‘Anti-India in spirit': BJP on Bhagwant Mann's ‘one nation one husband' remark over Operation Sindoor
Punjab chief minister Bhagwant Mann's recent remark mocking Operation Sindoor sparked a political controversy in the country and led to severe criticism from the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which accused him of insulting the Indian Armed Forces.
At the centre of the controversy is Bhagwant Mann's bizarre quip during a press conference, where he referred to reports that the BJP would distribute Sindoor in households, saying, "Will you wear sindoor in Modi's name?" Is this "One Nation, One Husband" scheme?
The phrase 'One Nation, One Husband' instantly ignited outrage online and in political circles.
BJP Punjab spokesperson Pritpal Singh Baliawal shared the video of CM Mann's comments on X and said, "Bhagwant Mann crosses all limits! Mocking Operation Sindoor, he shamelessly asks: "Will you wear sindoor in Modi's name? Is this One Nation, One Husband?"
Baliawal clarified that Operation Sindoor was a response to terrorists killing Hindus after checking their religion, with sindoor being a marker used to identify women.
He also accused Mann of having "zero sensitivity" and criticised him for mocking the Indian Army, insulting Veer Naris, and turning sacred symbols into jokes.
The BJP Punjab spokesperson also called for Bhagwant Mann's immediate resignation.
BJP national spokesperson Pradeep Bhandari also echoed the sentiment, calling Mann's remarks 'anti-India in spirit.'
"Shameful! Punjab CM Bhagwant Mann ridicules Operation Sindoor. Once again, the opposition shows its true face -- Disrespecting our armed forces and belittling a successful military operation. If this isn't anti-India in spirit, then what is?
Launched on May 7, Operation Sindoor was India's bold military retaliation to the Pahalgam terror attack carried out by Pakistan-backed terrorists, which led to the brutal killing of 26 innocent people.
Under the operation, Indian forces targeted nine terror camps and infrastructure across Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir, eliminating over 100 militants linked to groups such as Jaish-e-Mohammed, Lashkar-e-Taiba, and Hizbul Mujahideen.
After India's strike on terror infrastructure, Pakistan responded with cross-border shelling across the Line of Control (LoC), as well as attempted drone attacks targeting civilian areas along the border regions.
After an intense exchange of fire, a ceasefire understanding was announced on May 10 following Pakistan's request for a dialogue.
(with PTI inputs)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Wire
9 minutes ago
- The Wire
Priests Oppose UP Govt's Plan to Set up Trust For Management of Vrindavan's Banke Bihari Temple
Menu हिंदी తెలుగు اردو Home Politics Economy World Security Law Science Society Culture Editor's Pick Opinion Support independent journalism. Donate Now Government Priests Oppose UP Govt's Plan to Set up Trust For Management of Vrindavan's Banke Bihari Temple The Wire Staff 7 minutes ago Priests from the Goswami sect have been managing the temple since the last few hundred years. Banke Bihari Temple in Vrindavan, Uttar Pradesh. Photo: Real journalism holds power accountable Since 2015, The Wire has done just that. But we can continue only with your support. Contribute now New Delhi: The Uttar Pradesh government's decision to set up a trust for the management of Banke Bihari Mandir in Vrindavan has sparked opposition from priests in Mathura who has termed the move of the BJP government in the state as 'anti-Brahmin.' 'It was because of the penance of our ancestors that God had appeared here. The temple became revered under their supervision, but the government is now taking it over on the pretext of regulating its management,' said Tarachand Goswami, the former chairman of the temple on Wednesday (June 4) reported The Telegraph. Another priest, Vishnu Goswami accused the Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath-led government of deliberately trying to snatch the livelihood of Brahmins. Last week, the state government had cleared an ordinance that paved the way for setting up the Shri Banke Bihariji Mandir Nyas Trust. The trust is entrusted with the responsibility of overseeing the management of the shrine and its everyday rituals. Priests from the Goswami sect have been managing the temple since the last few hundred years. Some Goswami priests have said that if the government didn't review its decision to take over the temple's management, they will take away the idol, which they say was installed by their ancestors in 1864. A government that confiscates temples cannot be secular. The government is constantly trying to regulate religion with an ulterior motive. The government appears against the Goswami tradition and wants to have its official priests,' said Swami Avimukteshwaranand, the Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath in Uttarakhand who has been staying in Mathura since last few days. The government has said that the trust is essential for the construction of a Banke Bihari Corridor around the temple at a cost of Rs. 500 crore. 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 Fifth Acting DGP in a Row: Why Uttar Pradesh Still Lacks a Permanent Police Chief Interview | 'National Leadership Will Decide on Alliance But UP Congress Is Focusing on All 403 Seats' Days After Cow Vigilante Rampage in Aligarh, Forensic Report Belies Beef Allegations 'They Would Have Abused Vyomika Singh Too if They Knew She was a Dalit': Senior SP Leader's Dig at BJP UP: Over Two Dozen People Arrested for 'Anti-National' and 'Misleading' Posts on Operation Sindoor Row Over Army Statement That India's Air Defence System Shielded Golden Temple From Pakistan's Strikes Karnataka Temple Trust Issues Apology to Muslims After BJP MLA's Inflammatory Speech Temple Politics and Attack on Migrants Are Escalating Tensions Between Bengal and Odisha Andhra: N. Chandrababu Naidu and His Ministers – Including 8 First-Time MLAs – Take Oath View in Desktop Mode About Us Contact Us Support Us © Copyright. All Rights Reserved.
