&w=3840&q=100)
Operation Sindoor: Modi's paradigm shift in India's national security strategy
With Operation Sindoor, India's global image of a soft state has finally shattered, and a new, assertive India acting without qualms, scepticism, and hesitations in using force against its adversaries has solidified read more
In his speech on May 12, PM Narendra Modi categorically reiterated India's position that terror and talks cannot go together. Representational Image: FP
On April 22, the tourist city of Pahalgam in Jammu and Kashmir witnessed one of the most horrific genocides, with the brutal murder of 26 Hindu men. Reportedly, four terrorists of The Resistance Force (TRF), a Pakistan-sponsored terrorist group, forced tourists to demonstrate their religious identity by reciting Qalima at gunpoint and selectively killed Hindus. The brutality shook the entire world.
On the night of May 7, India launched Operation Sindoor in retaliation, bombing nine sites holding 'terrorist infrastructure', five in the Pakistan-occupied Kashmir and four in the Pakistan mainland, including Jaish-e-Mohammad's Bahawalpur complex and Lashkar-e-Taiba's Muridke headquarters. India smashed the terror camps, training centres, and launch pads of Pakistan's three key proxy terror outfits, ie, Hizbul Mujahideen, Jaish-e-Muhammad, and Lashkar-e-Taiba. Following India's attack, Pakistan launched a full-fledged attack on India, targeting multiple cities, military installations, and airbases across the entire Western border with drones.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
On the Line of Control (LoC), the Pakistani army began firing and heavy shelling with the artillery guns, killing 15 civilians in the Rajouri border region. In the counterattack, India attacked Pakistan's strategically sensitive six air bases and dropped bombs in mainland cities like Lahore and Rawalpindi. Pakistan's nuclear-capable Fatah missile launched at Delhi was intercepted by India's Akash at Sirsa near Delhi. The war was gaining momentum; however, it halted with a sudden and unexpected ceasefire apparently achieved with US facilitation.
Setting a New Normal
With Operation Sindoor, India has set a 'new normal' against terror, explicitly signalling the three-point doctrinal shift – zero tolerance and direct retaliation for terror attacks, no differentiation between the terrorists and their sponsors, and refusal to succumb to Pakistan's nuclear blackmail. In his speech on May 12, PM Narendra Modi categorically reiterated India's position that terror and talks cannot go together. Further, he also emphasised that 'terror' and 'trade' cannot go together, and 'blood' and 'water' cannot flow together.
The PM's speech signifies a resolute, determined, and tough stance against terror. PM Modi's speech gives a clear message that India will decisively hit terror targets in direct retaliation if Pakistan continues to support terror groups in Kashmir and the Indian hinterland. Also, it is worth mentioning that hitting deep inside the Pakistani territory at Bahawalpur and Muridke has completely altered the dynamics, showcasing India's unrestrained approach while retaliating. Pakistan will have to pay unbearable costs for terror attacks.
Contrary to the dominant analytical discourse around Operation Sindoor, it is worth mentioning that India had already set a new normal when it conducted the Uri surgical strike in 2016. Following that, once again, Indian jets bombed Jaish training centres in Balakot in 2019 after JeM killed 42 Indian soldiers in the Pulwama fidayeen attack. Continuing its war against terror, India abrogated Article 370 of its constitution that conferred special status to J&K. With its massive crackdown on the terror ecosystem inside its borders and tough stance against foreign terror sponsors, it was expected that Delhi would retaliate with tremendous firepower if Islamabad ever conducted a terror attack of the scale of Pulwama.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
India has decisively and demonstrably called out Pakistan's nuclear bluff. In his May 12 speech, PM Modi said, 'India will strike precisely and decisively at the terrorist hideouts developing under the cover of nuclear blackmail.' Pakistan, emboldened with its nuclear shield, intensified terror activities in Kashmir after 1998. This nuclear blackmail continued unabated for 18 years until 2016, when it was first punctured by the Uri surgical strikes.
