
Op Sindoor And The Shadow Of Brasstacks: What 1987 Reveals About Today's Posture
What Op Brasstacks pulled back from, Op Sindoor pursued. One standoff ended with cricket. The other, with airstrikes. The rules have changed
The political discourse around Operation Sindoor has revived comparisons with an earlier moment of high-stakes brinkmanship—Operation Brasstacks. In a pointed attack on Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, BJP's Amit Malviya invoked the 1986–87 crisis to contrast today's military assertiveness with what he framed as the strategic indecision of Rajiv Gandhi's leadership. According to Malviya, Brasstacks began as India's most ambitious military mobilisation, but ended in a diplomatic retreat following a call from Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak—made at Pakistan's behest. The message, he argued, was clear: India blinked, and Pakistan took note.
That moment of hesitation now serves as a reference point for how far India's strategic posture has evolved. Where Operation Brasstacks ended in retreat despite overwhelming military readiness, Operation Sindoor unfolded with decisive strikes and a clear assertion of intent. One pulled back at the brink; the other stepped forward with calibrated force. Together, they mark a shift in doctrine—from demonstrating strength to using it.
A DRILL OR A PRECURSOR TO WAR?
Operation Brasstacks was conceived by then Army Chief General Krishnaswami Sundarji as a bold experiment to test India's evolving mechanised warfare doctrine and rapid mobilisation capabilities. It involved the deployment of close to half a million troops in Rajasthan. The Indian Army formed a powerful strike force comprising nine infantry divisions, three mechanised divisions, three armoured divisions, and one air assault division, all operating under four corps headquarters. This force was supported by extensive artillery regiments, rocket systems, and elements from the Indian Air Force and Navy.
Importantly, there was also a planned amphibious component involving an assault division off the Korangi coast near Karachi, as well as the integration of India's emerging tactical nuclear capabilities into routine manoeuvres. These elements combined to create a scenario that could easily be interpreted as more than a training exercise.
The Indian government claimed the operation was a routine internal exercise. However, the scale, timing, and proximity to Pakistan's southern flank—especially Sindh—triggered alarms in Rawalpindi. The mobilisation was viewed as a strategic feint that could transform into a real offensive without further notice. The location of the drills, away from the traditional India-Pakistan flashpoint of Kashmir and instead focused on the Thar desert, further contributed to Pakistan's suspicion that the real objective might be a conventional thrust into Pakistani territory designed to split the country.
INTELLIGENCE PANIC AND FEARS OF STRATEGIC DECEPTION
Pakistani military intelligence, already attuned to Indian deployments due to the Cold War environment and domestic insurgency in India, interpreted Brasstacks as a strategic deception. Intercepted Indian plans reportedly suggested a corps-level attack that would cut through the Bahawalpur-Khairpur corridor. Some assessments feared the exercise was designed to gauge India's resilience in case of a tactical nuclear strike—something that was not entirely implausible given the simulated use of nuclear battlefield scenarios in Brasstacks.
Despite India's formal notification to Pakistan in November 1986, and Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi's assurances to his counterpart Mohammad Khan Junejo during the SAARC Summit in Bangalore, Pakistani anxieties deepened. Junejo is believed to have interpreted these discussions as a commitment to review or limit the final phase of Brasstacks, but no such adjustment followed. Instead, the Indian Army proceeded with Phase IV—the largest and most provocative leg of the operation.
THE FOURTH PHASE AND THE PROSPECT OF WAR
Phase IV of Brasstacks involved a complex choreography of large-scale troop movements in Rajasthan, Punjab, and Jammu and Kashmir. Forward deployment of armoured divisions and stockpiling of logistics suggested India was preparing for sustained operations. The Indian Air Force adopted an offensive posture, and the Navy conducted mock amphibious landings.
Pakistan countered by activating its satellite airbases, moving reserves to forward positions, mining bridges near Lahore, and evacuating civilians from vulnerable regions. By mid-January 1987, nearly 340,000 troops from both nations stood in full readiness along a 400-kilometre front. The risk of miscalculation became palpable.
Indian generals such as Lieutenant General P.N. Hoon—then Commander-in-Chief of Western Command—later revealed that the Army was fully prepared for a limited war. Hoon alleged that the political leadership had been briefed and that operational plans existed which went well beyond an academic war game.
The external mobilisation coincided with grave internal disturbances. In April 1986, months before Brasstacks, the Panthic Committee had issued a unilateral declaration of Khalistan from within the Golden Temple complex in Amritsar. This escalated the already fraught situation in Punjab, which had not recovered from the trauma of Operation Blue Star in 1984.
