Pahalgam aftermath: CDS briefs Defence Minister, Navy conducts Anti-ship firing exercises
NEW DELHI: Chief of Defence Staff General Anil Chauhan met Defence Minister Rajnath Singh on Sunday, visiting his residence to brief him on key military decisions taken following the terrorist attack in Pahalgam.
The CDS acts as the Principal Military Advisor to the Defence Minister on all Tri-Service (Army, Navy and Air Force) matters.
The duties and functions of the CDS, among the others, also include heading the Department of Military Affairs (DMA) in the Ministry of Defence and functioning as its Secretary, function as the Permanent Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff Committee, and administering the Tri-Service organisations/agencies/commands.
On April 22, terrorists launched a deadly attack on tourists at Baisaran meadow in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir,
around 2 pm. It stands as the deadliest attack in J&K since the 2019 Pulwama strike, which claimed the lives of 40 CRPF jawans.
Meanwhile, small arms fire continued along the Line of Control (LoC), adding to the region's tension.
"On the night of 26-27 April 2025, Pakistan Army posts initiated unprovoked small arms fire across the Line of Control in the areas opposite Tutmari Gali and Rampur Sectors. Own troops responded effectively with appropriate small arms fire.", informed the Army sources.
Pistol, Carbine, Rifle, Light Machine Gun (LMG), Medium machine Gun (MMG), and Rocket Launchers among the small arms being used.
Also, the Indian Navy Ships undertook successful multiple anti-ship firings to revalidate and demonstrate readiness of platforms, systems and crew for long range precision offensive strike
"Indian Navy stands Combat Ready Credible and Future Ready in safeguarding the nation's maritime interests Anytime Anywhere Anyhow.", said Navy Post the attack, the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) met on April 23 and decided to withdraw its own Defence, Navy, and Air Advisors from the Indian High Commission in Islamabad. The overall strength of the high commissions will be brought down to 30 from the present 55.
The Major step was taken to suspend the Indus water treaty which remained functional since 1960.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India.com
3 hours ago
- India.com
Pakistan humiliated again as US MP gives stern warning to Bilawal Bhutto's delegation, says, 'Eliminate terrorism and...'
Pakistan humiliated again as US MP gives stern warning to Bilawal Bhutto's delegation, says, 'Eliminate terrorism and...' Pakistan Foreign Minister Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, who is leading a team of experts to inform the world about the recent conflict with India, has been facing humiliation throughout his US tour. US lawmaker Brad Sherman gave a strong message to Pakistan and said that it should take decisive action against the terrorist organization Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM). He described this terrorist organization as vile and said that this group is responsible for many heinous crimes including the murder of Wall Street Journal journalist Daniel Pearl in 2002. While meeting the Pakistani delegation led by Bilawal Bhutto Zardari in Washington, Sherman said that Pakistan should take all possible steps to completely eliminate this despicable terrorist organization and fight strongly against terrorism in the region. Interestingly, Indian delegation led by Congress MP Shashi Tharoor is also present in Washington, which is briefed the US officials about 'Operation Sindoor' and the recent terrorist attack in Pahalgam. India has blamed Pakistan-backed terrorists for this attack and has reiterated its zero tolerance policy towards cross-border terrorism. Brad Sherman on X said, 'I told the Pakistani delegation the importance of the fight against terrorism, especially against the group Jaish-e-Mohammed, which killed Daniel Pearl, a resident of my constituency, in 2002. His family still lives in California. Terrorist Omar Saeed Sheikh was convicted in the kidnapping and murder of Daniel Pearl.' Role of Jaish-e-Mohammed Jaish-e-Mohammed is declared a banned terrorist organization by the United Nations and is also believed to be responsible for several major attacks in India, including the 2019 Pulwama attack, in which 40 Indian soldiers were martyred. Apart from terrorism, Brad Sherman also expressed concern over the condition of minorities in Pakistan. He said that Christians, Hindus and Ahmadiya Muslims in Pakistan should get complete freedom to follow their faith without fear and participate in the democratic system. Demand for release of Dr. Shakeel Afridi The US lawmaker also demanded the release of Dr. Shakeel Afridi, who allegedly ran a fake polio vaccination campaign to find Osama bin Laden with the help of the CIA, was arrested in 2011 and sentenced to 33 years. Sherman said that the release of Dr. Afridi would be a big step towards justice and closure to the victims of 9/11.