With the Balakot strikes, the message was clear to Pakistan that India will not be cowed down by its nuclear threats; however, General Headquarters (GHQ) Rawalpindi refused to smell the coffee. Finally, India's aggressive retaliatory posture seen in Operation Sindoor, killing more than 80 terrorists, has made Pakistan's nuclear arsenal a dysfunctional and ineffective tool to continue shielding its terrorist activities in India.
The Operation Sindoor comes in succession to a series of the Modi government's tough national security measures. In the domestic domain, the Modi government took bold actions against the terror ecosystem, the Waqf board, foreign NGOs, and illegal immigrants. In the external domain, New Delhi took decisive cross-border military actions against Pakistan, maintained a firm stand against China after the Galwan clash, and reportedly, Indian intelligence agencies neutralised many Khalistani and Jihadi terrorists in foreign territory.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Over the last ten years, India has signalled a robust and decisive diplomatic signature in its dealings with the West and the Arab world after the abrogation of Article 370, hosting global events like the G20, guarding its strategic autonomy in the Russia-Ukraine war, playing hardball with the Maldives after its China switch, and emerging as a leader in the battle against extremism and terrorism.
With Operation Sindoor, India's global image of a soft state has finally shattered, and a new, assertive India acting without qualms, scepticism, and hesitations in using force against its adversaries has solidified.
The author is a Cornell University graduate in public affairs, bachelors from St Stephen's College, Delhi and has done his PhD on Jaish-e-Mohammad. He is a policy analyst specialising in counterterrorism, Indian foreign policy and Afghanistan-Pakistan geopolitics. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost's views.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
23 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Congress leader Varsha Gaikwad stages protest against land transfer to Adani
Mumbai Congress leader Varsha Gaikwad led a protest on Sunday (June 8, 2025) against handing over the Mother Dairy land parcel in Mumbai's Kurla to the Adani group for Dharavi Redevelopment Project Private Limited (DRPPL). She demanded to use the land for a botanical garden instead of a rehabilitation project, saying, 'Prime Minister Narendra Modi surrenders when American president Donald Trump calls, why CM Devender Fadnavis surrenders when Modi calls for Adani.' Former Minister Ms. Gaikwad alleged the BJP government is constantly ignoring the opposition of the locals and letting Adani swallow the whole of Mumbai during the protest. 'The Kurla Mother Dairyland is environmentally sensitive. Kurla Mother Dairy houses hundred-year-old trees, locals are demanding a botanical garden to protect them, yet it is transferred to Adani for infrastructure purposes at a nominal rate,' she added. Days ago, the Maharashtra Cabinet's decision to transfer an 8.05-hectare Mother Dairy land parcel to the DRPPL triggered opposition from locals and Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) leaders. Kurla Dairy is among the three dairies of Mumbai, where milk production stopped over the years, and the land was made available for other projects. Many Congress leaders and party functionaries, including MLA Jyoti Gaikwad, Congress spokesperson Suresh Chandra Rajhans, and Mumbai General Secretary Mahendra Mungekar, along with their supporters and activists, staged the peaceful protest in Kurla. Ms. Gaikwad said, 'While we were peacefully protesting, once again the Modani (Modi and Adani) government had sent a large police force to suppress the voice of the people. What justice is it that the police stopped the peaceful protest with the force of police force? The government is providing security to thieves, but we will not be swayed by this oppression. We will continue to fight against this Adani government for the rights of Mumbai.' She called the transfer of land a part of a 'conspiracy' wherein the plan is to destroy the lives of lakhs of Dharavikars and acquire 600 acres of land in Dharavi, along with Kurla Mother Dairy, saltpans, and Deonar dumping ground land. She alleged government will also seize land parcels in Air India Colony, Bandra Reclamation, Behrampada, and Motilal Nagar without taking the locals into confidence.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
General Electric Eager to Power India's 5th Gen Fighter Jet
Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Popular in Epaper US' General Electric (GE) will vie for the contract to make engines for the Indian Air Force 's fifth-generation stealth fighter or advanced medium combat aircraft , chairman and chief executive Larry Culp told ET in an said the aerospace major considers India a strategically important market for both the civil and defence aerospace businesses.'We are very interested,' he said. 'If you look at what we're doing with the Tejas with our 404 engines, we are right in the middle of probably what matters most in that regard. The US and India enjoy a very strong relationship. So we are here, we want to be supportive and are engaged so we possibly can be.'Last month, India announced a long-awaited plan to fast-track the development of an indigenous fifth-generation stealth fighter. The announcement came days after Operation Sindoor against of the most critical components—a high-thrust engine—will likely be developed through a joint venture with a foreign manufacturer. GE will face competition on this from rivals such as Safran and is also stepping up the delivery of jet engines to plane maker Hindustan Aeronautics (HAL) for the Tejas Mark-1A fighter, which has been much delayed. In March, GE delivered the first of 99 F-404 engines, around two years behind schedule.'That is our intent and we've communicated that to everyone,' Culp said. 'We are working with the suppliers to ramp their capability. We're making good progress. I just look at April and May of this year compared to where we were in the first quarter—we've seen a double-digit increase in the number of receipts.'IAF chief Air Chief Marshal AP Singh recently voiced concerns about delays in the procurement of critical military military programmes and commercial airline sales are increasingly being delayed due to the inability of manufacturers to ramp up production. Culp said that though multiple actions are being taken to lessen the impact, it will be a while before the problem is solved.'We are making a tremendous amount of progress not only in GE but across the industry,' he said. 'But when you look at the demand expectations that only increase every year, we're going to be talking about supply chain for a while. That's just the nature of the challenge where we are in a super cycle.'GE will also look to set up a maintenance, repair and overhaul (MRO) facility for civilian aircraft engines in India once the volume increases. 'I think that's more a matter of when, as opposed to if,' he said. 'We want to make sure we have the underlying volume in the marketplace that would support those investments.'GE has more than 1,400 engines operating in India, powering both narrow and wide body aircraft and an order book for around 2,500 more. 'The number is sufficient to say that India is a priority country for us,' Culp you look at what we're doing with the Tejas with 404 engines, we are right in the middle of probably what matters most... The US and India enjoy a very strong relationship. So we are here, we want to be supportive.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
SC dropped probe on Allahabad HC judge Shekhar Kumar Yadav after Rajya Sabha alert
The Supreme Court was preparing to initiate an in-house inquiry into Allahabad high court judge Shekhar Kumar Yadav's controversial speech at a VHP event last year, but dropped the plan after receiving a categorical letter from the Rajya Sabha secretariat that asserted exclusive jurisdiction over the matter, people aware of the matter said. The people cited above confirmed that then Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna had set the process in motion to assess whether the judge's conduct warranted scrutiny in the wake of an adverse report from the Allahabad High Court chief justice. However, the move was halted after the Rajya Sabha secretariat's letter in March underlined that the constitutional mandate for any such proceeding lies solely with the chairman of the Rajya Sabha, and ultimately with Parliament and the President. This letter effectively stalled the judiciary's plan to initiate an in-house inquiry – an internal mechanism laid down through judicial precedents to examine complaints of misconduct against sitting judges of the superior judiciary, against Justice Yadav, whose comments at the VHP's December 8, 2024, event in Prayagraj drew widespread condemnation for violating the principles of secularism and judicial impartiality. HT reached out to the Rajya secretariat for a response on the next course of action but did not get one immediately. In February, Rajya Sabha chairman and vice president Jagdeep Dhankhar said that only Parliament and President have the jurisdiction over the matter 'The jurisdiction for the stated subject matter constitutionally lies in exclusivity with the chairman Rajya Sabha and in an eventuality with the Parliament and honourable President. Taking note of public domain information and inputs available, it is expedient that the Secretary General, Rajya Sabha shares this information with the Secretary General, Supreme Court of India,' he said in Parliament on February 13. Justice Yadav, addressing a gathering organised by the legal cell of the VHP within the Allahabad High Court Bar Association premises, made a series of incendiary statements that targeted the Muslim community and invoked majoritarian themes. In his speech, he reportedly asserted that 'India should function according to the wishes of the majority,' claimed 'only a Hindu can make this country a 'Vishwa Guru',' and linked practices such