude to President Trump.

In contrast, the Indian government—ordinarily swift to assert its diplomatic positioning—offered no rebuttal, clarification, or rejoinder, let alone any formal acknowledgment or appreciation of Trump’s claim.

The top political leadership, including the ruling BJP, maintained an uncharacteristic silence, neither confirming nor contesting the statement made by President Trump on his social media handle.

In this vacuum, Misri became the lightning rod, drawing fire and— if we may add— ire, not only for announcing the ceasefire but, by implication, for failing to manage the optics of a moment over which the Indian political establishment appeared to have lost narrative control.

Ceasefire Under Fire: The Operation Sindoor Backlash

According to the Indian Government’s official stance, articulated by Foreign Secretary Misri around 6:00 PM, the ceasefire followed an outreach by the Pakistani Director General of Military Operations (DGMO) to his Indian counterpart at 3:35 PM.

What ensued was a professional, military-to-military exchange—long established as a stabilising mechanism between the two nations—culminating in a mutual agreement to halt hostilities, needless to say, with the specific but implicit approval of the top leadership.

As per institutional protocol, it was, however, left to Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri, the senior-most civil servant in the Ministry of External Affairs, to communicate the government’s position to the public and the world.

However, his announcement was seized upon by war hawks and online right-wing warmongers as an act of betrayal. Ignoring the formal chronology of events and the multilateral institutional backing behind the ceasefire, they accused Misri of unilateralism and appeasement.

It was as if he had, of his own volition, declared peace—as though Indian forces were on the verge of devouring Pakistan—without the sanction of India’s elected leadership; a narrative entirely divorced from facts, yet devastating in its reach and effect.

Trolling Crosses All Lines: Family Members Attacked

The online campaign against Misri took a sinister turn when it spilled over into personal territory. His daughter, a young lawyer known for her legal aid work with Rohingya refugees and independent journalism, was doxxed.

Trolls shared her personal contact information, private photographs, and launched a torrent of abuse—vilifying her for her professional affiliations and beliefs.

The vitriol forced both Misri and his daughter to lock their social media accounts, a disturbing echo of the increasing vulnerability faced by public servants and their families.

What distinguished this episode was not merely its intensity, but the utter lack of condemnation from the Government.

Neither any Ministry nor any senior leader from the BJP issued so much as a perfunctory statement denouncing these personal attacks. The silence was not just conspicuous—it was damning.

Civil Service Stands Strong in Defence

In contrast, India’s civil service fraternity responded with commendable solidarity. The IAS Association, representing the country’s premier administrative cadre, posted a strong statement in support of Misri and his family.

Similar expressions of solidarity came from the IRTS and IRS (C&IT) associations, condemning the personal attacks and reiterating their respect for Misri’s professional conduct. Senior officials such as V Srinivas described Misri as “amongst India’s most celebrated diplomats,” commending his embodiment of the civil service ethos—“service above self.”

Former IAS officer of the 1984 batch, Ashok Dalwai went further, calling the trolling an outcome of lack of proper appreciation of the government's considered decision and “unmindfulness” of the role and responsibility of bureaucratic executive in our country.

He explained that Vikram Misri had merely communicated a policy decision made by the Government of India —nothing more, nothing less. To target a civil servant and his family for executing his role was, Dalwai argued, both unjust, unwarranted, and insensitive.

Political Support Comes—but Not from the Top

Political voices outside the ruling dispensation were vocal in their support. Congress leader Shashi Tharoor called the trolling “preposterous,” praising Misri’s calm handling of a delicate diplomatic development.

AIMIM’s Asaduddin Owaisi and Congress’s Sachin Pilot both stressed that civil servants must not be blamed for decisions taken by the political executive.

They condemned the attacks on Misri’s daughter as deeply disturbing. Former Foreign Secretary Nirupama Menon Rao said the abuse was “utterly shameful,” adding that attacking a civil servant’s family represented a new low in political discourse.

Yet, the absence of even a symbolic defence from the Government of India or the ruling party suggested a conscious decision, if not abdication. In a political culture where civil servants are expected to take the heat while remaining apolitical, the refusal to shield one of their own left many in the bureaucracy shaken.

A Life of Discipline, Service, and Resilience

Vikram Misri’s career has been one of quiet service and deep institutional loyalty. A Kashmiri Pandit forced out of Srinagar during the violent insurgency of the late 1980s, he built a reputation for discretion, strategic clarity, and unflinching professionalism.

Over decades, he has served in key diplomatic posts, advised three Prime Ministers, and represented India in some of the most challenging theatres of global diplomacy.

His announcement during Operation Sindoor was not an act of personal diplomacy—it was a continuation of that lifelong service to the Indian state. And yet, in the absence of institutional backing from those he served, he found himself isolated in the face of a manufactured storm.

Our View: Silence is Not a Strategy

In democracies, civil servants are the stewards of policy continuity. They implement the will of elected governments—not their own.

When a seasoned officer like Vikram Misri is publicly shamed for performing his duty, and when the state he serves fails, or omits, to defend him, the message it sends is, to say the very least, not very encouraging. It send a very terse and clear message to every bureaucrat, diplomat, and officer that loyalty and discretion are no shields against political expediency.

If the Government of India has lost confidence in its Foreign Secretary, it is well within its rights to appoint his successor. But to allow him to be vilified in silence—to not even offer a token defence while his family is subjected to attacks—undermines not only the Ministry of External Affairs but potentially the morale of the entire civil service.

Political leadership is not measured merely by electoral victories, but also by the courage to stand by those who serve it, especially in times of adversity. As I often say, silence cannot be misquoted—but it can often be misconstrued.

The silence, in this case, is not dignified—it is debilitating for civil servants who operate, more often than not, under the most extenuating circumstances.

May 12, 2025