‘Proud to be manning posts with my troops along International Border': BSF's Neha Bhandari, who led unit during Operation Sindoor
She led a unit of the Border Security Force (BSF) holding forward posts in Pargwal in Jammu and Kashmir's Akknoor sector along the International Border during Operation Sindoor. Meet Neha Bhandari, the woman Border Security Force officer and third generation security personnel who Saturday received a Commendation Disc from Chief of Army Staff General Upendra Dwivedi for 'her exceptional courage and operational proficiency' during Operation Sindoor — India's retaliatory strikes in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir and Pakistan in the aftermath of the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack.
Having joined the BSF order nearly three years ago, Assistant Commandant Neha Bhandari led a unit guarding border posts some 150 metres away from the International Border in the Akhnoor-Pargwal area. She was among the six women constables to hold gun positions at forward border posts, and was credited with destroying three Pakistani posts following the escalation at the borders earlier this month.
'I feel proud to be manning posts with my troops along the International Border,' Neha, who becomes the first woman officer among the security forces to engage the enemy during combat, said Saturday. 'My grandfather was in the Army. My father was in the CRPF. My mother is also in the CRPF, I feel proud to follow in their footsteps,' she said, adding 'it's an honour to command a post so close to the international border along with my troops'.
She is currently posted in the Akhnoor sector.
A post on X Saturday, the BSF, Jammu, said: 'On 30 May 2025, COAS General Upendra Dwivedi, PVSM, AVSM, felicitated Assistant Commandant Neha Bhandari of BSF Jammu with the Commendation Disc former exceptional courage and operational proficiency during Operation SINDOOR. She gallantly commanded a forward deployed BSF company under challenging conditions'.
Meanwhile, General Upendra Dwivedi, who arrived in Jammu on a two-day visit Thursday, had attended the high-level security review meeting chaired by Home Minister Amit Shah.
'General Dwivedi reviewed operational preparedness in Jammu and Kashmir's Pargwal sector and visited the Tiger Division where he commended troops for their outstanding performance in Operation Sindoor,' the PRO Defence said on a social media platform X Saturday. 'He stressed the importance of staying agile and vigilant in response to evolving security dynamics.'
During his visit, the Army Chief appreciated the BSF's close operational integration with the Army and 'lauded the bravery of Assistant Commandant Neha Bhandari and her team for defending the forward posts in the Akhnoor sector of Jammu', the post said, adding that he also acknowledged the valuable contribution of ex-servicemen in supporting the armed forces during Operation Sindoor.
–With PTI inputs
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
32 minutes ago
- Indian Express
History of US role in India-Pakistan issues: Four wars, the hyphen, and Trump
US President Donald Trump has yet again claimed that he 'got India and Pakistan to stop fighting' by using trade talks as a bargaining chip. 'We talk trade, and we say we can't trade with people who are shooting at each other and potentially using nuclear weapons… They understood and they agreed, and that all stopped,' Trump said on May 31. New Delhi has repeatedly emphasised that the recent ceasefire in Operation Sindoor came after bilateral talks with Pakistan, and that trade with US did not figure in the calculations. While Trump is known for making extraordinary statements, his claims of 'stopping a potential nuclear war' between India and Pakistan touch a raw nerve for New Delhi. Trump's rhetoric — deliberately or unwittingly — is 'hyphenating' India and Pakistan again, something India has long fought against. Secondly, it goes against India's established position that its problems with Pakistan have to be resolved bilaterally, without the need for third party intervention. And as far as third parties go, the US on many occasions has acted more in Pakistan's interests than India's. What is India's hyphenation with Pakistan, and why does New Delhi oppose it? Why is New Delhi against third party intervention? And what has the USA's role been in India-Pakistan hostilities in the past? We explain. The history of the hyphenation and of India's distrust of third parties are intertwined. Barely two months after independence in August 1947, infiltrators from Pakistan attacked Jammu and Kashmir. Viceroy Lord Louis Mountbatten advised India to go to the UN, which it did on January 1, 1948. India had expected that its rights over a territory which legitimately acceded to it would be respected at the UN. However, the British did not support India, which many Indians perceived as a betrayal. Historian Ramachandra Guha writes (in the book India after Gandhi) of the January-February 1948 UN sessions, 'India suffered a significant symbolic defeat when the Security Council altered the agenda item from the 'Jammu and Kashmir question' to the 'India-Pakistan question'.' This is how the formal hyphenation on international fora began. India's objection to this treatment broadly are — such