News18
4 hours ago
- News18
'Not Just An Indian Problem': Rajnath Singh's Five-Point Plan For The World To Fight Terrorism
Last Updated: In an article, the defence minister said terrorism 'thrives on misguided notions of revolution, martyrdom & a romanticised view of violence" Defence Minister Rajnath Singh on Saturday outlined the Narendra Modi government's new position of zero tolerance against terrorism, calling out Pakistan for targeting India and suggesting five ways the global community can fight against terror. In an article in Times of India, Singh, while calling terrorism 'a scourge on humanity" said it 'thrives on misguided notions of revolution, martyrdom, and a romanticised view of violence". 'The assertion that 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter' is a dangerous misnomer—true freedom can never be built on fear and bloodshed. The currency of terrorism is fear. Yet, even in spreading fear, they have failed to instil any sense of pessimism." Lauding India's resolute will to stand up against repeated terrorist attacks, Singh said: 'India is testimony to this fact. Whether it's 26/11 or the 2001 Parliament attack or the recent Pahalgam attack, India stands taller, stronger, and more resolute than ever. All peace- loving nations need to come together to eradicate this menace once and for all." The minister, while training guns on Pakistan, said for decades, India has been a victim of state-sponsored cross-border terrorism originating from the neighbour's soil. 'The recent Pahalgam attack was a brutal and failed attempt to fracture Indian unity. This was evident in the manner in which terrorists inquired about the religion of tourists before killing them. A similar attempt to threaten Indian unity emerged when Pakistan utilised drones and artillery to attack various religious sites belonging to different faiths." Singh added that 'India has made it clear that we have a zero-tolerance policy towards terrorism". 'Talks and terrorism cannot go hand-in-hand. Any future dialogue with Pakistan will focus solely on terrorism and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. Also, if Pakistan is serious, it must hand over UN-designated terrorists like Hafiz Saeed and Masood Azhar." The minister also made a mention of Operation Sindoor—wherein Indian forces pounded terror launchpads in Pakistan and Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir—saying: 'For a long time, we have reacted to terrorist acts while searching for a long-term vision and strategy. Our armed forces were earlier only allowed to engage in defensive action. With surgical strikes (2016), Balakot strikes (2019), and now Operation Sindoor, India has made a fundamental reappraisal of its policy towards Pakistan-sponsored terrorists." He added: 'It's now our policy that we will proactively eradicate terrorists wherever they are. Any act of terror is now considered an act of war. If there's a terrorist attack on India, a befitting reply will be given without differentiating between the government sponsoring terrorism and terrorists themselves. If Pakistan is unable to rein in terrorists operating from its soil, it will have to pay the price."
The Wire
5 hours ago
- The Wire
After Pahalgam and Sindoor: Questions India Must Ask Itself
Menu हिंदी తెలుగు اردو Home Politics Economy World Security Law Science Society Culture Editor's Pick Opinion Support independent journalism. Donate Now Security After Pahalgam and Sindoor: Questions India Must Ask Itself Sanjiv Krishan Sood 4 minutes ago While India's armed response to the Pahalgam massacre was swift and strategically effective, the deeper questions about intelligence failures, foreign policy and the sustainability of retaliatory doctrine remain unresolved. Real journalism holds power accountable Since 2015, The Wire has done just that. But we can continue only with your support. Contribute now If Operation Sindoor began as a limited attack on nine locations linked to Pakistan-based terrorist groups, the Pakistani response prompted the Indian defence forces to undertake a number of actions aimed at Pakistan's military establishment. Through precision strikes on militant infrastructure, followed by carefully calibrated aggression, the Indian Air Force and Army degraded key assets while preventing any substantial damage to our own military or civilian infrastructure. The response to the massacre at Pahalgam carried out by terrorists linked to Pakistan was measured but resolute. It was aimed as prompting Islamabad to reassess its state policy of harbouring and sponsoring terror. India's declaration that all acts of terrorism will now be treated as acts of war marks a significant shift in doctrine. That said, six weeks after the Pahalgam tragedy and nearly a month since the cessation of hostilities, several critical questions remain unanswered by both our security and political leadership. The first is whether Operation Sindoor achieved its stated objectives. The Prime Minister, in a Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) meeting, gave the armed forces a free hand to destroy the terror infrastructure in Pakistan. On the nights of May 6th and 7th, nine terrorist camps were reportedly neutralized, and numerous militants killed. But can we truly say the infrastructure has been dismantled? Is the deterrent strong enough to prevent future attacks? The evidence doesn't inspire confidence. Since the 2016 Uri surgical strikes and the 2019 Balakot air strikes following Pulwama, Pakistan-based terrorists have continued to strike at Indian targets. Pathankot, Kathua, Udhampur, and other places have seen terror attacks even after high-profile retaliatory actions. Supporting terrorism in India appears to be entrenched in Pakistan's state doctrine. The reported decision of the Pakistani government to offer financial aid to the families of slain terrorists and rebuild destroyed camps signals no intent to step back. More troubling is the international silence. Aside from muted support from Russia, India has struggled to garner vocal backing from major global powers. In contrast, Pakistan received overt support from China and Turkey—both of whom extended