
Nine lessons from Operation Sindoor
Operation Sindoor has set a benchmark in India's battle against terrorism. The Indian security forces not only destroyed terrorist camps in the heart of Pakistan, including those of the notorious Lashkar-e-Taiba at Muridke and the Jaish-e-Mohammad at Bahawalpur, they also demonstrated their technological superiority and, by damaging at least eight Pakistan Air Force bases, conveyed to the world that India could knock out its western neighbour in any future conflict.
What was even more significant that it marked the announcement of a new national security doctrine with three salient features: That in the event of a terrorist attack on India, there would be a befitting response on our own terms; that India will not be browbeaten by any nuclear blackmail; and that we will not differentiate between the perpetrators of terrorism and their masterminds. It was a message to Pakistan as well as to the rest of the world.
To Pakistan, specifically, it was conveyed that terror and talks cannot go together, nor can terror and trade, and that water and blood cannot flow together.
There is, however, no room for complacency. We need to calmly deliberate over the events of the past month, identify our weaknesses in the security grid and during Operation Sindoor which were exploited by the terrorists and the Pakistani forces. There are nine points I would like to highlight.
One: We need to set our house in order. We need to strengthen our intelligence apparatus at the ground level. It is surprising that neither the IB nor R&AW nor even the state intelligence had any clue about the impending attack in Pahalgam. The police response to an emergency must also improve. The terrorists had a free run of the Baisaran meadow for at least 20 minutes. In a union territory saturated by security forces, this is unacceptable.
Two: Statehood should be restored to J&K, and sooner the better. The Government of India is committed to the restoration of statehood. Why delay it then? We also need to do more to win over the support of the local people. At least 15 of them are believed to have provided logistical support to the marauders at Pahalgam.
Three: At the political level, we should get The Resistance Front (TRF), an offshoot of Lashkar, branded as a terrorist organisation. An Indian team is already in New York to take up the matter with the UN Office of Counter-Terrorism. The TRF took responsibility for the Pahalgam terror attack, though later on, they backed out when they realised the consequences of their admission. Our diplomats should also start working to put Pakistan back again in the Grey List of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF).
Four: The US's role during the conflict has been disappointing, to say the least. Initially, it gave the impression that it would not like to get involved. Vice President Vance clearly said, 'We are not going to get involved in the middle of a war that is fundamentally none of our business'. President Trump, however, unfortunately, hyphenated India and Pakistan and claimed credit for brokering the ceasefire. The IMF loan of $2.3 billion to Pakistan at this juncture could also not have materialised without implicit US support. Can we trust the US in the event of any future confrontation with Pakistan or China? Russia has been a more reliable ally, but it has come too close to China in recent years. From a long-term strategic point of view, Japan, Vietnam, South Korea, Philippines and even Taiwan would perhaps be more reliable allies.
Five: We need to redefine our relations with countries that came out openly in support of Pakistan, especially Turkey and Azerbaijan. Public opinion is already agitated against these countries, and the government has initiated some measures, like revoking the security clearance to Turkish ground service provider Celebi and its associated companies at nine airports. In the case of China, we must not succumb to any commercial temptations and be absolutely firm that trade and border disputes cannot go together.
Six: Drones played a major role in the conflict. Pakistan sent swarms of these all along the international border from Kashmir to Rajasthan on the nights of May 8 and 9. Most of them were neutralised; nevertheless, there is an impression that Pakistan has a larger fleet of drones than we have. We need to expand and develop this weapon system in an effective way.\
Seven: The Government of India should press the accelerator on expanding and upgrading the Indian Air Force. The IAF has today only 31 squadrons against a sanction of 42. Besides, the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) project for a fifth-generation fighter has been greatly delayed. China, on the other hand, is experimenting with sixth-generation J-20 fighters.
Eight: Considering that Operation Sindoor has only been paused and the fact that some of the most notorious terrorist leaders are still hiding in Pakistan, they should be given the treatment they deserve.
Nine: We would do well to remember Sun Tzu's profound observation: 'The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.' We have already taken the first step in that direction by keeping the Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance. Similar other measures could also be thought of. This is, however, not to say that our defence preparations should not continue to be steadily upgraded.
