Operation Sindoor national victory, think God was with us too: IAF chief
NEW DELHI: IAF Chief Air Chief Marshal Amar Preet Singh on Thursday hailed Operation Sindoor as a "national victory", and said all the Indian forces came together to execute it in a very professional manner.
In his address at the CII Business Summit here, he also said, "We were taking the path of truth, I think, God was with us also in this."
"This Operation Sindoor that we've been talking about, it's a national victory. I thank each and every Indian. I am sure, every Indian wanted... was looking towards this victory," the IAF chief said.
"Like it has been said again and again that this was an operation that was executed in a very professional manner by everybody, all the agencies, all the forces, we all came together... and when truth is with you, then everything happens on its own," he said.
Operation Sindoor was launched early May 7 in retaliation to the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack.
All subsequent retaliations to Pakistani offensives were carried out under this operation.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
8 minutes ago
- Indian Express
The real question is not whether we agree with what Sharmistha Panoli said
Before this week, I had never heard of Sharmistha Panoli. A law student from Pune, she was unknown to the wider public until her recent arrest by the Kolkata Police over an Instagram story about Operation Sindoor. But in the span of a few days, she has become the latest symbol of how speech, particularly on sensitive religious or political themes, is being policed with alarming ease in India. Her case adds to a growing list of individuals across professions and ideologies who have been targeted not for inciting violence or causing harm, but for expressing opinions that upset entrenched sensitivities. This is not an isolated occurrence. It is part of an expanding trend where comedians, students, content creators, and ordinary citizens find themselves entangled in criminal proceedings for speech that would, in any healthy democracy, be dismissed as opinion, satire, or dissent. Looking back at the 2021 arrest of comedian Munawar Faruqui in Indore, the pattern is unmistakable. Faruqui was taken into custody based on allegations that he might have hurt religious sentiments without any conclusive evidence that he had actually said anything objectionable at all. Despite the absence of clear proof, he spent over a month in jail. This was not the enforcement of law; it was the use of the law to intimidate and punish. Ranveer Allahbadia, widely known as BeerBiceps recently found himself facing FIRs across multiple jurisdictions for a spontaneous remark made in a show. His tone may have been satirical, even immature, but it was hardly criminal. Yet, across social media and police complaints, outrage translated into legal action. What was once comic exaggeration is now treated as derogatory or controversial speech. Even comics like Kunal Kamra have faced legal scrutiny for expressing critical views about the judiciary and a Maharashtra-based political party. Although contempt proceedings did not ultimately succeed, the fact that they were initiated at all shows the shrinking space for public engagement with institutions. The message is chilling: Humour, critique, and unorthodox views now come with the threat of real consequences. The arrest of Sharmistha Panoli must be examined within this context. It is essential to locate these incidents within the framework of India's penal provisions. Sections such as 153A of the Indian Penal Code (now Section 196 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) and 295A IPC (now Section 299 BNS) were crafted with specific thresholds: The promotion of enmity between groups, or deliberate acts intended to outrage religious feelings, respectively. These are not intended to criminalise criticism or satire but to prevent acts that pose a clear and present danger to public order. Both provisions require proof of deliberate and malicious intent, a high bar that ensures the state does not casually suppress expression. The Constitution, under Article 19(1)(a), guarantees freedom of speech and expression. And while Article 19(2) allows for reasonable restrictions, those restrictions are meant to be carefully and narrowly applied. In Shreya Singhal vs Union of India (2015), the Supreme Court clarified that only speech which incites imminent lawless action can be criminalised. Anything short of that is constitutionally protected. Yet, that benchmark is routinely ignored by enforcement agencies. The danger is not only legal but cultural. A climate of hypersensitivity is being allowed, sometimes even encouraged, to override the fundamental right to free expression. It is no longer necessary to incite violence to get arrested. One only needs to say something provocative, or unpopular, or irreverent, especially on matters of faith. Speech is judged not by its legality, but by its potential to cause outrage. This creeping culture of intolerance weakens our constitutional democracy. It corrodes the idea of public reason that democratic systems depend upon. It also flips the burden: Instead of the state having to justify a restriction on speech, the citizen must now justify why their expression should not be criminalised. It bears repeating that disagreement, offence, or even remarks made in bad taste are not grounds for arrest. In a plural and diverse society like India, different viewpoints, even uncomfortable or controversial ones, must be accommodated unless they present a real and immediate threat to public order. This is the bedrock of constitutionalism. The consequences