diplomatic cover and material support, including drones and modern aircraft used during the brief conflict. Despite a two-week window before striking the terrorist camps, India failed to shape global opinion or present a compelling narrative. This diplomatic vacuum echoes the aftermath of Balakot, when Pakistan successfully projected its version of events internationally. The all-party delegations India dispatched to various countries gained limited traction, mostly among nations with marginal influence on global affairs. This stands in sharp contrast to India's success in 1971 and during the Kargil conflict in 1999, when it managed to effectively justify its actions and rally international opinion. Why the shift? The present government's handling of foreign policy and communication strategy deserves closer scrutiny. That brings us to the ceasefire itself. By May 10th, Indian forces reportedly had the upper hand. Yet it was the US president who first announced the ceasefire, followed by India's own foreign secretary. President Trump's repeated claims of having mediated the ceasefire raise uncomfortable questions. Has India, which long resisted international mediation and stood firmly for bilateralism, allowed itself to be hyphenated with Pakistan once again? While the decision to end hostilities may have been strategically sound, it was an anti-climax for a public whipped into a frenzy by media speculation and political rhetoric. Talk of reclaiming Pakistan-occupied Kashmir and total victory created unrealistic expectations. The actual motivations for the ceasefire remain speculative. It may have been American pressure, given the escalatory risks between two nuclear powers. Or it could have been India's own calculation—that sufficient punishment had been meted out, and further escalation would only risk unnecessary civilian casualties, particularly in areas like Poonch and Rajouri. The safety of civilians in border areas is another glaring concern. While cities were issued alerts, conducted blackouts, and prepared for contingencies, residents living within range of Pakistani small arms and artillery fire were left dangerously exposed. Civilian deaths and property destruction in border towns were substantial. The state must ensure compensation and future protection for these vulnerable populations. The economic implications of conflict also merit discussion. India, now a $4 trillion economy, has far more to lose than Pakistan in a prolonged war. With vast developmental needs and social infrastructure demands, even short conflicts strain national resources. A quick resolution to conflict is, in this sense, in India's own interest. But that only makes the need for a coherent and sustainable response doctrine even more urgent. Our new policy of equating terror attacks with acts of war raises critical strategic questions. What is the threshold for retaliation? Would attacks outside Kashmir trigger the same response as those within? Does the number of casualties factor into the decision? Can every incident justify cross-border action without risking long-term regional stability and international isolation? Notably, India's responses have escalated over time—from Uri to Balakot to Sindoor. Where does this trajectory end, especially with a politically unstable and militarily erratic neighbour? The potential for future Chinese involvement further complicates matters. India's strategic community must urgently engage with these questions. Yet, above all, the most urgent question remains: how was the Pahalgam massacre allowed to happen in the first place? Why did our intelligence agencies fail to detect preparatory activity? How did they miss the apparent increase in satellite imagery demand for Pahalgam in February? Such lapses are inexcusable—they cost 26 innocent lives at Pahalgam, and many more in the conflict that followed. These intelligence failures are not isolated. They follow a disturbing pattern seen in Pulwama, Pathankot, Udhampur, Kathua, Mumbai, and other attacks. Yet accountability remains elusive. Why was there no security detail at such a high-profile tourist site? Who in the chain of command failed—the SP, DIG, IG, or DG? Are our forces overly fixated on protecting politicians and VIPs at the cost of ordinary citizens? Some may argue that providing security everywhere is impractical. But complete absence of police presence at a known tourist destination is indefensible. Did complacency set in after the abrogation of Article 370 and the successful state elections, leading officials to believe that the threat had passed? And finally, why do these tragedies keep recurring? Has any impartial inquiry been conducted into past lapses? Have recommendations been implemented? The public has a right to know whether lessons are being learned, or merely filed away. These questions may sound rhetorical. But unless they are asked, addressed, and acted upon, we risk reliving the same tragedy. The lives lost at Pahalgam demand more than patriotic fervour and retaliatory strikes. They demand introspection, accountability, and a strategy that looks beyond the immediate headlines. Sanjiv Krishan Sood was additional director general of the BSF. The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments. Make a contribution to Independent Journalism Related News Modi's Search for Global Solidarity Rings Hollow Amid Rising Domestic Intolerance in India Eight Days, Nine Rallies, Six States: Tracking PM Modi and Operation Sindoor as Campaign Ammunition Gandhi's and Modi's Reflections on 'Sindoor' Are Poles Apart Modi Says 'Not Blood, Hot Sindoor' Flows In His Veins In First Public Address Since Op Sindoor Why a Special Session of the Parliament is Critical to Discuss the Disclosure Made by CDS Chauhan 'Trade Offer Averted India-Pakistan War': Trump Administration Tells US Court From Flowers to Sarees, A Story of PM Modi's Communication Imagery Post-Operation Sindoor By Calling For the Boycott of Foreign Goods, Modi Contradicts Himself Facing Pushback, Derision and Anger, BJP Says News of Sindoor Distribution Plans 'Fake' View in Desktop Mode About Us Contact Us Support Us © Copyright. All Rights Reserved.
