How One Phone Call Saved Pakistan From Turning Into Smoke During Operation Sindoor
China's support to Pakistan was even acknowledged by a top Indian army officer. Lieutenant General Rahul R Singh revealed that China provided Pakistan with real-time intelligence about India's important vectors and weapon positioning. Pakistan knew what it was heading towards. General Asim Munir went underground in a bunker. Its 11 airbases made nonoperational by the Indian Air Force strike, the PAF felt helpless. The Pakistani Army had already been hit hard; the next target for India was the Pakistan Navy.
You can imagine the Indian Navy's operational readiness with Defence Minister Rajnath Singh's statement made on May 30. Describing the Indian Navy's role in the integrated operation as praiseworthy, Rajnath Singh stated that the Indian Navy's aggressive deployment in the Arabian Sea, its unmatched maritime domain awareness and supremacy confined the Pakistani Navy to its own shores. Singh was not joking. He was emitting facts. A truth that Pakistan knows from inside but rejects in public. It's the fear of the Indian Navy that sends a chill down Pakistan's spine every time it remembers the events of May 9 and 10.
The Indian Navy was dominating the Arabian Sea and the Indian Ocean. It had deployed a Carrier Battle Group (CBG) equipped with MiG-29K fighter jets and airborne early warning helicopters. The CBG maintained a powerful air defence shield. Pakistani Navy's hostile incursions were prevented. The Makran coast region was kept under surveillance. Indian Navy created a strong deterrent and bottled up Pakistani air elements along their western seaboard. To establish uncontested control over the seas, the Navy test-fired its anti-missile and anti-aircraft defence capabilities. Pakistan was stunned.
For the uninitiated, the CBG was led by INS Vikrant. Each CBG includes an aircraft carrier, destroyers, frigates, and a support ship, forming a powerful maritime force projection capability. According to reports, India had deployed around 30-35 warships besides INS Vikrant. All positioned towards Pakistan. Islamabad was staring at total destruction. They knew what was coming. They knew what awaited them at sea.
If reports are to be believed, the Indian Navy had its orders on May 10 - be ready to attack Pakistan. Fearing Indian assault, Pakistani Navy fleets were already floating close to the shores, praying not to witness the storm. The Indian Navy was in control. Targets were locked. On the strike target were Karachi Port, Ormara naval base, radars and oil fields. A complete destruction of these facilities was planned. The Indian Navy was sailing ahead. China informed Pakistan of the Indian Navy's intention, and then there was a brief calm before the storm. Pakistan had no answers. They were no match for the Indian Navy's firepower. Sense prevailed, and Pakistan took up the hotline. Pakistan's DGMO dialled India's DGMO and pleaded for a ceasefire. This one phone call saved Pakistan from destruction.
The ceasefire message was conveyed to the Indian naval forces. They stood down, put their mission on hold. Pakistan saved itself in time. It got a breather. A minor escalation would have not only crippled the Pakistani economy but its forces as well. It's called a stitch in time, saves nine. Pakistan must be a happier country, having witnessed and avoided this from so close.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Print
24 minutes ago
- The Print
Dear Tesla buyers, Don't crib about high tariffs. They have helped Indian auto industry
This immediately set off a firestorm on social media, with everyone taking potshots, especially at Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman, because of the high import duties. It's an unfair criticism because import duties on automobiles, or tariffs, have been around forever. And India has a vibrant automotive industry. One that employs over 20 million people. The similar Model Y starts at $37,500 in the US, although a better comparison would be to the £44,990 it costs in the United Kingdom. These translate to Rs 32.3 lakh and Rs 52.1 lakh respectively. The car, which is being imported from the company's Berlin megafactory, is so much more expensive in India because of the high duties on fully-built-up imported vehicles. Let me address the electric elephant in the room, right away. Earlier this week, the Elon Musk-helmed Tesla Motors opened their first showroom—call it an 'experience centre'— in Mumbai's Bandra-Kurla Complex. Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis did the honours, although Musk himself did not attend. Before the inauguration, Tesla India opened bookings on their website and smartphone application, with their only product in India, the Model Y SUV, starting at Rs 58.89 lakh and a long-range variant at Rs 67.89 lakh. In fact, the government's duty structure encourages manufacturers to at least assemble—if not manufacture—their products in India. Take the Model Y's direct competitor in the global and Indian market, the BMW iX1. Launched by BMW India in January this year, it's reportedly flying off the shelves, with over 200 units sold every month, with a 3-4 month waitlist. But since BMW assembles the car at its factory in Chennai, and even incorporates some local parts like tires, rubber lining, carpets, and seats, it's able to price the iX1 at just Rs 49 lakh. Better still, it is the long-wheelbase variant, unique to the Indian market in its right-hand drive. For comparison, the regular wheelbase iX1 in the UK costs £43,295, which amounts to Rs 50.1 lakh. So, the BMW is not only more affordable in India but also more practical, thanks to the long wheelbase. It is the same story with Mercedes-Benz India, which assembles its EQS sedan and SUV at the Chakan plant. Astonishing speed of Tata While 'heavy' manufacturing, like panel stamping and shell welding, is not happening in India for these global brands just yet, Indian manufacturers are already doing it. Earlier this year I had visited the new Mahindra electric