In response to the Khalistan declaration, Operation Black Thunder I was launched. The security forces, under the direct supervision of Punjab's DGP J.F. Rebeiro and with covert backing from Delhi, raided the complex and arrested hundreds of militants. Though less bloody than Operation Blue Star, the operation deepened communal tensions. 27 MLAs resigned from the Akali Dal, the Barnala government lost legitimacy, and Delhi was accused of manipulating events through political puppetry.
Khalistani militants began to align with Pakistani intelligence operatives. Delhi was caught in a bind—any escalation in military deployment along the Pakistan border risked inflaming Punjab, while any leniency risked a missed opportunity to counter Pakistan's growing strategic threat. Rajiv Gandhi, under immense pressure, was balancing external posturing with internal stability.
NUCLEAR WARNING AND DIPLOMATIC REVERSAL
It is also important to note that at the time of Brasstacks, there existed no formal agreement between India and Pakistan regarding the sharing of information on troop deployments or peacetime exercises. That protocol was only established later, with a bilateral pact signed in 1991 under a Congress-supported government and formally ratified in 1994, again during a Congress tenure.
The situation reached a critical point in January 1987 when Pakistani nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan, in an interview to journalist Kuldip Nayar, claimed that Pakistan possessed nuclear weapons and would not hesitate to use them if threatened. Although he later backtracked, the statement had the desired effect.
On January 22, India deployed fresh units to the forward theatre. But within 24 hours, Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi ordered a halt to the escalation. Multiple sources suggest that this decision was prompted by a phone call from Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, made on behalf of Zia-ul-Haq during an Islamic Summit in Kuwait. Rajiv Gandhi, conscious of his global peace-oriented image, abruptly reversed India's mobilisation.
No reciprocal gesture was made by Pakistan. Zia, in fact, seized the diplomatic upper hand. He flew to India, attended a cricket match, and turned what could have been a crisis for Pakistan into a diplomatic opportunity. A few months later, Rajiv Gandhi visited Pakistan and on December 31, 1988, signed the Agreement on the Prohibition of Attack Against Nuclear Installations and Facilities with Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. The agreement came into effect on January 1, 1991. It required both countries to exchange annual lists of nuclear installations and facilities, promoting transparency and aiming to prevent surprise attacks on nuclear assets. Critics argue that the agreement gave Pakistan strategic parity without similar transparency.
STRATEGIC CONSEQUENCES: OPERATION TUPAC AND KASHMIR
If Brasstacks was India's last grand assertion of conventional power, its diplomatic retreat emboldened Pakistan to pivot. In 1988, General Zia initiated Operation Tupac—a covert campaign to destabilise India through asymmetric warfare in Kashmir. Pakistani operatives trained and armed militants, infiltrated borders through Nepal and Bangladesh, and fuelled insurgency.
The following year, the insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir exploded. Sparked in part by the rigged 1987 state elections, the movement was quickly hijacked by Pakistan-backed groups like Hizbul Mujahideen. According to estimates, more than 84,000 people have died in Kashmir since the 1990s. India has had to station upwards of 500,000 troops in the valley, an enduring legacy of the failure to deter Pakistan post-Brasstacks.
POLITICAL FRAMING AND CONTEMPORARY PARALLELS
BJP IT cell chief Amit Malviya reignited the historical debate around Operation Brasstacks in a pointed tweet targeting Rahul Gandhi's criticism of Operation Sindoor. Malviya asserted that the Gandhi family's handling of the 1986–87 crisis exposed a legacy of appeasement and strategic retreat. In his post, he claimed that Operation Brasstacks, though meticulously designed by General Sundarji, was derailed by political indecision when Rajiv Gandhi abruptly halted troop movement following a call from Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak—made at the behest of Pakistan's General Zia-ul-Haq.
Malviya alleged that Rajiv Gandhi, in a bid to uphold his image as a global peacemaker, sacrificed military advantage without securing any reciprocal concessions from Pakistan. He further pointed to Rajiv's decision to invite Zia to a cricket match in India, and later, the Congress government's 1995 conferment of the Jawaharlal Nehru Award for International Understanding to Mubarak, as indicative of a consistent pattern of diplomatic overreach.
The tweet concluded with a sharp rebuke: before lecturing the nation on military operations, Rahul Gandhi should revisit his family's track record of compromising India's strategic interests.
