India should be cautious about Pakistan's false claims: Op Sindoor
India carried out precision airstrikes on nine terrorist sites in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK). It was very close to war, but India acted with restraint and targeted only terrorist camps and military bases, and not civilians.
India can target every system at Pakistan's base, but Air Marshal AK Bharti explained that the country has maintained restraint despite its high capability. Our military operation, Operation Sindoor, targeted terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan and PoK, especially militant camps in Muzaffarabad, Kotli, and Bahawalpur. Despite these setbacks, Pakistan breached the ceasefire within hours after the May 10 agreement.
It was an attack from Pakistan!
On May 8-9, Pakistan launched a massive drone attack using around 300-400 drones, targeting 36 locations in India, including military bases and religious sites like those in Srinagar and Naliya.
India suffered serious human losses because of mindless terror. Still, the IAF's response was directed only at military installations, avoiding civilians and collateral damage. Pakistan launched a massive drone attack on Indian cities, while our fully prepared air defence forces successfully countered the drone attacks, preventing any damage to the intended targets. Pakistan launched its own military operation, targeting several key bases in India. They allowed civilian aircraft to fly out of Lahore during the drone attacks, including international passenger aircraft, which posed a significant challenge for India's response. Yes. Indian air defence shot down most of the drones, and no major damage occurred.
Japan Times' report
Well-known columnist, Brahma Chellaney wrote in his column, 'The Japan Times,' that the J-10Cs launched multiple PL-15E missiles at Indian targets, but there is no independent verification of successful hits. India's integrated air defences withstood the onslaught, gaining air superiority'.
Every Indian, and our army, felt proud 'by the conflict's end, Indian airstrikes had crippled major Pakistani air bases — including Nur Khan and Bholari — without suffering any confirmed retaliatory damage. Nur Khan, near Pakistan's nuclear command and army headquarters, was particularly symbolic. Its precise targeting by Indian cruise missiles signaled a calibrated message: Even high-value, well-defended assets are not beyond reach.'
And 'Pakistan reportedly launched 300 to 400 drones in a single night, yet satellite imagery showed little damage on Indian soil. India, by contrast, relied on precision standoff weapons — especially the supersonic BrahMos cruise missile, codeveloped with Russia, which successfully hit high-value targets in Pakistan with minimal risk to Indian military personnel.'
The Japan Times wrote that India and China remain locked in a military standoff at the Himalayas and this was triggered in 2020 by Chinese encroachments on Indian border lands. Despite diplomatic moves to ease tensions, both countries continue to mass troops and weaponry along the disputed frontier. The combat data generated from the conflict with Pakistan offers India an invaluable edge in anticipating Chinese capabilities and countermeasures.
Meanwhile, Pakistan claimed that they had shot down at least five Indian fighter jets on the first day. But there was no proof, no wreckage photos and satellite imagery to corroborate the claim. The Indian military dismissed the allegation, stating that all its pilots had returned safely.
It was a major embarrassment for Pakistan. Its Defence Minister Khawaja Asif was under fire for promoting misinformation in the wake of Operation Sindoor.
False and fake
Readers should use fact-checkers like Factly.
Fact: This video showing visuals of a crashed fighter jet being lifted by a helicopter is AI-generated. It was uploaded on May 3, before the start of 'Operation Sindoor'. Hence, the claim made in the post is FALSE'.
'Factly' explained,
'We found discrepancies in the viral video, prompting suspicion that it might have been generated using AI. To gather more information, we conducted a reverse image search of the key frames, which led us to the same video uploaded on a YouTube channel on May 3, three days before Operation Sindoor. In that video, it is described as an AI-generated scene showing a crashed fighter jet being lifted by a helicopter'.
BrahMos: Standout performer
It is called Brahmastra against our rivals 'The BrahMos missile, already exported by India, emerged as the standout performer during the conflict.
Further, the newspaper commented, ''This was not a conventional border conflict, but a high-tech showdown featuring drones, cruise and ballistic missiles, and long-range air defences. While India and Pakistan were the primary belligerents, a third power — China — played a pivotal, if indirect, role…. Beijing's involvement via the supply of advanced weapon systems and real-time satellite reconnaissance data to Pakistan turned the engagement into a revealing trial run for Chinese arms in a live combat setting.
It was reported by the media that IAF Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) General Anil Chauhan had on May 31 rejected Pakistan's claims that it had shot down six Indian warplanes during Operation Sindoor, calling the information 'absolutely incorrect'. The CDS added, 'what is important is not the jet being down, but why they were being downed'. General Chauhan clarified that the good part is that we are able to understand the tactical mistake, which was made, remedy it, rectify it, and then implement it again after two days and fly our jets again, targeting at long range'. He stated that 'the backbone of Pakistan' was badly damaged.