Time of India
9 minutes ago
- Time of India
No one needed to tell India to stop, didn't need any mediation: Tharoor on Op Sindoor
India respects American presidency but New Delhi has "never wanted to ask anyone to mediate" and no one needed to tell us to 'stop', Congress MP Shashi Tharoor said, amid repeated claims by US President Donald Trump of his role in the recent conflict between India and Pakistan . "All I can say is that we have enormous respect for the American presidency and the American president. All we can say for ourselves is that we have never particularly wanted to ask anyone to mediate," said Tharoor, the leader of the all-party parliamentary delegation which arrived here on Tuesday afternoon and began its packed day of meetings with lawmakers and government officials on Wednesday. During an interaction at the National Press Club here on Wednesday, Tharoor stressed that India had no real difficulty in speaking the same language as the Pakistanis. Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Switch to UnionBank Rewards Card UnionBank Credit Card Apply Now Also Read: NDA govt devoted to welfare of poor, committed to building self-reliant India: PM Modi "As long as they use the language of terrorism , we will use the language of force. That doesn't require a third party," he said. Live Events The delegation comprising MPs Sarfaraz Ahmad, Ganti Harish Madhur Balayogi, Shashank Mani Tripathi, Bhubaneswar Kalita, Milind Deora, Tejasvi Surya, and India's former ambassador to the US Taranjit Sandhu, arrived from India in New York on May 24, and travelled to Guyana, Panama, Colombia and Brazil before arriving in Washington, the last leg of the tour to convey India's stance following the Pahalgam terror attack and Operation Sindoor . Tharoor said if Pakistan were to dismantle the infrastructure of terrorism, "we can talk to them". "If they take serious actions to show they want to restore normal relationships with us, we can certainly talk to them again without needing an intermediary." "So it's not in any way a negative comment about the goodwill of people. During this conflict, as I said, in any case, India didn't need persuading to stop. No one needed to tell us to 'stop', because we were telling them the moment Pakistan stops, we're prepared to stop." "So if they, in turn, told the Pakistanis, 'you better stop, because Indians are willing to stop', and that was what they did, then that's a wonderful gesture on their part vis-a-vis Pakistan," Tharoor said. He added that "all we can say is that in our conversations, some of these things didn't come up". Also Read: Surely he's aware Pahalgam terrorists still not brought to justice: Congress on PM Modi's J&K visit Noting that he was saying this in a "constructive spirit", Tharoor said: "We have an enormous respect for the US, and we have a much more important, valuable strategic partnership with Washington that we wouldn't want to jeopardise over a matter of detail. We are interested, talking at the moment about a number of areas of cooperation, interested in enhancing all of that. So small matters can go by, and we can focus on tomorrow." Tharoor was responding to a question about India's response to the constant claim by Trump that he mediated in the conflict between India and Pakistan. He was also asked if this is a question the Congress party continues to ask back in India, and party leader Rahul Gandhi commented that Prime Minister Narendra Modi "surrendered" after receiving a phone call from Trump. Delegation member Deora said: "As far as the political question is concerned, I would like to express my admiration for Tharoor. I've known him for a long time. He always puts country before party." Surya, responding to Deora's comment, said: "Absolutely." In response to a question on what role the US had in encouraging talks between India and Pakistan, Tharoor said: "I think the US has understood for some time now that India has a very clear position that there will be no talks with a gun pointed at our head. It's not that we can't talk to Pakistan." "India can speak all the languages that Pakistanis speak. The problem is that we will not dialogue with people who are pointing a gun at our head. You're not going to talk to people who are pointing a gun at your temples. It's not going to happen," Tharoor said. Also Read: BJP MP Nishikant Dubey slams Congress for "surrendering country's pride" by agreeing to Non-Attack Agreement with Pakistan Addressing reporters at a press conference at the Indian Embassy, Tharoor said that every time anybody asked, "and that includes on the Hill", if India would talk to Pakistan or if mediation would help promote dialogue, "our answer is very clear. We cannot talk to people who are pointing a gun at our head." "If your neighbour attacks your children with their attack dogs and then says, 'let's talk', will you talk to them until they put away the attack dogs?" Tensions between India and Pakistan escalated after the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack, with India carrying out precision strikes on terror infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir in the early hours of May 7. Pakistan attempted to attack Indian military bases on May 8, 9, and 10. The Indian side responded strongly to the Pakistani actions. The on-ground hostilities ended with an understanding of stopping the military actions following talks between the directors general of military operations of both sides on May 10.
The Print
13 minutes ago
- The Print
A rejuvenated Pakistan likely to collude with China, plan a conflict with India in 5-10 years
It is empirical wisdom that since World War 2, wars of annihilation and decisive victories are passé, least of all between states armed with nuclear weapons. Hence, it is prudent to measure the outcome of wars and conflicts in psychological terms. No matter the overt rhetoric in the countries involved, their political and military leadership takes note of the outcome, which shapes their future national security strategy. As the dust settles on Operation Sindoor—a high–technology conflict between two nuclear powers with near-conventional parity—there is an intense debate on 'who won?' Both India and Pakistan have declared victory. Fired by nationalistic fervour, the public and media in both countries are in a frenzy to prove their victory in terms of the material and human cost inflicted on the other. Who won the conflict? India's political aim was to reimpose its deterrent. In other words, it sought to force compellence on Pakistan and prevent it from waging a terrorism–driven proxy war in Jammu and Kashmir or anywhere else in India. The aim was to be achieved through calibrated military operations short of a limited war and, more importantly, without violating Pakistan's nuclear thresholds, which have been formally declared. India's military aim was to conduct controlled escalatory (action-response-action) kinetic military operations—without physically violating Pakistan's ground and air space—to impose a psychological defeat by creating conditions that made the enemy's response cost-prohibitive. This strategy was to be primarily executed by the IAF to selectively destroy terrorist and military targets in Pakistan from within Indian territory. The army's air defence and unmanned aerial systems (UAS) would supplement the IAF's resources. Pakistan's political aim was to prevent India's imposition of compellence and retain its strategic autonomy. In doing so, it hoped to re-hyphenate itself with India and also bring the Kashmir 'dispute' back into international focus. Its military aim was to stalemate India by using its limited high-end military technology to defeat India's escalatory offensive operations by launching ripostes of higher intensity to make further operations cost-prohibitive. Both countries were aware of the escalatory matrix and international aversion to a conflict between nuclear powers. India's intent was to delay international intervention, and Pakistan's intent was to invite it at the earliest to stalemate India. It is clear that both sides were trying to create a situation in which the other could not respond without prohibitive losses. Both were keen to do faster cycles of 'quid pro quo plus' to achieve their political and military aims. At the same time, both sides wanted to avoid inflicting large–scale material cost and steer clear of a steep escalation. In such an environment, the side that can repeatedly and speedily complete the OODA (Observe-Orient-Decide-Act) Cycle can bring about strategic psychological paralysis—a situation in which the adversary, despite the availability of resources, cannot or fails to respond. In my previous article, I have covered the sequence and conduct of operations in detail. In a nutshell, the IAF, supplemented by the army's air defence and UAS, was able to carry out faster OODA cycles, and was successful in bringing about strategic psychological paralysis. This included precision but symbolic air/drone strikes on nine terror camps on the night of 6/7 May; absorbing Pakistan's counter air action and diagnosing the causes of the unspecified aircraft losses suffered in the air battle; successfully suppressing enemy air defence on 8/9 May; and neutralising the Pakistani UAS and missile strikes with the Integrated Air Defence Command and Control System on the three nights from 7 to 9 May. With enemy air defence suppressed, the PAF was blinded and forced to keep out of the range of S–400 and air–to–air missiles. With repeated and faster OODA Cycles, the stage had been set for the coup de grace. In the early hours of 10 May, the IAF targeted 11 airbases/radars/command and control centres across the length and breadth of Pakistan with impunity. Pakistan has now revealed that seven more targets were hit during the operation. In tune with India's political and military aims, the strikes were more about demonstrating capability than about causing material destruction or inflicting casualties. The strategic psychological paralysis was so profound that the PAF and its air defence systems failed to interfere with the operation in any manner and Pakistan's military and economic infrastructure was at the mercy of the IAF. This was the reason that Islamabad sought a cessation of hostilities. In view of the above, the damage to personnel and material was inconsequential. A crushing strategic psychological defeat had been inflicted on Pakistan. It is important to recall that in 1971, its army in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) was virtually intact when it