🚨 Time for a Reality Check on the Gandhis and National Security 🚨As Rahul Gandhi irresponsibly comments on #OperationSindoor, it's the perfect time to revisit how his family handled a real military crisis. Let's talk about Operation Brasstacks—the largest military exercise… pic.twitter.com/7UGrg1fh0l
— Amit Malviya (@amitmalviya) May 24, 2025
Malviya's framing finds echoes in the retrospective accounts of several senior military officers and analysts. Lieutenant General P.N. Hoon, then Commander-in-Chief of the Western Command, wrote in his 2015 memoir 'The Untold Truth' that Operation Brasstacks was not an exercise, but a plan for war—and that political leaders including Rajiv Gandhi, Arun Singh, and Natwar Singh were either unaware of or indifferent to the Army's actual operational objectives. Hoon's claims suggested that the military was ready, but political will faltered.
Similarly, military scholar Ravi Rikhye, in his book 'The War That Never Was,' argued that Brasstacks was designed as a coercive strategy to compel Pakistan to roll back its support for insurgents, but it failed due to political indecision in Delhi. Rikhye was explicit in suggesting that figures like General Sundarji and MoS Defence Arun Singh sought a limited war, only to be overruled.
Lieutenant General Vijay Oberoi, who helped plan the early phases of Brasstacks and later served as Vice Chief of Army Staff, is quoted in a 2018 Hindustan Times retrospective on Brasstacks as saying that the exercise was a no-holds-barred war rehearsal, and that Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi had been fully briefed on its scope. His statements contradict the narrative that the PM was kept in the dark, implying instead a deliberate political decision to stand down at the peak of escalation.
Congress leaders defend the pullback as a move of prudence. In their view, the absence of a hot conflict and the successful defusing of tensions without bloodshed is evidence of political maturity. The risk of nuclear escalation, with no fail-safe communication protocols in place, made restraint not just desirable, but necessary.
Yet, the legacy of Brasstacks is more complicated. Long before this, in 1974, following India's first nuclear test, then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi had even offered to share India's nuclear technology with Pakistan—an offer that reflected the diplomatic optimism of the era but has since been viewed by critics as dangerously naïve. India gained no strategic concession. It exposed its conventional capabilities and then chose not to use them. Pakistan, in turn, adapted—not by matching force but by redefining the battlefield.
CONCLUSION: FROM BRASSTACKS TO SINDOOR
top videos
View all
Operation Sindoor, in the current narrative, is being framed as the antidote to Brasstacks—a moment when India no longer hesitates, when it chooses retaliation over retreat. Where Brasstacks culminated in Zia watching cricket in Jaipur, Sindoor follows a very different trajectory: punitive airstrikes, political messaging, and international assertiveness.
Brasstacks is not just a military exercise frozen in time. It is a case study in political indecision, strategic signalling, and the importance of following through. It teaches India the price of blinking. As India and Pakistan once again navigate a climate of strategic uncertainty, marked by cross-border tensions, proxy threats, and shifting diplomatic equations, the lessons of 1987 remain as relevant as ever.
Watch India Pakistan Breaking News on CNN-News18. Get breaking news, in-depth analysis, and expert perspectives on everything from politics to crime and society. Stay informed with the latest India news only on News18. Download the News18 App to stay updated!
tags :
Indian military Operation Sindoor Pakistan terrorism rajiv gandhi
Location :
New Delhi, India, India
First Published:
May 24, 2025, 13:48 IST
News india Op Sindoor And The Shadow Of Brasstacks: What 1987 Reveals About Today's Posture
Hashtags

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


Hindustan Times
28 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
SC relief for ELV owners, to examine its 2018 order
The Supreme Court on Tuesday directed no coercive action to be taken against those driving 10-year-old diesel and 15-year-old petrol vehicles in Delhi, effectively staying the implementation of its own October 2018 order which signed off on a 2014 order of the National Green Tribunal seeking to keep polluting vehicles off the roads in an attempt to combat the Capital's noxious air. Soon after coming to power in Delhi, the BJP government of the UT decided to deny fuel supply to end-of-life vehicles, which have crossed the threshold of 10 and 15 years operating on diesel and petrol. (Arvind Yadav/HT PHOTO) The 2014 and 2018 orders were never strictly enforced, and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which came to power this year in the Union territory, and which made pollution one of its campaign issues, sought to do so in April 2025 by denying fuel to overage vehicles — only to face significant pushback from people. The Delhi government, on July 25, then challenged the ban as unscientific and said a vehicle's fitness should be based on its emission level, and not age. A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R Gavai, justices K Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria said, 'In the meantime, no coercive steps shall be taken against the owners of cars on the ground that they are 10 years old in respect of diesel and 15 years in respect of petrol vehicles.' The court issued notice on the Delhi government's application and posted the matter after four weeks. Solicitor general Tushar Mehta appeared for the Delhi government and sought urgent orders on the application claiming that the police is duty bound to act under the ban imposed by the court. 