as triple talaq and halala to societal backwardness, calling for their abolition under the proposed Uniform Civil Code (UCC). Video clips of the speech, which went viral on social media, show him allegedly using derogatory communal remarks framed the UCC as a Hindu-Muslim binary, stating that while Hindu customs had evolved to address historical wrongs, Muslims had resisted reform. The speech triggered outrage among political leaders, jurists and civil society, with senior advocate Kapil Sibal leading a group of 55 opposition MPs in filing a notice in the Rajya Sabha seeking Justice Yadav's impeachment for 'grave violation of judicial ethics.' The Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR) also demanded an in-house inquiry and his immediate suspension, citing a clear breach of the Restatement of Values of Judicial Life adopted by the Supreme Court in 1997. Amid mounting criticism, the Supreme Court swiftly sought a report from the Allahabad High Court chief justice on December 10, 2024. A week later, on December 17, the apex court collegium, comprising CJI Khanna and Justices Bhushan R Gavai, Surya Kant, Hrishikesh Roy and Abhay S Oka, summoned Justice Yadav for a 30-minute closed-door meeting to ascertain whether his public comments violated the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct or judicial ethics outlined in internal codes. While Justice Yadav reportedly assured the collegium judges he would apologise publicly, he failed to do so in the weeks that followed. Instead, in a January 2025 letter to the chief justice of the Allahabad High Court, the judge doubled down on his remarks, claiming they had been misrepresented by vested interests and asserting that his speech reflected societal concerns 'consistent with constitutional values.' Appointed in 2019, Justice Yadav is set to retire on April 15, 2026. People cited above said that CJI Khanna subsequently sought a fresh report from the Allahabad High Court chief justice, referring to additional complaints against Justice Yadav from a law student and a retired IPS officer. But by then, an unexpected development complicated matters. In March 2025, the Supreme Court administration received a formal communication from the Rajya Sabha secretariat, informing it that the matter of Justice Yadav's conduct, arising out of the December 13 impeachment motion signed by 55 MPs, was already under active consideration. 'The court's secretary general brought the letter to the notice of the then CJI, who was clear that an in-house inquiry, being a non-statutory and internal mechanism, should not run parallel to a statutory process under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968,' a person familiar with the matter told HT. 'The Rajya Sabha's categorical assertion that it was seized of the matter prompted the judiciary to defer to the parliamentary process,' this person added. The Judges (Inquiry) Act mandates that a motion seeking removal of a High Court or Supreme Court judge for 'proved misbehaviour or incapacity' must be admitted by the presiding officer of the House concerned. To be sure, the Vice President and Rajya Sabha chairman, Jagdeep Dhankhar, has yet to decide on the admissibility of the motion and whether to constitute a formal inquiry committee. 'The idea was not to create constitutional friction or undermine parliamentary privilege…That's the sole reason why no in-house probe was set up despite the initial steps,' the person cited above added. Another person aware of the deliberations within the collegium said that all members were informed of the decision to halt the in-house inquiry after the receipt of the Rajya Sabha's letter. 'There was a kind of consensus that the matter, being under legislative scrutiny, should not be clouded by a simultaneous judicial process,' the person said. Opposition lawmakers, meanwhile, continue to push for clarity on the status of the impeachment motion. Speaking to HT on condition of anonymity, a senior MP said last month that his party planned to raise the matter during the monsoon session. 'During the budget session, the chairman had said that he was assessing the veracity of the signatures on the notice. We would like to know the status of that notice notices have been given in both the Houses and it is imperative it should be taken up,' the lawmaker said. In his formal reply to the complaints, Justice Yadav reportedly maintained in January that he has done no wrong. He described his speech as an articulation of issues affecting society and claimed that his references were misconstrued. On the criticism of his previous judicial orders related to cow protection, he is said to have responded that these reflected India's cultural ethos and legal recognition of cow protection, not any form of judicial bias. Notably, Justice Yadav did not tender an apology in his correspondence, reinforcing his stance that his speech was neither communal nor violative of judicial conduct. He rather asserted that judges, who often face unfair attacks, deserve protection and support from senior members of the judiciary.
