No air defence guns deployed at Golden Temple, says Indian Army
Amid row over a top military official's claim that anti-drone weapons were deployed on the premises of the Golden Temple during Operation Sindoor, the Indian Army on Tuesday clarified that no air defence guns were put up at the shrine.
The assertion came after the Golden Temple management and the head granthi (priest) of the shrine vehemently denied some media reports (quoting the army official) that claimed that permission had been given to the forces to deploy air defence guns to counter potential drone and missile threats from Pakistan.
'Some media reports are circulating with respect to deployment of air defence guns in the Golden Temple. It is clarified that no such resources were deployed on the premises of the Golden Temple,' said an army in a release.
On Monday, Lt Gen Sumer Ivan D'Cunha, the army's in-charge of air defence, was quoted by news outlets as saying that the head priest (Giani Raghbir Singh) had permitted the deployment of air defence guns in the shrine complex. Prior to this, Major General Kartik C Seshadri, the general officer commanding (GOC), 15 Infantry Division, said that Golden Temple was targeted by Pakistan forces with missiles and drones and India's air defence system had successfully intercepted and destroyed them to protect the shrine.
Terming the statements 'propaganda', Giani Raghbir said, 'I was not contacted by any army officer. There was no communication on any gun deployment, nor did any such incident occur at Sri Darbar Sahib. In any case, I was on leave in the US for 22 days. I went on April 24 and returned on May 14. The conflict started after I left and ended before I returned. The Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee should probe the army's claims and take departmental action if any SGPC member is found involved in this matter.'
In an official statement by the SGPC, additional head granthi Giani Amarjit Singh, who was officiating in Giani Raghbir Singh's absence, said the administration contacted them only about switching off the lights during the blackout after recent escalation of tension between India and Pakistan and they fully cooperated in the interest of administrative responsibility. Despite the tense situation in recent days, the full religious code of conduct continued at Harmandar Sahib with dedication and discipline, he said.
He denied granting any permission to the army and reiterated there was no such weapon deployment at the shrine.
SGPC president Harjinder Singh Dhami also said no army officer contacted him and neither was any air defence gun put up at the shrine. He said even during the blackout, devotees continued to do sewa (voluntary service) at the shrine and had any such event occurred, the sangat (followers) would have certainly noticed it. Dhami acknowledged the commendable role played by the Army and the country during the tense circumstances, but emphasized that 'spreading such falsehoods about the central religious place of Sikhs days after the events is shockingly untrue'.
He also demanded a clarification from the government.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
33 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Shashi Tharoor Meets US VP JD Vance; Says Got Strong Support For India's Op Sindoor
Shashi Tharoor In USA: A multi-party delegation of Indian Members of Parliament, led by senior Congress leader Shashi Tharoor, met United States Vice President JD Vance in Washington DC. The dialogue focused on counter-terrorism cooperation following the deadly Pahalgam terror attack and India's decisive military response—Operation Sindoor. Shashi Tharoor, speaking after the meeting, described the discussion as 'very positive' and 'constructive,' noting that VP JD Vance expressed full support for India's right to respond to terrorism.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
39 minutes ago
- First Post
Pakistan must not be allowed to evade terror accountability despite escalation risks
India has to realise that once it takes kinetic action against Pakistan, the world wants a quick cessation of hostilities because it fears escalation. In this process Pakistan's terrorist action takes a back seat for the international community read more India has to make the world more sensitive to the dangers of Pakistani terrorism and highlight that, notwithstanding the sophistry of the arguments put forward by its generals, India will not absorb terrorist acts or succumb to Pakistan's nuclear blackmail. AFP The two senior-most defence officers of India and Pakistan — Chairman of Defence Staff Gen Anil Chauhan and Pakistan's Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee Gen Sahir Shamshad Mirza — participated in the recently held Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore. On the sidelines of the event, they gave separate interviews to Reuters on May 31. The two generals were on the same page on the absence of nuclear signalling by Pakistan during the course of Operation Sindoor. Reuters quoted Gen Chauhan as saying, 'I think there's a lot of space before that nuclear threshold is crossed, a lot of signalling before that. I think nothing like that happened.' The same news agency then reported Gen Mirza saying, 'Nothing happened this time.' The agency further clarified that Gen Mirza stated that there was no move towards nuclear weapons during this conflict. As India has a no first use nuclear doctrine and Pakistan does not, any signal to get nuclear weapons into play can only come from Pakistan. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD While agreeing that no nuclear signal had been given during Operation Sindoor, Gen Chauhan and Gen Mirza differed greatly in their direct and indirect elaboration on the possibility of escalation during armed conflicts between India and Pakistan. The term escalation, in this context, refers to the possibility of conventional hostilities between nuclear countries leading to the use of nuclear weapons. The remarks of both generals on this subject would be closely studied worldwide by diplomats and scholars of security and strategic issues. On escalation, Gen Chauhan said, 'It's my personal view that the most rational people are people in uniform when conflict takes place,' he added. 'During this operation, I found both sides displaying a lot of rationality in their thoughts as well as actions. So why should we assume that in the nuclear domain there will be irrationality on someone else's part?' Gen Chauhan implied that as nuclear weapons were meant not for war fighting but to prevent existential crises, it would be irrational and illogical for their use for offensive purposes. Therefore, his conviction remains that the 'rationality' of the Pakistani army would prevent it from using nuclear weapons. Gen Mirza did not share Gen Chauhan's positive view about the rationality of 'people in uniform'. He stuck to Pakistan's position that India should not take kinetic action in response to terrorist strikes. Therefore, while noting that 'nothing happened this time', he added, 'But you can't rule out any strategic miscalculation at any time, because when the crisis is on, the responses are different.' Mirza also dwelt on escalation during his participation in a panel on 'Regional Crisis—Management Mechanisms'. What he said in his statement, as well as in response to questions, needs to be carefully evaluated by Indian policy makers and academics. In order to appreciate their significance, it is essential to place them in the context of past Indian responses to Pakistani terrorist acts. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Until the Uri terrorist attack of 2016, India avoided open kinetic action against Pakistani terrorism. It absorbed these attacks and broke off engagement with Pakistan till the anger of the Indian public subsided. Thereafter the bilateral dialogue process resumed. The major powers encouraged India to pursue such a path because they virtually accepted the Pakistani stand that kinetic action through conventional forces between nuclear powers risked escalation. What the major powers ignored was that Pakistan had begun to use nuclear weapons as a shield to carry on terrorism against India. In fact, they overlooked their own doctrine that nuclear states cannot undertake provocative acts on each other's territories because it is too dangerous to do so. Indeed, after the heinous Mumbai terrorist attack of November 26, 2008, the Western powers accepted that Lashkar-e-Taiba was behind it. However, they virtually absolved the Pakistan state agencies of having any hand in it. Prime Minister Narendra Modi changed the policy of absorbing terrorist attacks after the Uri incident. He sanctioned India's special forces to go into Pakistan-held territory of the then state of Jammu and Kashmir to undertake surgical strikes to hit Pakistani terrorist launch pads. Pakistan denied that India had undertaken any such action. This denial was obviously to protect its doctrine that a kinetic response by Indian conventional armed forces was escalatory. By denying the surgical strikes, the Pakistanis thought that the validity of their doctrine would not come into question. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The luxury of denial was not available to Pakistan after India's Balakot strike in the wake of the Pulwama terrorist attack. It therefore claimed that it had achieved the upper hand by downing an Indian fighter aircraft and capturing Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman on its territory. It thereafter said that the major powers intervened to diffuse the situation and that, in a sign of goodwill, it quickly released the Indian officer. India said that it had also downed Pakistani aircraft and that it was its pressure which led Pakistan to agree to releasing the officer. India did not accept that foreign mediation resolved the situation but agreed that the major powers were in touch with it as with Pakistan. The important point stressed by Pakistan was that Indian and Pakistani issues could not be resolved bilaterally but required foreign intervention and that hostilities post-Balakot were also diffused through foreign intervention. The significant point that India made through the Balakot action was that kinetic aerial action was possible as a response to Pakistan's terrorism. This meant that India had blown the lid off the Pakistani doctrine that the danger of escalation did not permit such kinetic action. As always, India also noted that it would not allow third parties to intervene in India-Pakistan issues. