Air defence system in Lahore ‘neutralised' by Indian Armed Forces: What does this mean?
The government on May 8 announced that the Indian Armed Forces had 'neutralised' an air defence system of Lahore.
'Today morning, Indian Armed Forces targeted Air Defence Radars and systems at a number of locations in Pakistan. Indian response has been in the same domain with same intensity as Pakistan. It has been reliably learnt that an Air Defence system at Lahore has been neutralised,' the Press Information Bureau (PIB) said in a Ministry of Defence release.
India's action was in response to Pakistan's activities earlier in the day. The press release said that late on the night of May 7, 'Pakistan attempted to engage a number of military targets in Northern and Western India… These were neutralised by the Integrated Counter UAS Grid and Air Defence systems. The debris of these attacks is now being recovered from a number of locations that prove the Pakistani attacks.'
The situation is rapidly developing, with the government sharing information at regular intervals.
What does it mean that an air defence system at Lahore has been neutralised? What is an 'air defence system' generally, and how does it work?
An air defence system is a series of mechanisms working in tandem to protect against enemy air strikes.
The most commonly known element of an air defence system is a surface-to-air missile (SAM) or a Ground-to-Air Missile (GTAM), which is basically a missile launched from the ground to intercept an enemy missile or aircraft. But SAM is just one component of an elaborate system. How layered the system is depends on the military capabilities of a country.
The main functions of an air defence system are identifying, tracking, and then engaging the enemy missile. Thus, radars, jammers, and air sirens are all parts of an air defence system. A radar transmits radio waves, which hit an object and come back to the radar, thus telling the radar about the incoming object.
Once a missile or aircraft has been identified, the human personnel present decide how to deal with it. This involves judging how big the incoming threat is, and which weapon system should be deployed to deal with it, where the SAM are commonly used.
A SAM can have various strike ranges. It can be launched to either hit and take down the enemy aircraft, or the ammunition the aircraft is dropping. The missile intercepts the missile or bomb or drone being dropped and makes sure it goes off in the air, before it can hit its intended target. Often, this interception happens so high up in the air that even the debris of the incoming ammunition evaporates before it can touch the ground.
Here, it is also important to understand the difference between a missile and a bomb — a missile has its own engine and follows a guided or partially guided projectile trajectory, while a bomb depends on gravity to fall down and hit its target.
Destroying a city's air defence systems is usually done as a preparation to bombing the city, or select locations within the city.
Is there anything else?
What has just been described generally falls under Active Defensive Counter Air operations. NATO in a research paper mentions two other mechanisms.
Passive Defensive Counter Air (P-DCA)
Passive Defensive Counter Air measures are used to minimise the effects enemy raids might have. 'Key facilities are hardened and protected, and may be duplicated or otherwise backed up by use of redundancy. Camouflage,
Concealment and Deception may be used to prevent direct attacks on likely targets, supported by an effective civil defence organisation to provide fire-fighting, medical, rescue and recovery services,' the research paper says.
Offensive Counter Air (OCA)
Then is Offensive Counter Air, which basically means compromising the enemy's strike capability 'through direct action', the paper says.