Congress questions:
Congress leaders like Mallikarjun Kharge and Jairam Ramesh wanted to know why the Prime Minister did call for an all-party meeting on the issue 'Why did people learn about the operation through an interview with General Chauhan in Singapore?' 'Were some Indian jets destroyed in the early stages? Why no clear info?
Some Telangana leaders accused the Centre of giving in to pressure from the US President Donald President Trump and hastily rushing into a ceasefire. Jairam Ramesh said on X that the Centre had not taken Parliament into confidence even as the nation gets to know of the first phase of Operation Sindoor. The Chief Minister of Telangana claimed that the Centre was afraid of Trump's pressure and had surrendered to the ceasefire.
Citizens should verify
India is under threat not just from terrorists and enemy countries, but also from fake news and social media rumours. Criticism is welcome in a democracy, but it must be responsible and based on facts. National security should come before politics. Let's support our armed forces, verify information, and stay united. Pakistan can never be trusted.
(The writer is Professor of the Constitution of India and founder-Dean, School of Law, Mahindra University, Hyderabad)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India Today
5 minutes ago
- India Today
Aamir Khan, Gauri Spratt arrive in Melbourne for film festival. Video
The Bharatiya Janata Party held a press conference, making allegations against Congress leaders and the opposition. The BJP stated that Sonia Gandhi was on India's electoral roll in 1980 while she was an Italian citizen, prior to her acquiring Indian citizenship in 1983. A document from the 1980 electoral rolls, accessed by India Today and shared by Amit Malviya, indicates her name along with Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi, and Sanjay Gandhi from a Safdarjung address in Delhi. The BJP is questioning how her name appeared on the poll roll before she became an Indian citizen. The party also alleged that the Congress Party's top leadership has engaged in "vote chori" and used fake voters in constituencies won by opposition MPs, including those in Kerala, Uttar Pradesh, Bengal, and other states. Specific references were made to constituencies where Muslim names were allegedly added to voter lists. The BJP is attempting to turn the tables on the Congress and the larger opposition regarding electoral integrity. The core allegation is that 'Sonia Gandhi's name was in the electoral roll even before she was granted citizenship status in this country'.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
5 minutes ago
- First Post
‘India, that is Bharat': How the country got its many names
India or Bharat? What should the country be officially known as? This debate is not new. In fact, makers of the Constitution also struggled with the question. As we celebrate the 79th Independence Day, a look at the many terms associated with the nation 'India, that is Bharat, shall be a union of states,' reads Article 1 of the Constitution. India is perhaps one of the few countries that are identified with more than two names. Besides India and Bharat, Hindustan is also used to refer to the nation. There are other ancient monikers by which the country that we know as India today was known. As the country rings its 79th Independence Day on August 15, let's turn the pages of history to see how India got its many names. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD India's ancient names Scholars say Meluha was once associated with the Indian subcontinent. It was mentioned in the texts of ancient Mesopotamia in the third millennium BCE to allude to the Indus Valley Civilisation. India was also known as Jambudvipa or the 'land of the Jamun trees'. This name can be found in many Vedic texts and is used even today in some Southeast Asian countries to describe the Indian subcontinent. Diana L Eck, an eminent Indologist, wrote in her book, India: A Sacred Geography: 'The Chinese traveller Fa-Hien describes a country (India) triangular in shape, broad in the north and narrow in the south, and he goes on to observe that 'people's faces are of the same shape as the country'.' Aryavarta is used in the Manusmriti to refer to the land occupied by the Indo-Aryans. This covers the area between the Himalayas in the north and the Vindhya mountain ranges in the south. Jains believe the country was called earlier Nabhivarsa. 'King Nabhi was the father of Rishabhanatha (the first tirthankara) and grandfather of Bharata,' geographer Anu Kapur wrote in her book, Mapping Place Names of India. Bharat, Hindustan and India: A country with many names Bharat, Bharata, or Bharatvarsha is said to be the earliest names recorded for India. It can be traced back to the Hindu epic, the Mahabharata, which has King Bharata, a legendary emperor and the son of Dushyant and Shakuntala. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Bharat was popularised in modern history due to its use in the freedom struggle in slogans like Bharat mata ki jai. According to the Puranas, Bharata lies between the 'sea in the south and the abode of snow in the north'. Bharata is also thought be the mythical founder of the race. Social scientist Catherine Clémentin-Ojha, wrote in her article, 'India, that is Bharat…': One Country, Two Names, that Bharata refers to the'supraregional and subcontinental territory where the Brahmanical system of society prevails'. The name Hindustan is believed to have originated when Persians occupied the Indus valley in the seventh century BCE. Hindu was the Persianised version of the Sanskrit term Sindhu, or the Indus river, which traversed the land. The Persian suffix, 'stan', was added in the first century AD and it became 'Hindustan', as per an Indian Express report. The Greeks knew about Hind from the Persians, but they transliterated it as Indus. When Macedonian ruler Alexander invaded India in the third century BCE, 'India' was used to describe the region beyond the Indus. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Historian Ian J Barrow, in his article From Hindustan to India: Naming change in changing names, wrote that 'in the mid-to-late eighteenth century, Hindustan often referred to the territories of the Mughal emperor, which comprised much of South Asia.' However, the British maps started mentioning India more by the late 18th century, and Hindustan stopped being used to identify the entire South Asia. How independent India was named The debate that comes up now and then about the country's name also arose after India gained freedom from the British in August 1947. The drafting committee set up under the chairmanship of Dr BR Ambedkar to formulate India's Constitution discussed the section 'name and territory of the Union' on September 17, 1949. Hari Vishnu Kamath, a member of the Forward Bloc, argued that the first article should be 'Bharat, or in the English language, India, shall be and such,' replacing the phrase 'India, that is Bharat'. Seth Govind Das, who represented the Central Provinces and Berar, was in favour of: 'Bharat known as India also in foreign countries'. Hargovind Pant, representing the hill districts of the United Provinces, asserted that the people of Northern India 'wanted Bharatvarsha and nothing else'. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD In view of India's linguistic and cultural diversity, the Constituent Assembly decided to use both 'Bharat' and 'India', recognising the significance of the names. 'Often, as I wandered from meeting to meeting, I spoke to my audience of this India of ours, of Hindustan and of Bharata, the old Sanskrit name derived from the mythical founder of the race,' India's first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, wrote in his 1946 book The Discovery of India. The debate about the country's name still grabs headlines, with some wanting to do away with the term India, seeing it as a reminder of the colonial past. But historians dismiss it. 'The British have got nothing to do with the name India… It is part of our history from the fifth Century BC. The Greeks used it, the Persians used it. India was identified as a country besides the Indus river. It came from there,' historian S Irfan Habib told PTI. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'Many historical sources, Megasthenes (Greek historian) and so many travellers referred to it. So, like Bharat, India is also part of our history,' he added. With inputs from agencies
Indian Express
5 minutes ago
- Indian Express
The Middle East was once part of British India—just not on official maps
In his book Empire of the Raj (2004), historian Robert Blyth argues, 'The Persian Gulf was the heart of the Indian sphere.' Indeed, the Indian subcontinent had been connected to the Gulf region through trade and migration for centuries, a reality that was built upon by the British when they established their empire in India. Contrary to what modern maps of British India might make us believe, the territory of influence of the British Raj expanded far beyond the contours of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. As Sam Dalrymple points out in his book, The Shattered Lands (2025), 'As recently as 1928, a vast swathe of Asia–India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Burma, Nepal, Bhutan, Yemen, Oman, the UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait– were bound together under a single imperial banner, an entity known officially as the Indian empire, or more simply as the Raj.' The British in India expanded their influence over the Gulf region for strategic, economic and geopolitical reasons. The expansion, though, was not done through direct colonisation, but rather by establishing indirect control through treaties, often referred to as the 'system of protection'. They were legally a part of India, under the Interpretation Act of 1889. In his book, Dalrymple notes that 'they were run by the Indian Political Service, defended by the Indian Army, and subservient to the Viceroy of India.' Interestingly, the official list of princely states in India is known to have begun alphabetically with Abu Dhabi, while Lord Curzon is known to have argued that Oman was as much a native state of the Indian Empire as Lus Beyla or Kelat. Surprisingly, though, the British were not keen on advertising the true extent of their empire. They played down the true size of the British Empire for diplomatic reasons and left out most of the protectorate states from their official maps. Britain's expansion into the 'Middle East' Britain's original interest in Bahrain and Trucial Oman emerged out of strategic concerns for the protection of British shipping between Persia, Iraq, Muscat (Oman) and India. Historian of Middle Eastern Studies, James Onley, notes in his book, The Arabian Frontier of the British Raj' (2007), that between 1797 and 1819, the British were extremely concerned by the Arab maritime raiders who had their base of operations at the 'Pirate coast' (as the Gulf coast of present day UAE was called). Eventually, they dispatched a series of naval expeditions to the Gulf. Following the last such expedition, it became clear that the stability of the Gulf Shaikhdoms was critical for the security of British shipping. Thereafter, the British embarked upon a policy of increased interventions in the affairs of the Arab region, which they maintained till as recent as 1971. Accordingly, the British first established their residency at Bushire in Persia in 1763. British concern in the region was further heightened when France sent a military expedition to Egypt in 1798 and later entered into a political alliance with the Shah of Persia in 1807. Suddenly, British India faced the threat of invasion on its western front. 