of arrest are far-reaching. Even when bail is eventually granted or charges are dropped, the process itself becomes punishment. It damages reputations, chills further expression, and reinforces the idea that it is safer to remain silent than speak one's mind. This is especially dangerous when applied to students and young professionals. The arrest or harassment of a law student like Sharmistha Panoli, or the above-mentioned comedians, indicates a clear pattern which cuts across ideology, gender, and geography. This does not reflect a society that values public debate. It reflects one that fears it. In the end, the real question is not whether we agree with what Sharmistha Panoli said. The question is whether we are willing to live in a country where the price of speaking is a prison cell. If that becomes the norm, then it is not just free speech that suffers, it is our collective claim to be a constitutional democracy. The writer is a legal researcher specialising in constitutional law, based in Delhi
Mint
22 minutes ago
- Mint
'River that grows in India...': Assam CM Sarma hits back at Pakistan over threat of China halting Brahmaputra flow
In a befitting reply to Pakistan over threat of China to stop Brahmaputra water to India, Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma took to social media, calling Brahmaputra 'a river that grows in India'. The Assam chief minister also argued that China contributes to only 30-35 per cent of the river's total flow, while the remaining is generated in India. CM Himanta Biswa Sarma wrote, 'What if China stops Brahmaputra Water to India? A Response to Pakistan's New Scare Narrative After India decisively moved away from the outdated Indus Waters Treaty, Pakistan is now spinning another manufactured threat: 'What if China stops the Brahmaputra's water to India?' Let's dismantle this myth -- not with fear, but with facts and national clarity: Brahmaputra: A River That Grows in India -- Not Shrinks.' CM Sarma wrote, 'China contributes only ~30-35% of the Brahmaputra's total flow, mostly through glacial melt and limited Tibetan rainfall. The remaining 65-70% is generated within India, thanks to: *Torrential monsoon rainfall in Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Nagaland, and Meghalaya *Major tributaries like Subansiri, Lohit, Kameng, Manas, Dhansiri, Jia-Bharali, Kopili *Additional inflows from the Khasi, Garo, and Jaintia Hills via rivers such as Krishnai, Digaru, and Kulsi.' 'At the Indo-China border (Tuting): Flow is ~2,000-3,000 m3/s. In Assam plains (e.g., Guwahati): Flow swells to 15,000-20,000 m3/s during monsoon. The Brahmaputra is not a river India depends on upstream -- it is a rain-fed Indian river system, strengthened after entering Indian territory,' Himanta Biswa Sarma said. 'Even if China were to reduce water flow (unlikely as China has never threatened or indicated in any official forum), it may help India mitigate the annual floods in Assam, which displace lakhs and destroy livelihoods every year. Meanwhile, Pakistan, which has exploited 74 years of preferential water access under the Indus Waters Treaty, now panics as India rightfully reclaims its sovereign rights. Let's remind them: Brahmaputra is not controlled by a single source -- it is powered by our geography, our monsoon, and our civilizational resilience.' Himanta Biswa Sarma's comments came after Rana Ihsaan Afzal – a senior aide to Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif – reportedly said that India suspended the flow of the River Indus to Pakistan and China can also do the same to India.
Hindustan Times
25 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
In Spain, Kanimozhi of DMK asked what's national language of India? Her reply wins applause
Kanimozhi of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, who is leading an all-party delegation from India, was applauded by Indian diaspora in Spain for saying that the "national language of India is unity and diversity', and that is the message the delegation brings to the world. On being asked what the national language of India is while addressing the Indian diaspora, Kanimozhi said, 'The national language of India is unity and diversity. That is the message this delegation brings to the world, and that is the most important thing today.' The DMK MP's response comes amid the Tamil Nadu government's tussle with the Centre on the issue of the three-language formula in the National Education Policy 2020. The all-party delegation, led by Kanimozhi, includes Rajeev Rai (Samajwadi Party), Brijesh Chowta (BJP), Prem Chand Gupta (Rashtriya Janata Dal), Ashok Kumar Mittal (Aam Aadmi Party), and Former envoys Manjeev S Puri and Jawed Ashraf. The delegation visited five nations to expose Pakistan and brief them India's response to the April 22 Pahalgam terrorist attack and its broader fight against cross-border terrorism. Spain has extended its "unequivocal support" for India's efforts to combat terrorism as an all-party delegation led by DMK MP Kanimozhi Karunanidhi met with Foreign Minister Jose Manuel Albares here to convey New Delhi's strong message of zero tolerance for the menace. The delegation arrived in Madrid on Saturday for a three-day visit in the final leg of its five-nation tour. The Association of Victims of Terrorism in Madrid also met with the delegation led by Kanimozhi, news agency ANI reported. The association, one of the largest such associations globally, works with over 4,000 victims of terrorism and provides psychosocial support to those affected. The meeting between the association and the all-party delegation aimed to exchange experiences and best practices in supporting victims of terrorism.