Pakistan's air defence systems have weapons bought from Turkey and China in recent times (as the bigger powers would either not sell to it or were too expensive for it) along with some older weapon systems from the US and some Soviet-era weapons.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
31 minutes ago
- First Post
Tharoor vs Bilawal Bhutto: India's long game and Pakistan's domestic compulsions in battle of diplomacy
India and Pakistan have launched global diplomatic campaigns after recent military clashes to shape international opinion. While India pursues a long-term strategy to isolate Pakistan over terrorism, Islamabad's outreach is driven by domestic political compulsions. read more In a diplomatic blitz, India and Pakistan dispatched high-profile delegations to the United States, and other countries as well, to present their narratives following last month's military clashes over four days before Islamabad requested New Delhi for a no-attack understanding. India's delegation was led by opposition politician and former Minister of State for External Affairs Shashi Tharoor, while Pakistan's was headed by its former Foreign Minister Bilawal Bhutto Zardari. They presented contrasting narratives. India emphasised Pakistan's alleged sponsorship of terrorism and highlighted Islamabad's role in cross-border terror attacks, not just in Pahalgam where tourists were targeted leading to the massacre of 26 people, but for decades as part of its policy of 'bleeding India to death through a thousand cuts'. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Pakistan, on the other hand, ironically portrays itself as a peaceful victim of Indian aggression and stresses the need for dialogue. What Shashi Thahoor said to the Pakistan delegation In an interaction at the Indian Embassy in Washington DC, he said, 'This [Pakistan] delegation is going around saying we are also victims of terrorism, we have lost more lives to terrorism than India has. We turn around and say — whose fault is that?' Tharoor said, 'As Hillary Clinton famously said 10 years ago, 'You can't breed vipers in your backyard and expect them to bite only your neighbours'. That's why they [Pakistan] are now getting terrorists attacked by the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan, but who created the Taliban from which the Tehrik-i-Taliban broke off? We all know the answer to that, so let Pakistan look inside it and let it do some serious interior reflection before it goes around pleading innocence and deniability and everything else.' Contrasting approaches, differing motivations India's multiparty approach projects unity. India's delegation, including prominent opposition figures, signals a united front domestically, strengthening the credibility of its message abroad. This contrasts with Pakistan's more fragmented political representation and underscores the Modi government's confidence in its narrative. Pakistan's domestic vulnerabilities were on display in its diplomatice moves. Led by Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, Pakistan's diplomatic campaign is driven in large part by its fragile domestic political standing. The government in Islamabad faces low popularity, and hence, it is leveraging international forums to portray itself as a victim of Indian aggression and to seek global mediation on Kashmir — a position firmly rejected by India. The selective composition of Pakistan's delegations, which exclude major opposition parties like Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), further reveals internal political calculations. Reports suggest that former Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan — known to have closer ties with Taliban groups, earning him a nickname of 'Taliban Khan' — remains a popular choice for the voters though his party, PTI, stays banned from elections. Also, India has dispatched seven delegations to 33 countries, including unlikely venues like Bogotá and Ljubljana, reflecting a global campaign to build support. Pakistan is sending two delegations to a handful of capitals including Washington DC, London, and Brussels. How much of it is due to domestic political motivations? Both governments aim to bolster domestic support by showing active international engagement. India's multiparty delegation projects national unity; Pakistan seeks to counter its low popularity at home. The narrative battle is aimed at domestic audiences as both countries are acutely aware that much of the diplomatic effort is designed to bolster public support at home. India's government uses the campaign to reinforce nationalist credentials and demonstrate proactive leadership, while Pakistan attempts to rally domestic sympathy by portraying itself as unfairly targeted. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The success of the outcome depends on domestic perception. Each government aims to convince its population that the diplomatic campaign was successful, influencing future public support and policy directions. India has provided evidence for what it is briefing nations in its diplomatic outreach. Pakistan has at best referred to unverified claims made on social media. India's strategic long game While Pakistan demands resumption of the Indus Waters Treaty suspended by India after the conflict, citing water security concerns, India seeks to reduce Pakistan's access to bilateral and multilateral aid until Islamabad takes meaningful anti-terrorism actions. India also calls on Pakistan's donors to reduce aid until Islamabad takes stronger action against terrorism. Their strategic goals also seem to be different. India wants to refocus international attention on terrorism rather than nuclear escalation fears, which have dominated since earlier conflicts. Pakistan seems to aim to leverage global concerns over nuclear risks to gain sympathy and mediation support. India is using the diplomatic blitz not just to respond to the four-day military conflict that happened in May but to systematically raise the costs for Pakistan over its failure to curb terrorism. By deploying seven delegations to 33 countries — including unlikely venues — India aims to build sustained international pressure on Islamabad to act decisively against anti-India militant groups and infrastructure on its soil. This reflects a broader effort to shift global focus back onto terrorism, countering the narrative that prioritises fears of nuclear escalation. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD India's sustained diplomatic offensive reflects a calculated, long-term strategy to isolate Pakistan internationally and pressure it into compliance on terrorism issues, while Pakistan's campaign reveals its domestic political fragility and reliance on external validation. The ultimate success of these efforts will be judged largely by their impact on domestic public opinion in both countries. But there are challenges, for India as well India has gained and can expect wider support over terrorism concerns but alleviating nuclear fears remains a challenge especially against the backdrop of Trump's one-sided repeated claims of stopping an atomic war. Pakistan faces skepticism due to India's strategic importance globally and resistance to international mediation on Kashmir. Challenges for Pakistan's global pitch are glaring. Despite Pakistan's efforts, India's growing global stature as a strategic and commercial partner limits Islamabad's ability to gain widespread international backing for mediation or to deflect attention from terrorism concerns. The contrast is too sharp to be glossed over. India is playing a patient and strategic diplomatic long game aimed at exposing Pakistan's unabashed terror policy. On the other hand, Pakistan's moves look heavily influenced by internal political needs against the backdrop of the battering its armed forces received during Operation Sindoor.
Hindustan Times
33 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
‘Kill me too': Shashi Tharoor recounts horrific Pahalgam terror attack in US speech
Congress MP Shashi Tharoor, addressing members of the Indian diaspora in Washington, recounted the recent terrorist attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, highlighting the brutal reality of terrorism and the importance of international solidarity. Recounting a harrowing moment from the April 22 attack, Tharoor said, 'A woman, who had just witnessed her husband being gunned down, screamed in horror, 'kill me too',' Tharoor told the audience. 'But the terrorists said no. They wanted her to live, to carry the story of what had happened.' The story, he explained, was emblematic of the deliberate cruelty behind the attack, where victims were reportedly asked their religion before being executed at close range. 'That is the message they wanted to give,' Tharoor said, describing it as an attempt to sow religious discord through violence. The visit, part of India's diplomatic outreach under Operation Sindoor, aims to garner international support in the aftermath of the attack. Tharoor noted the 'overwhelming and unconditional' backing received from US lawmakers, commending the depth of the engagement across party lines. 'There's been a very wide, impressive cross-section of legislators who met us and spoke to us,' he said. 'We came to lay out what we've endured in India in the last few weeks and seek understanding and solidarity.' Tharoor emphasised that despite the busy legislative schedule in Washington, American lawmakers made time for the Indian delegation. 'They had to rush off to a vote, but before that, they made sure they engaged with us in a very positive and constructive way,' he added, highlighting the strength of the Indo-US strategic partnership. He praised the bipartisan nature of the support received. 'We came prepared for pushback or even some scepticism, but we found none. There has been unconditional support extended to us in our struggle against terrorism,' he remarked. The delegation, which arrived in the US on Wednesday, includes representatives from across India's political spectrum: Shambhavi Chaudhary (Lok Janshakti Party), Sarfaraz Ahmed (Jharkhand Mukti Morcha), G M Harish Balayogi (Telugu Desam Party), Shashank Mani Tripathi, Tejasvi Surya, and Bhubaneswar Kalita (all from the BJP), Mallikarjun Devda (Shiv Sena), and Milind Deora (also Shiv Sena). They were joined by current Indian Ambassador to the US and former envoy Taranjit Singh Sandhu. Tharoor noted the diversity of the group - spanning seven parties, eight states and three religions - as a powerful counterpoint to the sectarian motives of the Pahalgam attackers. 'I mention religions not because it should matter,' he said, 'but because the terrorists wanted it to.'