a framing puts India and Pakistan on the same level when the two parties are not comparable actors, India is the victim of Pakistan's territorial aggression; and that India's identity, as a democratic country and significant economy, can't be tied to Pakistan's. New Delhi believes that the world should engage with India in its own right and not as one half of a conflict zone. This is a goal it has been able to achieve to a large degree. The UN episode also put India off bringing in bigger powers, while Pakistan preferred internationalising the Kashmir issue. During the Cold War years, the West, led by the US, saw Pakistan as a critical ally in the tussle with the Soviet Union, while the non-aligned India was considered less dependable. Later, the war in Afghanistan and the US 'war on terror' ensured Pakistan's importance for the US and the West, often to India's disadvantage. Also, India with its potential to emerge as a leader of the Global South, does not believe it depends on bigger powers to help solve its problems. The role of the US To understand this in brief, the USA's actions during four wars fought by India can be considered. Alongside this, India and US have had a storied bilateral relationship quite independent of the Pakistan issue. The 1947 India-Pakistan war: Quite contrary to what Trump is doing now, in 1947, the US wanted India and Pakistan to resolve their issues bilaterally. A position paper sent by the US Secretary of State to the embassy in India says, 'We would much prefer that the Kashmir question be settled by direct negotiation between India and Pakistan. However, in the event that a resolution requesting the intervention of the United Nations, and in particular requesting the United Nations to supervise a referendum in Kashmir, is introduced by India or Pakistan and supported by the United Kingdom, the United States Delegation should also support the resolution.' The 1962 India-China war: In this war, the US helped India, airlifting military supplies. However, it used the goodwill thus generated to get together with the UK and pressure India to talk to Pakistan. Six rounds of talks were held, with no progress. Then US Undersecretary of State Chester Bowles wrote about that period, 'We had also—rather ineptly—seized upon India's acute need for US assistance as a lever to force India to make concessions to the Pakistanis in regard to Kashmir, which no democratic Indian Government could make and survive.' While the fighting was on, then US President John F Kennedy is believed to have stopped Pakistan from opening another front against India. Bruce Riedel, Senior Fellow of the American think tank Brookings, wrote in 2015, 'Then Pakistan President Ayub Khan told Kennedy that he wanted 'compensation' from India in Kashmir for Pakistan's neutrality during the war. Kennedy made clear to Ayub that no such compensation would be tolerated, and that Pakistani intervention in the war in the Himalayas would be seen by Washington as a hostile act.' The 1971 India-Pakistan war: This was the time the US backed Pakistan most forcefully and publicly, even dispatching warships towards the Bay of Bengal. The US Department of State has a website called Office of the Historian. Its article on the 1971 war says that as Pakistan had recently helped the US and China start diplomatic ties, Washington decided to back Pakistan against India, but the 'action against the mass protests in East Pakistan was well-publicized and widely condemned, which limited the extent to which the US Government was willing to help the Pakistani Government…' Eventually, America's actions during this war damaged its prestige 'in both nations, in Pakistan for failing to help prevent the loss of East Pakistan and in India for supporting the brutality of the Pakistani regime's actions…' The Kargil war of 1999: If the previous war had seen the US veer very close to Pakistan, the Kargil war redefined its relationship with India. Riedel wrote in 2019, 'When the US determined that Pakistan had deliberately violated the Line of Control near Kargil, [then President Bill] Clinton did not hesitate to blame Pakistan for risking a broader war. For the first time, an American administration was siding publicly with India against Pakistani aggression.' Clinton played a major role in getting Pakistan to retreat behind the LOC. After this, Clinton visited the subcontinent in 2000. He was the first US President to come to India in over 20 years. He spent five days in India, in contrast with just a few hours in Pakistan. Apart from these wars, the US has also worked to defuse tensions after the Parliament attack in 2001 and the Mumbai terror attacks of 2008. However, preventing tensions from escalating is different from meditating on Kashmir or other bilateral issues, which Trump has been making claims and offers about. Yashee is an Assistant Editor with the where she is a member of the Explained team. She is a journalist with over 10 years of experience, starting her career with the Mumbai edition of Hindustan Times. She has also worked with India Today, where she wrote opinion and analysis pieces for DailyO. Her articles break down complex issues for readers with context and insight. Yashee has a Bachelor's Degree in English Literature from Presidency College, Kolkata, and a postgraduate diploma in journalism from Asian College of Journalism, Chennai, one of the premier media institutes in the countr ... Read More