'Let there be no coercive action. Otherwise, police is under an obligation to take action against these vehicles,' Mehta said. There were similar applications moved by residents in Delhi and transport unions aggrieved by the ban. The court agreed to examine the issue. The order under challenge was passed by the top court on October 29, 2018 upholding the initial orders passed in this regard by the National Green Tribunal. The BJP-led government in Delhi said it was constrained to approach the top court considering the practical difficulties faced by the citizens in the Capital. The application filed last month said, 'To tackle the issue of pollution in the NCR region, a comprehensive policy is required which gives vehicle fitness based on the actual emission levels of an individual vehicle as per scientific methods rather than implementing a blanket ban based solely on the age of the vehicle.' The government also raised a public interest concern. It said, 'The directive to off road vehicles purely on the basis of age disproportionately affects middle-class citizens whose vehicles are less used, well-maintained, and compliant to fuel norms. It is submitted that the studies indicate that these vehicles often have significantly lower annual mileage and contribute negligibly to overall emissions.' It further stated that implementation of the court's order 'negatively affects' the market of second-hand cars, which alone is affordable by the poor and lower middle income class families residing in the region. Soon after coming to power in Delhi, the BJP government of the UT decided to deny fuel supply to end-of-life vehicles, which have crossed the threshold of 10 and 15 years operating on diesel and petrol. This decision was to be implemented from July 1. However, within days of implementation, the government sensed public sentiment and put its decision on hold. The application by the government acknowledged that the ban had a salutary aim in curbing pollution in Delhi over the past seven years. However, it said that the same was passed when Bharat Stage IV (BS-IV) emission standards were in force. Since April 2020, it added, Bharat Stage VI (BS-VI) has been implemented, which has much stricter and advanced norms. 'If the order of this court dated October 29, 2018 continues to operate, it will result in road worthy, non-polluting BS-VI vehicles also going off the roads in a matter of a few years without a scientific basis for the same…there does not appear to be a scientific basis for mandating that even BS-IV vehicles which meet PUC norms should be taken off the roads in Delhi NCR. These are serious issues which may require a fresh scientific evaluation,' the application said. The government's application said no data-based evidence currently exists to establish that all diesel vehicles older than 10 years or petrol vehicles older than 15 years are uniformly polluting. Instead, it said that the road-worthiness of a vehicle which is a technical and scientific issue must be linked to actual emissions as tested and recorded by mechanisms set out under the Motor Vehicles Act, the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, as opposed to a blanket ban on the basis of age which is unlinked to actual emissions. Prior to the SC order, the NGT had in November 2014 directed that all diesel vehicles (heavy or light) which are over 10 years old and petrol vehicles more than 15 years old will not be permitted to ply on Delhi roads. These orders were challenged multiple times before the top court which refused to interfere. On October 29, 2018, the court while considering the 92nd Report of the erstwhile Environmental Pollution Control Authority (now replaced by CAQM) accepted the suggestions of the amicus curiae endorsing the NGT order of November 2014. CAQM had used the VAHAN database to estimate 6.2 million ELVs (end of life vehicles) in Delhi, including 4.1 million two-wheelers and 1.8 million four-wheelers. However, government officials later clarified that this number includes vehicles that are already scrapped, de-registered, or issued no-objection certificates to be sold outside the NCR. A senior official familiar with the data said the actual number of ELVs still operating on Delhi roads is likely closer to 600,000—just 10% of the figure cited by CAQM. Delhi's total vehicle population is around 8.1 million, according to the Delhi Statistical Handbook 2024.