vehicle manufacturing facility at Chakan that employs over a thousand people, many of them women. While many parts and components even for these vehicles are imported, particularly from China, a gradual shift towards 'Make In India' is taking place, as Vinnie Mehta, Director General, Automotive Components Manufacturers Association (ACMA) told me recently. I just drove possibly the best 'Made In India' electric vehicle yet, also made in Pune, which proves that Indian manufacturers are right up there with the rest. The Tata Quad-Wheel Drive (QWD) was quite an impressive drive. It has amazing onboard technology, but what really stood out was the dual-motor set-up on the car, one on each axle, producing 158PS at the front and 238PS at the rear. While you can't select four-wheel drive, this system functions more like a mechanical all-wheel drive. When you floor the accelerator, it really moves. If you have seen the Tata Harrier on the road, you know it is a big vehicle. But switch to 'Boost' mode, and you will hit 100 km per hour from a standstill in 6.3 seconds. That is fast for any car, but astonishing for a bulky SUV. And this, despite Tata Motors dialling back the total power output of both motors to around 315-317PS, likely to reduce stress on the battery, motors, and wiring. I could not drive the like a maniac even if I wanted to. And that is when I started to enjoy the onboard tech. Some features felt a bit redundant—a camera mounted on the 'shark-fin' receiver that projects a feed onto the inside rear-view mirror. But the Dolby Atmos-enabled system? Wow. That was special. In-car audio systems have come a long way, but this one stood out. I tested it by listening to classic Hollywood film scores, and it was outstanding. But when I found an open stretch on the Faridabad-Gurugram road, and let the show what it could do, I was steering. At higher speeds, the steering could have been a bit sharper; there is no way to adjust the steering 'feel'. But overall, this electric Harrier was far superior to the diesel version (which makes just 170PS and lacks four-wheel drive). In fact, it was better than the Mahindra XEV 9e and even entry-level luxury EVs—not just in terms of performance but also in onboard tech. Also read: India's EV dreams need freedom from China's stranglehold on rare-earth metals. Start mining Tata Motors (and Mahindra for that matter) have learned from Chinese carmakers such as BYD, which recently dethroned Tesla as the world's leading electric vehicle manufacturer. As an overall combination of interior space, technology and performance, the Tata QWD is an excellent vehicle. The 75 kilowatt-hour battery pack is claimed to be good for over 500 km, but I expect a real-world range of around 450 km and can charge at a maximum of 120 kilowatts at a DC fast charger. It is available in only one 'persona' (as Tata Motors calls their specifications) called Empowered and is priced at Rs 29 lakh. The rear-wheel drive only variant with a 65 kilowatt-hour battery and a real-world range of around 380-400 km, starts at Rs 21.5 lakh. However, I'd go for the Rear-Wheel Drive Empowered Persona, as it is the only variant that gets the Dolby Atmos-enabled audio system (it is really that good), priced at Rs 27.5 lakh. That said, the is not for erveryone, it is a pricey vehicle but one hopes that as Indian manufacturers, and the Indian arms of global manufacturers absorb skills, they will start making better vehicles and more affordable ones. Just look at what is happening in China. While some consumers will understandably complain about high tariffs, those very tariffs have allowed Indian manufacturers to gain skills. Yes, many components for EVs like the Tata are still imported, and China's restrictions on rare-earth motors and lithium batteries may hurt India in the short term. But that only proves that we have to build our own manufacturing capabilities, including components. We can't achieve that through imports; we have to indigenise and get foreign manufacturers to do more of their manufacturing in India. Kushan Mitra is an automotive journalist based in New Delhi. He tweets @kushanmitra. Views are personal. (Edited by Ratan Priya)
Hans India
24 minutes ago
- Hans India
Rahul Gandhi's Comments On RSS And CPI(M) Create Discord Within Opposition Alliance
Congress leader Rahul Gandhi's recent statements drawing parallels between the RSS and the CPI(M) have created friction within the opposition INDIA alliance, with Left party leaders expressing their displeasure during the bloc's virtual meeting on Saturday. Speaking at a memorial event for former Kerala Chief Minister Oommen Chandy in Kottayam on Friday, Gandhi declared that he opposes both organizations ideologically, criticizing them for their alleged disconnect from common people. He stated that while he engages with both groups intellectually and through discourse, his primary grievance lies in their supposed lack of empathy toward citizens. Gandhi emphasized the importance of emotional connection in politics, suggesting that politicians should genuinely understand and respond to public sentiment. He characterized the absence of such empathy as a significant problem plaguing contemporary Indian political discourse. The remarks triggered immediate backlash from Left leaders during the alliance meeting. CPI leader D Raja reportedly raised concerns about such comparisons without directly naming Gandhi, arguing that equating the Left with the RSS could confuse party workers and undermine the coalition's solidarity. Other participants reminded attendees of the INDIA bloc's founding principle of "Save the Country, Remove BJP," cautioning against statements that might foster internal conflicts. CPI(M) General Secretary MA Baby issued a particularly sharp rebuke, calling Gandhi's comments "unfortunate" and indicative of poor understanding regarding both organizations' roles in Kerala and national politics. Baby reminded Gandhi of historical cooperation, specifically noting how Left parties' support was crucial for forming the