surrendered in Dhaka on 16 December. The victory was achieved by bringing about a strategic psychological collapse. Also read: China is hypocritical on IWT. Just look at how it has maximised upstream water usage Has compellence been imposed? It is clear to Pakistan's military leadership that there is space below its nuclear threshold for a technology–driven conflict. You cannot have missiles pockmarking the area around your capital city and strategic assets, and on military targets all across the hinterland, and yet believe that you have not been compelled to fall in line. Yes, compellence has been imposed on Pakistan through a strategic psychological defeat. But its longevity is contingent on India maintaining an overwhelming technological military edge, which is out of reach for Pakistan. Since the strategic psychological defeat has left its defence potential intact due to nuclear thresholds, Pakistan will always be tempted to technologically upgrade and create the capability to challenge India again. What stands in the way is its niggardly economy. With a GDP of $373 billion, this ambition will remain a pipe dream. China is unlikely to give Pakistan anything for free. It does not do so even in the case of North Korea. However, given the primordial nature of the conflict, the probability of Pakistan defying the odds remains high. There would be a serious review by Pakistan of its strategy of using terrorism as an instrument of policy. However, it is pertinent to mention that terrorism as a concept has never been deterred. Pakistan is a master of running with hares and hunting with hounds, as it did with the US from 2001 to 2021. There is also the possibility of terrorists turning rogue and operating independently. Henceforth, Pakistan is likely to carefully calibrate its proxy war to only keep the pot simmering. It may also revert to placing greater reliance on local terrorists. It is pertinent to mention that I have assessed the political and military aims discussed above based on military theory. The declared political and military aims have focused on punishing the terrorists and their backers (implying Pakistan's military). And if these were indeed the aims, then it is a cause of serious concern as, by implication, it means that the strategic outcome was by default and not by design. Also read: Beijing is calling for Ukraine de-escalation and also benefiting from a weakened Russia What India must do China is India's principal adversary in the long term, and Pakistan, a mere irritant. With China only providing indirect support and selling weaponry, India barely managed to inflict a strategic psychological defeat on Pakistan. 'By the skin of its teeth,' as I said. Imagine a situation when the collusion is more direct. India needs to formalise its National Security Strategy and the contingent National Defence Policy to rapidly transform its armed forces. This will pave the way for a military strategy that caters to threats across the spectrum of conflict. Political security doctrine, spelled out in public speeches of the leadership, has to be translated into a rational security strategy. No nation can afford to be involved in 'forever conflicts' based on the actions of a handful of terrorists. The transformation of the armed forces is an inescapable necessity to establish an overwhelming technological military edge over Pakistan and to stalemate China, that too for a conflict when both adversaries are in collusion. And for this transformation to happen, we need to first double our defence budget to 4 per cent of the GDP. The USSR beggared itself in trying to militarily compete with the US and its allies, and so will Pakistan. In Jammu and Kashmir, India must refine its 'deterrence by denial' strategy against terrorism. Both the counter–infiltration and the counter–terrorism grids in the hinterland require refinement. A limited number of terrorists are dominating the forests and the upper mountainous regions. There is no option but to extend the counter–terrorism grid to these areas. Even a cursory look at statistics tells us that India is winning in Jammu and Kashmir. The degree of violence is at its lowest. The terrorists have the initiative and can always trigger a major black swan incident. However, it must not lead to high–handedness, which would re-alienate the population. Political reconciliation must not be allowed to be held to ransom by odd terrorist incidents. Restoring statehood will go a long way in winning the hearts and minds of the locals. The probability of another conflict with a rejuvenated Pakistan with coercive collusion of China remains high. I assess that the minimum time this could take is 5 years, and the maximum, 10 years. However, if India creates the military capacity and the capability to more emphatically defeat Pakistan and simultaneously stalemate China, the conflict will be deterred. Lt Gen H S Panag PVSM, AVSM (R) served in the Indian Army for 40 years. He was GOC in C Northern Command and Central Command. Post retirement, he was Member of Armed Forces Tribunal. Views are personal. (Edited by Prasanna Bachchhav)