Indian Express
28 minutes ago
- Indian Express
‘Never thought we would see his face again': 19-year-old Bengal migrant returns weeks after sent to Bangladesh
A 19-year-old Bengali migrant who was detained by Rajasthan police on June 19 and later deported to Bangladesh has finally returned home, his family and local leaders said on Tuesday. The case came to light after a video of Amir Sheikh, filmed in Bangladesh, circulated on social media. Amir, a resident of Jalalpur village under Kaliachowk police station in Malda, had gone to Rajasthan to work as a construction labourer. However, his family lost contact with him after his detention. Amir lost his mother five years ago and his father works as a migrant labourer in Uttar Pradesh. Ajmal said the family first saw the video last month and learned that Amir had been pushed into Bangladesh. ' We got a call last evening from someone in Basirhat. I did not know who he was. We then spoke with Amir on video call. I identified him. He said he was in a Bangladesh jail. Then we were told that he would be brought back. This morning we received another call stating that he is with the BSF. We are waiting for further instructions,' Ajmal said. In a video message on social media, Isha Khan Choudhury, Congress MP from Malda Dakshin Lok Sabha constituency, said central agencies and the Border Security Forces (BSF) had traced Amir. 'We are happy to share with the people of the constituency and press colleagues that a wrongly expelled Indian citizen was traced in Bangladesh by the central government and BSF,' she said. After being detained in the labour camp in Rajasthan, Mr Amir Sheikh is being released today. BSF ADG of West Bengal told me that Amir Sheikh is now in BSF control. They will inform the family today about the development.' 'Earlier I had spoken to the home secretary and BSF DG over the issue. I hope such an incident never takes place in the country. Indian citizens and travel throughout the country. It is a fundamental right. It is sad that the person was arrested and deported. But today is a happy day that he has been brought back to India,' added Choudhury in his message. Samirul Islam, TMC Rajya Sabha MP and chairman of the West Bengal Migrant Labour Welfare Board, said the family had been supported from the start. 'Amir Sk, a migrant worker from Malda's Kaliachak, was deported to Bangladesh by the Rajasthan police. Since his deportation, we have been with the family from day one, extending all kinds of support to them. We also helped his father move the Calcutta High Court with a habeas corpus petition. Following the petition, top Rajasthan government officials and those from the Centre were summoned by the hon'ble court. The case was scheduled to be heard tomorrow,' he said. 'As interestingly there was no way to repatriate Amir except through legal intervention, as he had been tagged under a case involving illegal entry into Bangladesh. Amid such a situation, the central government is now trying to repatriate Amir Sheikh to his Malda home to save face and avoid the legal blow for the illegal pushback,' Islam added. ' One has to do something so that this trend of pushing out our Bengal residents to Bangladesh stops. There should be proper rehabilitation for such victims,' said Asif Faruk, state general secretary of the Parijayi Sramik Aikya Manch (Migrant Workers' Unity Forum). In the video last month, accessed by The Indian Express, Amir Sheikh is seen speaking to residents in Bangladesh. He identifies himself, shares his West Bengal address, and alleges that after being detained for two months, he was recently sent across the border into Bangladesh. The incident comes in the wake of similar cases across several states, including Haryana, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Delhi and Madhya Pradesh. On June 14, seven residents of West Bengal were detained in Mumbai and later pushed into Bangladesh by the BSF. After intervention by the West Bengal government, four youths from Murshidabad, one from Purba Bardhaman and a husband-wife duo from North 24 Parganas were brought back.


Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Raj Gopal fires fresh salvo, asks why 2 brothers can't be ministers
1 2 Hyderabad: Congress MLA Komatireddy Raj Gopal Reddy on Tuesday fired yet another salvo at Congress top guns, stating that didn't the party leadership know that they are two brothers, Komatireddy Raj Gopal Reddy and Venkat Reddy, in the grand old party, when promising him a cabinet berth. "I was promised a cabinet berth at the time of coming back into Congress from BJP during the assembly elections (in Nov 2023). After we two brothers won the assembly polls, again I was promised a cabinet berth at the time of the Lok Sabha elections (May 2024) to ensure the victory of Congress from Bhongir parliament seat. At least, then they would have been well aware that two brothers were legislators in Congress," he said. Stating that he was waiting patiently for the party high command to honour its promise of giving a cabinet berth to him, he said denial of a ministry to him would be deemed as an injustice to the the people of Munugode constituency, represented by him. "I will tolerate injustice to me but not to the people of my constituency," he said. You Can Also Check: Hyderabad AQI | Weather in Hyderabad | Bank Holidays in Hyderabad | Public Holidays in Hyderabad | Gold Rates Today in Hyderabad | Silver Rates Today in Hyderabad On the comments of some Congress top leaders, including deputy CM Bhatti Vikramarka that caste and other equations were the reasons for him not getting a cabinet berth so far, Raj Gopal pointed out that there were three ministers from Khammam, where nine Congress MLAs were there, and what was wrong in Nalgonda district having three ministers, which has 11 legislators from Congress. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Play this game for 1 minute and see why everyone is addicted. Undo "We, both brothers, are efficient. What is wrong if two brothers, who are efficient, are ministers? I will continue to wait patiently even if there is a further delay in cabinet berth being given to me. You (Congress leadership) gave word, fulfil it. But until then, don't neglect Munugode's development. Why aren't the equations working out to take me into the cabinet? Who is blocking my entry?," he asked. Stay updated with the latest local news from your city on Times of India (TOI). Check upcoming bank holidays , public holidays , and current gold rates and silver prices in your area.