Congress-led UPA government in 2004 when Congress lacked a parliamentary majority. Baby also pointed to Gandhi's own electoral history in Wayanad, where he faced a CPI candidate rather than RSS or BJP opposition. This reference highlighted what Baby perceived as inconsistencies in Gandhi's political positioning. The CPI(M) leader emphasized that while his party has criticized Congress on economic policies, such critiques have been conducted in a "friendly manner" without drawing false equivalencies between Congress and BJP. The controversy underscores the complex dynamics within the INDIA bloc, where national alliance partners often remain regional rivals. In Kerala, the CPI(M)-led Left Democratic Front and Congress-led United Democratic Front continue competing directly, while BJP attempts to establish stronger presence in the state. Despite these tensions, the virtual meeting addressed several collaborative initiatives for the upcoming Parliament Monsoon Session. Alliance partners agreed to jointly raise issues including the recent Pahalgam attack and concerns about electoral roll revisions in Bihar. The bloc is organizing protest demonstrations at Jantar Mantar on July 23-24 to address voting rights concerns, with planning details being finalized. This incident reflects broader challenges facing opposition unity efforts, where ideological differences and regional political realities sometimes clash with national coalition requirements. The response from Left leaders suggests that maintaining alliance cohesion will require more careful messaging from prominent figures like Gandhi, particularly when addressing sensitive political relationships. The timing of these remarks, coming during a memorial service for a respected Congress leader, has added another layer of controversy to an already delicate situation within the opposition ranks.
Hans India
24 minutes ago
- Hans India
Shashi Tharoor Defends Nation-First Approach Despite Party Loyalty Concerns
Congress MP Shashi Tharoor has reinforced his commitment to placing national interests above party considerations, acknowledging that this stance sometimes creates friction with party leadership who may perceive such positions as disloyal. Addressing an audience in Kochi at a discussion on "Peace, Harmony and National Development" on Saturday, the Thiruvananthapuram representative articulated his philosophy that political parties should serve as instruments for national betterment rather than ends in themselves. He emphasized that regardless of party affiliation, the ultimate goal should be creating a stronger India, even if different parties disagree on methodology. Tharoor directly confronted recent criticism he has received for backing the Modi government's handling of Operation Sindoor and other defense-related initiatives. He defended his position by stating that supporting the nation's armed forces and government during critical security matters represents the correct course of action, regardless of political consequences. When questioned by a student about his relationship with Congress leadership, Tharoor explained the delicate balance he maintains between party loyalty and national duty. He noted that while he respects his party and shares its fundamental values, he believes cooperation with other parties becomes necessary when national security is at stake, though such collaboration sometimes appears disloyal to party colleagues. The veteran politician acknowledged that democratic politics inherently involves competition between parties, but argued that this competitive spirit should not prevent collaborative efforts during crucial moments. He described inclusive development as his consistent theme throughout his sixteen-year political career, alongside commitments to national security and broader national interests. Speaking to reporters later, Tharoor reiterated that his "nation first" philosophy has guided his entire political journey since returning to India specifically to serve the country in various capacities. He emphasized that his service extends beyond conventional political boundaries. The Congress leader also addressed growing speculation about internal party tensions, particularly following his appointment to head an all-party delegation regarding Operation Sindoor. While typically avoiding public discussion of such political matters, he felt obligated to respond to the student's inquiry and subsequently shared the interaction on social media platform X. Tharoor invoked former Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru's famous question "Who lives if India dies?" to underscore his belief that political actors must set aside partisan differences when national interests are threatened. This perspective has become increasingly relevant as he faces scrutiny for positions that some within his party view as overly accommodating toward the current government. Recent controversy surrounding Tharoor intensified after he published an article praising Prime Minister Modi's international diplomatic approach, specifically commending his "energy" and "dynamism" in global affairs. The Prime Minister's Office's decision to share this article further fueled speculation about Tharoor's standing within the Congress hierarchy and his relationship with party leadership. Throughout his remarks, Tharoor maintained that political parties across the spectrum should demonstrate willingness to collaborate during moments of national significance, suggesting that such cooperation represents true patriotism rather than political betrayal. His comments reflect ongoing tensions within opposition ranks about how to balance criticism of the ruling party with support for national initiatives, particularly those involving security and defense matters. The controversy highlights broader questions about the role of individual conscience versus party discipline in contemporary Indian politics, with Tharoor positioning himself as someone willing to face internal criticism for what he perceives as principled stances on national issues.