Indian Express
32 minutes ago
- Indian Express
After Operation Sindoor, India's strategic communication challenge
The interview given by Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) General Anil Chauhan, at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore on May 31 to a foreign news agency about Operation Sindoor has generated considerable interest and comment, both in India and abroad. It has also raised a few concerns — all for valid reasons. In response to a question about claims being made by Pakistan about India losing combat aircraft in the early stages of Op Sindoor, the CDS stated, 'What is important is not the jet being down, but why they were being downed.' While General Chauhan did not go into any specifics about the number of platforms lost in combat, he asserted that India had swiftly rectified its 'tactical mistakes' and resumed high-precision strikes at the designated targets, some deep within Pakistan. He added, 'What mistakes were made — those are important. Numbers are not important. The good part is that we were able to understand the tactical mistake which we made, remedy it, rectify it, and then implement it again after two days and flew our jets again, targeting at long range.' This has been interpreted as the first confirmation by the military leadership at the highest level that India lost some aircraft in Op Sindoor. It may be recalled that at the military briefing on May 11, conducted in Delhi soon after cessation of hostilities, the Air Force representative Air Marshal Bharti had responded to a similar question regarding fighter aircraft losses saying, 'We are in a combat scenario, losses are a part of combat. The question you must ask us is: Have we achieved our objective of decimating the terrorist camps? And the answer is a thumping yes.' Against this backdrop, the response of the CDS is pertinent and provides more tactical insights into the conduct of Op Sindoor. A reference was also made by General Chauhan to the nuclear threshold and how this was handled by Delhi. Any light shed on the role of the CDS in Op Sindoor would have been very valuable but this thread was not pursued. Professionals will study these remarks carefully, for Op Sindoor has many strands related to the conduct of a high-intensity conflict between two nuclear weapon capable states, both by way of strategic signaling and the narrative campaign that has acquired its own autonomy in the modern age. The global tenet now is that more than winning the war in the combat domain, the 'story war' must also be won. Perceptions have to be shaped in a favourable manner both in the domestic and international arena. Here, India has been put on the back foot; the CDS's remarks in Singapore have drawn attention to this vital component of national security. During combat, no nation divulges detailed tactical information, particularly about platform damage or loss. Indeed, while there was intense speculation about how many Rafale aircraft had been lost by India during Op Sindoor, the government kept silent. However it allowed some sections of the audio-visual media to engage in shrill triumphalism and ugly majoritarian nationalism, and to this was added some embroidered assessment by foreign sources. The net result was a further erosion of the credibility of the Indian media. A professional attribute that a nation ought to acknowledge and nurture with integrity is media credibility. The May 11 military briefing was professional and the question about loss of fighters had been addressed in a tangential manner. If the government wanted to confirm the fact that India had indeed lost some platforms, why was this not done in Delhi soon after the first briefing ? The delay added to the speculation and was avoidable. And if the CDS was identified as the senior most military officer to do so, then why in Singapore, and why to a foreign news agency and not an Indian one such as PTI? In my view, a professional briefing at a three-star level was adequate and further details could have been provided in Parliament as is the norm in democracies. The sharing of some factual tactical details is desirable to enhance credibility and be better positioned in the narrative battle. India has not been able to rise to this challenge and many questions have been asked, both on social media and by the opposition parties as to why such details were not provided in Parliament or by the Defence Minister. This leads one to infer that perhaps the CDS's remarks were not part of any script but spontaneous. If so, this is even more disappointing with respect to India's strategic communication acumen. The Pahalgam massacre took place on April 22 and Operation Sindoor was launched on May 7. Delhi, with its much vaunted Modi-led communication capabilities both in India and abroad, was aware that the Shangri-La Dialogue would take place in Singapore at the end of May. Was there a suitable strat com plan in place ? The remarks of the CDS would suggest otherwise. Operation Sindoor is in pause mode and the narrative battle continues. Trump's assertions regarding brokering a ceasefire have queered the pitch for Delhi. Fidelity to facts and transparency as behoves a democracy are critical in dealing with national security challenges. Galwan 2020 and Op Sindoor 2025 have many embedded lessons. The writer is director, Society for Policy Studies
