Army Chief reviews operational preparedness in the Pargwal sector of Jammu
Jammu, May 31 (UNI) Chief of Army Staff General Upendra Dwivedi on Saturday reviewed the operational preparedness and lauded the role of ex-servicemen in Operation Sindoor during his visit to the Pargwal sector of Jammu.
Jammu-based Defence spokesman Lt Col Suneel Bartwal here said, "COAS General Upendra Dwivedi reviewed operational preparedness in J&K's Paragwal Sector and visited the Tiger Division where he commended troops for their outstanding performance in Operation Sindoor".
He stressed the importance of staying agile and vigilant in response to evolving security dynamics.
The Army Chief also praised BSF's close operational integration with the Indian Army and lauded the bravery of Assistant Commandant Neha Bhandari and her team for defending forward posts in the Akhnoor Sector.
He also acknowledged the valuable contribution of ex-servicemen in supporting the armed forces during 'Operation Sindoor'.
UNI VBH BD
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
30 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Pak wanted India on its knees in 48 hrs, folded up in 8 hrs to talk: CDS
Chief of Defence Staff General Anil Chauhan said Tuesday that Pakistan wanted to bring India 'to its knees in 48 hours' with Operation Bunyan al-Marsoos on May 10, but the attacks 'folded up in 8 hours' after which Pakistan 'picked up the telephone and said they wanted to talk'. He made these remarks while delivering a lecture on 'Future Wars and Warfare' at the Savitribai Phule Pune University. Detailing the Pakistani response to Operation Sindoor, General Chauhan said Operation Bunyan al-Marsoos was 'launched by Pakistan on 10th of May at about 1 am' and 'its aim was to get India down to its knees in 48 hours. Multiple attacks were launched'. He said although India had actually hit only terror targets, the Pakistanis 'escalated this conflict… into the military domain'. Stating that armed forces are the most rational actors in conflict situations, he explained why Pakistan called India. 'I think that the rationale behind this… realisation coming in… stemmed from two facts. One is that they must have assumed that if they continued this mode, they are likely to lose much more. Hence, they picked up the telephone. And second, since they had struck us at multiple fronts, they still did not have the benefit of understanding what they had struck. So, they must have thought they must have struck and, hence, they would like to talk now. And if they don't, they will tend to lose more.' Later, after a couple of days, Pakistan must have realised that their attacks had failed, he said. 'So, these were the two factors which would have made them think. But it's only after, say, one or two days, they would have realised that all… the kind of attacks they had launched against us were not fortified and they had all kind of failed.' Responding to a student's question on the losses faced by Pakistan during the hostilities, General Chauhan said, 'When I was asked about losses on our side, I said these are not important. The results and how you act are important. So it would not be very correct to talk about the losses, numbers etc.' 'You see, in a match, suppose you go into a football match and you win 3-2… that's an even-sided match. But suppose you go into a cricket Test match and win by an innings, then there is no question of how many wickets and how many balls and how many players. It's an innings (victory),' he said. 'But since there is always this inquisitiveness as to the results of your strikes… At some point of time, we will take out this particular data, and share it, to answer the queries and inquisitiveness of people… who keep asking 'How many aircraft did we destroy? How many radars did we destroy?' We will make a rough assessment of that and come out with that shortly,' he said. He said the government's objective behind Operation Sindoor was not retribution but to draw the limits of tolerance with Pakistan. 'Let me talk about reason… Operation Sindoor, as far as the government is concerned, was not about retribution. I think it was about drawing these limits of tolerance… This state-sponsored terrorism from Pakistan had to stop, and Pakistan should not be able to hold India hostage to terror activities.' Another point made by the operation was that India was not going to live under the shadow of terror and nuclear blackmail, he said. He also spoke about the emotions of India's citizens. 'The emotion… among the people of India was revenge and retribution… and to get the perpetrators to justice. That I think was playing in everyone's mind, that is the kind of emotion and public sentiment that was happening. And at the end of it, there was probably some sort of satisfaction, (and also) anxiety. Anxiety during the operation.' On the risks involved during military operations, he said, 'You can't be 100 per cent prepared for every kind of contingency and you can't have 100 per cent of the information about that. So you are always groping a bit in the dark when you are carrying out military operations. In every military operation, there is an element of risk involved. The only thing is that it should be a calculated kind of a risk.' 'In a war, even if there are setbacks, we have to adapt, understand what went wrong and go out again.' He said as an organisation, one must have an offensive spirit. 'That's why I said in a couple of my interviews that losses are not important, the outcome is,' he said. He reiterated that Operation Sindoor was not over and that there was only temporary cessation of operations. Soham is a Correspondent with the Indian Express in Pune. A journalism graduate, he was a fact-checker before joining the Express. Soham currently covers education and is also interested in civic issues, health, human rights, and politics. ... Read More