The writer is a former Director General of the Border Security Force

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Indian Express
29 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Lawyers don't need to wear black coats in summer: Delhi Bar Association
In a major relief to lawyers practising in the Capital amidst the scorching heat, the Delhi Bar Association (DBA) has decided that advocates will be exempt from wearing black coats, their usual dress code, from May 16 to September 30. Rules framed under Section 49(1)(gg) of the Advocates Act, 1961, prescribe a dress code for all practising advocates. This comprises a black buttoned-up coat, chapkan, achkan (a knee-length upper garment with long sleeves, side slits and a standing collar), black sherwani and white bands with advocate's gown for men advocates. Women advocates have to wear a black and full or half-sleeve jacket or blouse, white collar, stiff or soft, and white bands with advocates' gowns or sarees and long skirts (white or black without any design). 'All the members are hereby informed that advocates are exempted from wearing a black coat during summer (from May 16 to September 30) as per amendment in rules under Section 49(1)(gg) of the Advocates Act,1961,' DBA said in a circular dated May 24. 'Therefore, the members are at liberty to appear in the Courts subordinate to the Delhi High Court without wearing a black coat… The members are, however, advised to adhere to other rules of the dress code…,' the circular issued by Vikas Goyal, Secretary, DBA, said. DBA also said the district and sessions judges of various court complexes across Delhi have been informed of this decision. 'This is a very good step. The weather is very erratic and humid. In June, the heat will be way worse. This should be done by all Bar Associations and Councils across North India,' said Advocate Dhir Singh Kasana, former Saket Bar Association secretary. 'Indian district courts lack proper infrastructure in terms of fans, air conditioners, unhygienic washrooms, and sitting rooms, coupled with rising temperatures, it has become a daily physical and mental challenge for the advocates to wear black coats during court hours, especially in summer…This move is a welcome step towards the welfare of the advocates practising at district courts,' Advocate Paras Jain, who practices in Delhi, said. On February 27 this year, the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (BCMG) issued a circular stating that advocates need not wear black coats from March 1 to June 30 every year. Similarly, Bhopal's Bar Council gave a similar exemption to lawyers from April 15 to July 15, 2025.


Hans India
36 minutes ago
- Hans India
Op Sindoor should not be used to derive political mileage
The political class will do better if it stops desisting from trying to derive electoral mileage from the highly successful Operation Sindoor that was executed recently. The military aspects of the operation have been largely praised (even by objective western experts), but the political aftermath has proven far more complex. The ruling party has come under scrutiny for allegedly using the operation's success to enhance its nationalistic image ostensibly for electoral gains. On its part, the Opposition has done little better. Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge called for a special parliamentary session to discuss the operation in detail. He raised concerns about inconsistencies in official narratives, particularly surrounding reports regarding the number of Indian aircraft lost during the strikes. He also accused the government of 'misleading the nation.' His statement came after the Chief of Defence Staff Gen Anil Chauhan acknowledged the loss of some Indian aircraft but emphasised that the armed forces had adapted quickly to changing tactical scenarios, ultimately achieving the mission objectives. Chauhan categorically refuted Pakistan's assertions of shooting down multiple Indian jets, labelling them as propaganda meant to distort facts. His remarks highlighted the critical role of clear and truthful communication in sustaining public trust and countering misinformation. The political discourse triggered by Operation Sindoor reflects a broader tension between safeguarding national security and navigating partisan interests. While it is natural for political parties to discuss significant national developments, it is imperative that such dialogues remain constructive and rooted in the national interest. Exploiting military operations for electoral advantage not only undermines the integrity of the armed forces but also erodes public confidence in the nation's democratic institutions. As India continues to assess the long-term implications of Operation Sindoor, there is a pressing need for political maturity and a unified stance on issues of national security. Recognising and honouring the courage and competence of the armed forces should transcend political divides. National security must remain above the realm of party politics, treated with the seriousness and dignity it deserves. Also, our political leaders must come to terms with a sobering reality: Operation Sindoor, while tactically successful and symbolically significant, was not a war that we won—nor even a full-scale battle. At best, it was a well-executed skirmish, a calibrated military response to the horrifying Pahalgam terror attack that claimed 26 innocent lives. Its importance lies not in territorial gains or dramatic military victories, but in the message it has sent loud and clear-Pakistan will have to pay a heavy price for supporting and harbouring terrorist outfits. Precision strikes on terrorist camps disrupted their operations and showcased India's strategic capabilities. However, this operation must not be mistaken for closure. The war on terror is a long and evolving struggle, requiring constant vigilance, strategic foresight, and, above all, national unity. True victory will come not with a single strike, but through sustained efforts to dismantle the networks of extremism to be assured of lasting peace and security. Operation Sindoor stands as a testament to India's strategic capability and resolve in the face of terrorism. However, its legacy will be defined not just by military precision but by the manner the nation's political leadership chooses to engage with it. By fostering transparency, encouraging responsible dialogue, and prioritising unity, India can ensure that such operations serve their true purpose—protection and security of all its citizens.