Hans India
36 minutes ago
- Hans India
Centre responsible for infiltration, not Mamata: Congress slams Amit Shah's remark on Bangladesh border issue
The Congress on Monday hit back at Union Home Minister Amit Shah over his recent comments accusing West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee of facilitating infiltration from Bangladesh with senior party leader Rashid Alvi underlining that securing national borders is the responsibility of the Central government, not the state. During his two-day visit to West Bengal, Amit Shah, while addressing the Vijay Sankalp Karyakarta Sammelan, alleged that Mamata Banerjee had allowed unchecked infiltration for political gain. "Mamata Banerjee has opened the nation's borders for Bangladeshis. She is allowing infiltration. Only a Lotus government can stop this," he claimed. He further accused Banerjee of refusing to provide land for fencing at the border, suggesting she was doing so to maintain her vote bank and pave the way for her nephew to succeed her as Chief Minister. Responding to Amit Shah's statements, Rashid Alvi told IANS: "Is Mamata Banerjee responsible for guarding India's borders, or is that the duty of the Indian government? Who is in charge of border security? If people are entering India illegally, the blame lies with the Central government, not Mamata. She doesn't control border patrols - (PM) Modi's government does.' Addressing the government's recent claims after Operation Sindoor, which reportedly led to the deportation of 2,000 Bangladeshis, Alvi said the figure was insignificant in comparison to the overall scale of the issue. "If lakhs of people have entered from Myanmar and Bangladesh as claimed, sending back just 2,000 is meaningless. The Supreme Court has clearly stated that India is not a dharamshala where anyone can enter and settle. All those who have entered illegally must be sent back. Even the US deports illegal immigrants, though often in handcuffs - we should do it respectfully." On being asked about Congress MPs like Shashi Tharoor and Salman Khurshid, who praised the Modi government during recent international delegations, he said: "Those who are part of official delegations represent India, not any party. But if any Congress leader praises the BJP at the cost of the Congress, action must be taken. These actions weaken the party. As the saying goes, the house is set on fire by its own lamp. Some of our leaders are destroying Congress from within. And BJP doesn't respect those who switch parties - most of them are sidelined after joining." Commenting specifically on Khurshid's praise of the PM Modi government's handling of Article 370, Alvi said: "I strongly disagree with him. He may have joined the delegation to clarify India's stand to the world, but his statements suggest he is endorsing the BJP's policies. Since the removal of Article 370, terrorism has risen in Kashmir. Pulwama happened. Pahalgam has turned into a hotspot. We even had to conduct strikes inside Pakistan. What development has taken place since the abrogation? How many five-star hotels or factories have been built? Development hasn't improved, nor has the situation on the ground. If Article 370 had to be removed, it should have been done with the confidence and participation of the Kashmiri people - not by jailing them." Asked whether the Congress should take disciplinary action against such leaders, Alvi said: "That's for the Congress high command to decide. I don't agree with their statements, but I'm not personally demanding action. If their remarks go against the party's policies, appropriate decisions should be made." On Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge's criticism of Prime Minister Modi's speeches after Operation Sindoor, Alvi said: "Sindoor runs in PM Modi's veins? That's an unfortunate choice of words. At a time when the entire country stood united behind him, he chose to extract political mileage from it. PM Modi should avoid such rhetoric. Whether it's PM Modi or Amit Shah, both are trying to gain politically from military actions. They're misleading the country." On Rahul Gandhi's query about aircraft losses during the operation, Alvi said the government must come clean. 'Every citizen has the right to know. If aircraft were lost or soldiers died, the public deserves transparency. Even the Army chief has given details to agencies. Why is the government hiding it? We missed the opportunity to hold Pakistan accountable. PM Modi had claimed we'd kill terrorists in their homes - then why is Masood Azhar still alive? A few airstrikes don't change anything; we must eliminate the root of terrorism." On the arrest of influencer and law student Sharmishta Panoli, who was sent to 14 days' judicial custody over a controversial video allegedly hurting religious sentiments, Alvi said: "Over the last 11 years, the BJP and RSS have created an atmosphere targeting Islam. India has always respected all religions. Remember the international backlash over a BJP spokesperson's remark. In this context, action against those inciting communal disharmony is justified."