Time of India
37 minutes ago
- Time of India
Pakistan: Another top Jaish ultra dies a mysterious death
NEW DELHI: Maulana Abdul Aziz Esar, a top Jaish-e-Muhammed commander and a fierce proponent of the doctrine of Ghazwa-e-Hind, was found dead under mysterious circumstances in Pakistan's Bahawalpur on June 2. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now His burial was held at the markaz of JeM headquarters in Bahawalpur, indicating the place he held in the terror outfit. The markazi was among the hardest hit targets during . Over a dozen significant terror strikes in India, including 2019 , were planned here. The messages floated by the Jaish cadre on Telegram claimed Abdul suffered a sudden heart attack. However, there was no official word on the cause of death from Pakistan police. A resident of Ashrafwala in Pakistan's Punjab province, Abdul frequently threatened to break India into pieces and spewed venom against 'kafirs'. Just last month at a rally, he had threatened to snatch Kashmir from India. Enraged since Operation Sindoor, he was spotted on a video threatening infiltration of terrorists into India. "Mujahideen are coming, if you can handle it, then handle it, govt of Hindustan... otherwise, Mujahideen will snatch Kashmir from your jaws... Mujahideen have set out," said the rabble rouser maulana. At a recent rally, he threatened that India would meet the fate of Soviet Union and called upon Mujahideen to keep the flames of 'Ghazwa-e-Hind' burning.
United News of India
37 minutes ago
- United News of India
After 18 years, SC closes petitions on Human Rights Violations by Salwa Judum in Chhattisgarh
New Delhi, June 3 (UNI) Bringing closure to a long-running legal battle, the Supreme Court has disposed of all pending petitions filed by sociologist Nandini Sundar and others concerning alleged human rights violations committed by Salwa Judum activists and security forces in Chhattisgarh. These matters had remained before the apex court for nearly 18 years. The case traces back to the Chhattisgarh government's controversial deployment of local tribal youth as Special Police Officers (SPOs) to combat Maoist/Naxalite insurgency. The SPOs, often associated with groups like the 'Koya Commandos' and Salwa Judum, were accused of committing serious rights violations in the course of anti-insurgency operations. In a landmark 2011 ruling, the Supreme Court had directed the State of Chhattisgarh to disband and disarm all SPOs, noting grave concerns over state-sponsored vigilantism. Despite that judgment, two writ petitions and one contempt petition remained pending until recently. A bench comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma disposed of the cases, holding that the writ petitions were closed on the ground that the reliefs sought had already been addressed through the 2011 judgment. The contempt petition, which challenged the Chhattisgarh Auxiliary Armed Police Force Act, 2011, was found to be outside the scope of contempt jurisdiction, as it effectively sought new writs in the guise of contempt, the court ruled. The bench clarified that the enactment of a law cannot be considered contempt of court merely because it follows a judicial order. 'The promulgation simpliciter of an enactment is only an expression of the legislative function and cannot be said to be an act in contempt of a Court unless it is first established that the statute so enacted is bad in law constitutionally or otherwise,' the Court held. Emphasising the separation of powers, the bench reiterated that any law passed by Parliament or a State legislature must be challenged solely on grounds of legislative competence or constitutional validity, not as contempt of court. The Court underlined, 'A legislature has the power to enact or amend a law, even to remove the basis of a judicial judgment, as long as it operates within the constitutional framework.' It also noted that Courts do not have the authority to treat the exercise of legislative power as contempt, simply for enacting or amending laws. Importantly, the bench observed that restoring peace and ensuring rehabilitation in Chhattisgarh remains the constitutional responsibility of both the State and the Union, citing Article 315 of the Constitution. 'It is the duty of the State of Chhattisgarh as well as the Union of India to take adequate steps for bringing about peace and rehabilitation to the residents of Chhattisgarh who have been affected by the violence from whatever quarter it may have arisen,' the Court said. UNI SNG RN