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Homeland security is a global mission, says author Rhys Machold
The concept of 'homeland security' came to the fore after the 9/11 attacks in New York. Rhys Machold, a senior lecturer with the School of Social and Political Sciences at the University of Glasgow, has been studying a government's response to terrorism for a decade, including India's after the terror attacks of 26/11 in Mumbai in 2008. He travelled across countries and met arms manufacturers, dealers, police trainers, politicians for his new book, After 26/11: India, Palestine/Israel, and the Fabrication of Homeland Security (published by Navayana). Edited excerpts from an interview. Question: From 26/11 to Pahalgam, how has homeland security evolved in India as a response to terror attacks? How has the public perception about the importance of homeland security as a priority area changed? Answer: As I detail at length in the book, in 26/11's aftermath, the term 'homeland security' and institutions and practices associated with it, not least of all the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, went from the peripheries of public and strategic debates in India to centre-stage. In the weeks and months that followed 26/11, a new kind of common sense emerged, namely that India lacked homeland security and needed to urgently replicate the alleged successes of other states in developing a modern and robust homeland security approach, with the U.S. and Israel being cited as some of the most notable examples. In the years thereafter this apparent new consensus did produce some tangible developments, including new institutions and reforms to internal security and policing in many parts of India, often styled in a language of police and security modernisation. Overall, I would say that in the aftermath of terror attacks in India, the public tend to make demands for greater domestic security preparedness, and since 26/11 these are often styled in a language of homeland security. Yet, some attacks provoke such demands in quite uneven or inconsistent ways. For instance, the 2011 bombings at Dadar West, Zaveri Bazaar, and the Opera House in Mumbai killed 26 people and wounded another 130, but produced limited public outcry and political responses in terms of improving domestic security infrastructure. The recent attacks on Pahalgam have provoked broad public outcry over various security lapses or failures of the Indian state and unleashed a media-driven jingoistic fervour, which has in turn been used to rationalise the Indian state's subsequent mass arrests of individuals in Jammu and Kashmir as well as housing demolitions there and most recently military attacks against Pakistan. Q: Though your book elaborates on the homeland security journey of India till 2014, several terror attacks have taken place thereafter as well. How do you perceive India's response to them? A: The general trend is that although such events are most commonly blamed by state officials and media outlets on Muslims and Islamist groups and sometimes on Pakistan-based authorities or the Pakistani state itself, the tendency in state responses to terror attacks across India is to treat them as relatively exceptional breakdowns of social order rather than routine events. Long-term and systematic planning, both at the State-level in places like Maharashtra but also at the Union-level, has been more difficult to sustain after the occasional political backlash in the wake of terror attacks wanes. For instance, while 26/11 gave rise to discussions about the need for basic reforms of general policing across India, this imperative never really materialised. At the same time, it is important to stress that the jingoistic fervour that events like 26/11 and the Pahalgam attack produces, particularly against Muslims in India and in Kashmir as well as in relation to Pakistan, have been steadily building since 2014 and I see no sign of this abating anytime soon. Q: You have disrupted the conventional idea of homeland security. Could you elaborate on why you say that homeland security is not a universal concept? A: What I mean by this is to say that although 'homeland security' claims to be a new way of organising domestic policing and security that can in principle be put into practice anywhere and work in a similar fashion across different parts of the world, the post-26/11 experience belies this claim substantially. Despite the considerable and ongoing efforts to reproduce the American and Israeli homeland security states in the Indian context, the ways in whichinstitutions ofinternal security continue to operate in India are in certain respects radically unlike those in the U.S. or Palestine/Israel. Indeed, my book helps to elaborate the ways in which efforts to reproduce the homeland security state in India since 2008 have been centrally concerned with mediating and attempting to overcome various forms of difference, whether historical, cultural, institutional or political. But as I show, these efforts aimed at overcoming difference have generally come up short. That being said, I also emphasise in different ways that the mission of homeland security as a governing regime and political project has never been contained within national borders. Instead, it has always been understood by its architects as a global mission that seeks to remake much of the world in its image. Thus, homeland security is universalist even though not being universal in the sense of being the same everywhere.