'Britain quickly adopted the policy of securing Persia and Muscat/Oman as buffer states against French influence,' writes Onley. The opening of the Suez Canal in 1869 further increased the strategic importance of the region, cutting down the shipping time between Britain and India. Finally, in the 1860s, Russia was expanding its sphere of influence in Central Asia to secure a warmwater port somewhere along the southern Persian coast. It added yet another layer of concern for the British, making the Gulf a key frontier in the 'Great Game' between Russia and Britain. 'Throughout the 1800s this crucial geopolitical arena was then secured and transformed to become the bulwark of an informal imperial system erected around British India,' writes historian Guillemette Crouzet in her book, Inventing the Middle East: Britain and the Persian Gulf in the Age of Imperialism (2022). This sphere of influence in the Gulf region was maintained through the collaboration among actors in London, on the Indian subcontinent and the Gulf region itself. Until 1858, operations in the Gulf territories were being conducted under the auspices of the Bombay presidency and thereafter by the government of India. Cartographic expeditions were carried out to impose a geographical logic upon this region, whose political economy was reordered to favour imperial priorities. As pointed out by Crouzet in her book, officials and speculators sought new passages to India, often running through Mesopotamia, archaeologists unearthed artefacts of the region's ancient empires, and ideologues envisaged the rebirth of ancient civilisations under British oversight. By the end of the 19th century, notes Crouzet, a new appellation appeared to identify the Gulf region–the Middle East. This term, she writes, was hardly ever in use before the 1900s. Its emergence was a product of geopolitics rather than any cultural or religious identity. The British journalists and writers who first came up with the term marked the region through its connections to India. Valentine Chirol, one of the earliest British journalists to identify the 'Middle East' region for instance, wrote that the Middle East consisted of 'those regions of Asia which extend to the borders of India or command the approaches to India, and which are consequently bound up with the problems of Indian political as well as military defence'. Left out of maps However, despite being a crucial part of the British Empire in India, the Gulf territories would often be left out of their official maps. This was done for diplomatic and pragmatic reasons. Dalrymple, in his book, explains that 'the Arab states bordering the Ottoman Empire were usually left off the imperial maps altogether, to avoid aggravating Constantinople'. He writes that the absence of these states from British maps was much remarked upon at the time, and cites a lecturer to the Royal Asian Society, who is known to have joked, 'As a jealous sheikh veils his favourite wife, so the British authorities shroud conditions in the Arab states in such thick mystery that ill-disposed propagandists might almost be excused for thinking that something dreadful is going on there.' Onley explains in his book that the British were keen on maintaining the fiction that 'some of its protected states bordering the territories of other empires did not form part of the Indian Empire and were only loosely connected to the British Empire.' The Middle East after Indian independence Up until as late as March 1947, the territories of the Persian Gulf were administered by the Indian Political Service. A decade ago, Aden in Yemen had undergone separation from British India. It was turned into a crown colony under the terms of the Government of India Act of 1935. During the Aden separation debates, it was decided that India would not be allowed to govern the Persian Gulf after Independence. In his book, Dalrymple cites the Gulf resident William Hay as having said, 'when the British decided to transfer power in India it would clearly have been inappropriate to hand over responsibility for dealing with the Gulf Arabs to Indians or Pakistanis.' Accordingly, on April 1, 1947, the Persian Gulf Residency was finally separated from India. The Indian Political Service and Indian soldiers quickly and unceremoniously disappeared from the region. They were soon replaced by British officers. Then on, the Foreign Office in London assumed responsibility for the Gulf region. Had this administrative transfer of power not taken place, it is quite likely that the states in the Gulf region would have ended up either in India or Pakistan. In the ensuing years, history writing in India has hardly ever acknowledged the Indian Empire's reach into present day Yemen and Dubai. Responding to why that was the case, Dalrymple explained in a previous interview with that nationalists have written history presenting India 'as this ancient thing called Bharat'. He explains that the Hindu nationalists from the Mahasabha said that the Arabian states should not be part of India because Arabia was a separate civilisation. 'But the British were just conquering random territories based on economic sense, not on 'Indianness',' he said.