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD At the Shangri La Dialogue, Gen Mirza spelt out a modified Pakistani doctrine regarding the dangers of India's use of kinetic force. He argued that the post-Pahalgam situation had taken strategic stability between India and Pakistan to dangerously low levels. He said while in the past borders were targeted, on this occasion, cities were attacked. He went on to state that now not only the disputed territory (meaning the UTs of J&K and Ladakh) but the whole of India and Pakistan would be involved. This, he claimed, would be extremely detrimental to 'investments, trading and the development needs of 1.5 billion people'. He obviously implied that this negativity would impact both countries. Mirza went on to assert, 'In future, given the Indian policies and the polity's extremist mindset and absence of crisis management mechanisms, we may not give enough time to the global powers to intervene and effect a cessation of hostilities. They will probably be too late to avert damage and destruction.' As Mirza had already ruled out the possibility that escalation could be stopped bilaterally between India and Pakistan and needed the intervention of global powers, what he actually signalled was that Pakistan may use nuclear weapons if it was rapidly suffering major losses in a conventional war. Thus, Pakistan was actually, once again, asserting that India should revert to its old policy of absorbing terrorist attacks. Mirza was also perhaps responding to PM Modi's declaration that India would not be deterred by Pakistani nuclear blackmail. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD India's strategic community has to effectively respond to this refined Pakistani doctrine which, at its kernel, is emphasising that a rapid escalation to the nuclear level may occur between India and Pakistan if India again uses kinetic force. And that the quick escalation may not give the international community time to diffuse the conflict during its conventional stage. The real point that India has to forcefully articulate is that the first step on the escalatory ladder is a terrorist attack from Pakistan. Also, India as the victim cannot be equated with Pakistan, the perpetrator of terror. Hence, for strategic stability, Pakistan has to be compelled to give up terrorism. India will have to patiently and continuously make this point to move the international community to effectively pressurise Pakistan. Many countries may be inhibited from telling Pakistan to stop terror because of the nature of Sino-Pakistan ties. India has to also realise that once it takes kinetic action against Pakistan, the world wants a quick cessation of hostilities because it fears escalation. In this process Pakistan's terrorist action takes a back seat for the international community. Hence, India has to make the world more sensitive to the dangers of Pakistani terrorism and highlight that, notwithstanding the sophistry of the arguments put forward by Mirza, India will not absorb terrorist acts or succumb to Pakistan's nuclear blackmail. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The writer is a former Indian diplomat who served as India's Ambassador to Afghanistan and Myanmar, and as secretary, the Ministry of External Affairs. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost's views.
Hindustan Times
42 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Donald Trump doubles down on claim of stopping India-Pakistan war from going nuclear
US President Donald Trump on Saturday doubled down on claiming credit for brokering a ceasefire between India and Pakistan, adding that he had used trade to negotiate with the two countries to halt military action, reported news agency ANI. Trump told reporters on Air Force One, 'You know, I did something that people don't talk about, and I don't talk about very much, but we solved a big problem, a nuclear problem potentially with India and with Pakistan. I spoke to Pakistan, I spoke to India, they have really great leaders, but they were going at it, and they could have gone at it nuclear." Also Read: Shehbaz Sharif seeks Donald Trump's mediation as India's delegation corners Pakistan in US He also praised the leaders of both nations for agreeing to a pause on military action and said, "Both nuclear countries, strong nuclear countries, and I talked about trade and said, 'We're not doing trade if you guys are going to be throwing bombs at each other.' They both stopped, and I stopped that war immediately. It was going much further, and hopefully, it would not go to nuclear, but it might have gone to nuclear. In fact, it might have gone to nuclear in the next round, but we stopped it, and I'd like to commend the leaders of both countries, Pakistan and India." Also Read: Donald Trump now says he's not interested in talking to Elon Musk: 'Lost his mind' The US President has repeatedly claimed credit for mediating the ceasefire, although India has denied the involvement of any external actors in the decision. Also Read: Elon Musk challenges Trump to terminate his govt contracts after US prez threatens him, 'Go ahead, make my day…' India had conducted Operation Sindoor early on May 7 and hit terror infrastructure in Pakistan and PoK in response to the Pahalgam terror attack. Later, the DGMOs of both countries agree to stop firing based on a bilateral understanding. Earlier, Congress MP Shashi Tharoor said, as part of an all-party-delegation, that they had met vice president JD Vance and clarified claims of any outside mediation. "The meeting with Vice President Vance was outstanding, very good, very clear. I think we made our position amply clear on this question of mediation, and Vice President Vance fully understood our points," he said.