Mint
40 minutes ago
- Mint
X factor: The rise and fall of Elon Musk as a political figure
Elon Musk has officially resigned from the US Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Although his role was only temporary and departure was not surprising, it follows his criticism of President Donald Trump's tax bill. The 'Big Beautiful Bill' would not improve America's finances, he said, and will undermine his efforts to cut back on unnecessary government spending. Was there a clear divide between Trump and Musk? Only seven months ago, at his victory speech on 6 November, Trump spent four minutes praising Musk. 'A star is born—Elon!" said Trump. Musk had invested nearly a quarter of a billion dollars in Trump's campaign, which could explain his influence on the Trump administration. It was possibly the most astute investment Musk ever made. He oversaw Trump's DOGE and also shaped a far-right discourse both domestically and internationally. Also Read: Electric debacle: Tesla's troubles started before Musk wore the MAGA cap Musk attempted to involve himself in several European political issues—in Germany and the UK especially. In February, Time magazine portrayed Musk as 'President Musk." Its cover illustration showed him seated at the Resolute Desk in the White House. However, it is evident that Musk has now drifted to the margins of Trump's world. 'Elon is from South Africa—I don't want to get Elon involved," Trump told his South African counterpart, Cyril Ramaphosa, during a discussion at the White House recently. On 19 May, an analysis titled 'Why has Elon Musk vanished from the spotlight?' was published by Politico, which noted that Trump was posting messages about Musk on his Truth Social platform at an average of four times a week in February and March, but stopped doing so in April. Musk was included in nearly daily fund-raising emails sent by Trump's campaign team. However, save for a single email in May, this abruptly stopped in early March. Trump's top advisors and official White House accounts also stopped posting photos and content mentioning Musk. Musk, whose business empire includes Tesla, SpaceX and X, seemed to have got the drift. Amid mounting investor worries, he announced a major reduction in political spending. This was a public indication of the billionaire turning his focus back to his businesses. Also Read: Tesla's slump: When social intelligence clashes with artificial intelligence The main source of Musk's fortune, Tesla, has lost sales globally and suffered severe brand damage as a result of his political activities. His expressions of support for the far-right anti-immigration AfD party in Germany, for example, were noted across Europe. Tesla's sales in Europe dropped 49% in April, indicating a backlash against him. Towards the end of that month, Tesla reported a 71% dip in profits. In a call with Tesla investors, Musk said that he would begin stepping back from his position at DOGE in May. In the US and abroad, Tesla dealerships have been the target of protests and vandalism. Musk's move to impose harsh employment and spending cuts within the federal government on behalf of the Trump administration was dubbed 'one of the greatest brand destructions" ever by Scott Galloway, professor of marketing at New York University's Stern School of Business. According to some surveys, most respondents disapproved of the way Musk and DOGE have handled federal government employees and slashed jobs. About 60% of respondents in a nationwide study conducted by Marquette University Law School last month had a negative opinion of Musk, while 38% had a positive opinion. The study found approval of Musk's DOGE handling at 41% and disapproval at 58%. Also Read: The US should stay away from gimmicks and tackle its real fiscal problem Musk may have recently met his political Waterloo in Wisconsin, where he contributed at least $3 million to making the Wisconsin Supreme Court campaign the most costly in US history. He even personally appeared in Green Bay sporting a cheese-head cap, a favourite among supporters of the Green Bay Packers, an American football team. But the Republican candidate he backed lost by a 10% margin. The Democrats mobilized people by calling it a 'People versus Musk' contest to highlight his intervention. Frankly, Musk's accountability has been non-existent, his loyalties seem inconsistent and his political intentions unclear. Trump might be well aware of this. Musk stood for six hours to shake hands with Democrat Barack Obama during his 2008 presidential campaign. In 2014, Musk described himself as 'somewhere in the middle, fiscally conservative and socially liberal." He even advocated that Trump 'hang up his hat and sail into sunset" in 2022, arguing that he was too old to seek re-election. But then he started to tilt Republican. Also Read: A trade arrangement that leaves out the US could trump Trump's tariffs Thus, it was perhaps inevitable that Trump would grow weary of Musk. Since the president is accustomed to generating all his popularity himself, it would be easy for him to assume he needs nobody's help on that count. Then there is also the matter of Musk's unpopularity, which Trump may not want rubbing off on his own standing. However, Musk will still hold billions of dollars once Trump's term is over, not to mention the power of his social media platform. In the political sphere, his legacy may be a handy list of what the ultra-rich should do and not do. Or maybe he has left America's business class a model that no one else would dare imitate. The author is professor of statistics at Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata.