Latest news with #post-Balakot
Indian Express
3 days ago
- General
- Indian Express
For govt, Operation Sindoor was not about retribution but drawing limits of tolerance: CDS Anil Chauhan
The government's objective behind Operation Sindoor was not retribution but to draw the limits of tolerance with Pakistan, said Chief of the Defence Staff Anil Chauhan on Tuesday. Delivering a talk titled 'Future Wars and Warfare' at the Savitribai Phule Pune University, Chauhan said: 'Let me talk about reason… Operation Sindoor, as per the government is concerned, is not about retribution. I think it was about drawing these limits of tolerance. Thus, and not far. This state-sponsored terrorism from Pakistan had to stop, and Pakistan should not be able to hold India hostage to terror activities.' Another point made by the operation was that India was not going to live under the shadow of terror or nuclear blackmail, he said. Immediately before this, Chauhan said: 'The emotion that was being evoked among the people of India was revenge and retribution… and to get the perpetrators to justice. That, I think, was playing in everyone's mind; that is the kind of emotion and public sentiment that was happening. And at the end of it, there was probably some sort of satisfaction, (and also) anxiety. Anxiety during the operation…' #WATCH | Pune: Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) General Anil Chauhan says, 'Operation Sindoor is not over as yet. It continues. It's a temporary cessation of hostilities. There is a need to keep our guard up…' He also says, 'From our side, we didn't want to get into a long-drawn… — ANI (@ANI) June 3, 2025 He also talked about the risks involved during military operations. 'You can't be 100 per cent prepared for every kind of contingency, and you can't have 100 per cent of the information about that. So you are always groping around in the dark when you are carrying out military operations. In every military operation, there is an element of risk involved. The only thing is that it should be a calculated kind of risk.' Chauhan reiterated that Operation Sindoor was not over and that there was only a temporary cessation of operations. He added that post-Balakot, 'we thought we should be able to strike deep inside, so we have built those kinds of capabilities. None of the capabilities we employed had been tested on the battlefield. Therefore, risk was involved… In a war, even if there are setbacks, we have to adapt, understand what went wrong and go out again.' He added that as an organisation, one must have an offensive spirit. 'That's why I said in a couple of my interviews that losses are not important, the outcome is,' he said. Soham is a Correspondent with the Indian Express in Pune. A journalism graduate, he was a fact-checker before joining the Express. Soham currently covers education and is also interested in civic issues, health, human rights, and politics. ... Read More
Hans India
3 days ago
- Politics
- Hans India
Silence is strength: Disclosures about military losses can harm national security
The recent clamour from certain political factions, notably the Congress party, for detailed disclosure of military losses—such as the number of Rafale jets allegedly downed by Pakistan—reveals a troubling disconnect from the realities of warfare and national security. While transparency remains the bedrock of democracy, the demand for immediate, granular details of military setbacks during or post-conflict risks grave consequences. The aftermath of the Pahalgam terror attack, which prompted India's decisive retaliatory strike against terrorist infrastructure across the border, underscores the need for a mature and restrained approach to public discourse on such critical matters. India's response to the Pahalgam incident was a necessary act of self-defence, targeting state-sponsored terrorism. The ensuing aerial engagement with Pakistan, a clear act of war, inevitably involved gains and losses on both sides. War, by its nature, is a brutal calculus, and to expect a public ledger of every casualty or fallen asset is to misunderstand its dynamics. Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) General Anil Chauhan's acknowledgment of 'some losses' and focus on rectifying tactical errors reflects a pragmatic stance—prioritising operational lessons over a politically charged tally. Yet, even this measured disclosure, aimed at transparency, may have been an unnecessary bow to partisan pressure. Revealing precise figures—say, the number of jets lost—would deal a blow to the morale of our armed forces. Publicising such details could paint their sacrifices as failures rather than the inherent risks of duty, eroding the spirit that fuels their resolve. Beyond the military, this risks shaking public confidence, fostering anxiety and perceptions of vulnerability instead of resilience. In a nation where civilian-military trust is vital, such a narrative could fray this essential bond. A 2023 survey by the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS) found 78 per cent of Indians view the armed forces as the most trusted institution—undermining the ripple effects on national unity. Legally, too, this demand is flawed. The Official Secrets Act, 1923, under Section 2(5), classifies 'munitions of war'—including aircraft, arms, and related devices—as sensitive, where disclosure could prejudice state safety. Handing adversaries a precise account of losses, from jets to personnel, fuels their intelligence and propaganda efforts. Pakistan's history of psychological warfare, evident in its media campaigns post-Balakot in 2019, thrives on such data to exaggerate India's setbacks and bolster its narrative. Why give them this advantage? Globally, discretion is the norm. Major powers like the US, Russia, and China rarely divulge combat losses in real time, adhering to a doctrine of strategic ambiguity. During the Ukraine conflict, Russia's delayed and vague casualty reports kept opponents guessing, a tactic that preserved operational edge. India, in a volatile region flanked by hostile neighbours, cannot afford to deviate from this practice. Denying adversaries exact intelligence forces them to rely on shaky estimates, complicating their planning and potentially deterring aggression. In the information war, discretion is a weapon—ceding it by confirming losses plays into the enemy's hands. The real value of conflict lies not in a scorecard of losses but in the lessons drawn. General Chauhan's focus on refining strategy and tactics aligns with this. Internal military reviews, shielded from public glare, dissect vulnerabilities, enhance training, and bolster preparedness. This is accountability—quiet, rigorous, and effective. Parliamentary oversight, respecting classification protocols, further ensures checks without compromising security. The demands for public tallies, often cloaked in 'transparency', smack of political gains, by turning a grave national issue into election fodder. This divisiveness, especially amid tensions, weakens the unity India needs. Historical context reinforces this. Post-Kargil in 1999, India mourned its martyrs but delayed detailed loss reports, prioritising operational security. The result was a strengthened military posture and strategic clarity. Today, with China's assertiveness along the LAC and Pakistan's proxy war in Kashmir—where terror incidents rose 22 per cent from 2020 to 2024 per Union Home Ministry data—India faces a two-front challenge. Publicizing losses now could embolden both adversaries, signaling weakness at a critical juncture. Democracy thrives on debate, but responsible citizenship recognizes limits. The Congress party's persistent questioning, blind to these stakes, risks aiding adversaries, denting military morale, and unsettling the public. Trusting our military leadership to handle sensitive matters with discretion is not blind faith but a strategic necessity. A strong India prioritizes defence readiness and national interest over divisive disclosures. In this complex theatre, silence can be strength, and our focus must remain on securing the nation, not fueling debates that weaken it. (The writer is a senior Advocate)
News18
11-05-2025
- Politics
- News18
Utopian Ceasefire: It Is 'Viraam' And Not 'Poorna Viraam'
Last Updated: A short skirmish suits Pakistan, especially when it can curate a 'Notion of Victory' from defeat and they have demonstrated that in 1965, 1971 and during Kargil Operations. An aura of pessimism and angst seemed to have erupted last evening amongst many citizens and diaspora of Bharat, as Bharat was poised to strike Pakistan harder than ever in recent times, when US President Donald Trump posted about a mediation for a ceasefire between Bharat and Pakistan; little before the Ministry of External Affairs announced it and it was almost suggestive that the USA had brokered that ceasefire. While the USA was a part leading to the ceasefire, the reasons and conditions are far away from any mediation, as Bharat doesn't seek any mediation with Team Modi at the helm and treats its relations with Pakistan as truly bilateral. Bharat did not seek any mediation from any country this time around. Pakistan carried out one of the dastardliest terrorist attacks on the soil of Bharat when it not only killed innocent citizens of Bharat but it did so while discriminating based on religion; targeting non-Muslims only. This act of terror led to a sharp, precise and effective punitive action when Bharat targeted terror camps and headquarters from Muzaffarabad to Bahawalpur. India, post-strike, issued a Press Information Bureau (PIB) press release and categorically mentioned that it had not targeted the Pakistan Military and its assets and that the precision attacks were non-escalatory and aimed only at terrorist headquarters and camps. Post this, Pakistan, as earlier, engaged in striking civilians and residential areas through indirect fire and drones. This treacherous conduct was met with an appropriate response, including hitting areas from where fire was being received and also striking launchpads for drones and their controlling locations. It seems that wasn't enough and, emboldened by the largesse offered by the International Monetary Fund, Pakistan miscalculated the Indian response, similar to the post-Balakot failed air raid that it had conducted, and it carried out missile and drone attacks along the Line of Control (LC) and International Border (IB) and at deeper military bases of India, while the Pakistan Defence Minister called for an 'all-out war". One FATAH-1 was intercepted near Sirsa while it was perspiring to reach Delhi. Bharat made a stern warning and stated that the response hereafter would be decisive. It also mentioned that, hereon, any proxy war or terror attack carried out by Pakistan will be taken as an 'Act of War' and Bharat will have the right to act accordingly. What All Is Different This Time? For nearly seven decades, Bharat has been reactive and, when it reacted, Pakistan has raised the 'Nuclear Bogey' and sought intervention, de-escalation and basically mastered the rather childish 'Art of Weep and Wail'. However, for Bharat, there have been a few changes and accordingly, reactions and actions have been noteworthy, let us ponder over them: – A. Bharat has absorbed many terror attacks over the years and always ended up with some benevolent 'Biryani Diplomacy'; sometimes due to 'Jaichands' within and fewer times with foreign interventions. This time, as the terror attack unleashed by Pakistan was in a booming tourist season; threatening the stability and future of Jammu and Kashmir post-abrogation of Article 370, and more so when there was discrimination based on religion. This act by Pakistan didn't have many takers in the imaginary 'Islamic Caliphate' as well, and the civilised world criticised Pakistan. Therefore, the government decided to strike terror infrastruceure in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (POK) and Pakistan. The targeting of Bahawalpur, Muridke and Sialkot gains importance not only that it is in the heart of Punjab, Pakistan but also officers of the Pakistan Army, ISI were in some of those terrorist headquarters and that is why a grand state funeral was accorded to terrorists by the Pakistan Army. It is significant as some military targets which were closer to these targets were not targeted and collateral damage was avoided through precision attacks. B. Post the attack on civilians, traditionally Bharat got involved in 'Talks' in earlier decades and matters were resolved with deaths on our side and Pakistan gaining on its ideological stand; something which kept emboldening the Pakistan establishment and countries that traditionally funded Pakistan as a beacon of the 'Islamic Caliphate'. This time, Bharat reacted, hit Sialkot and other places and took down some military assets that supported these cowardly attacks on our civilians. C. Holding the Indus Water Treaty in abeyance has been a 'Decision of the Century' as it brings in strategic accruals and makes Bharat drive the narrative. Also, this matter has not been taken into consideration while deriving the so-called 'ceasefire'. D. The USA avoided giving any assurance to Pakistan and certainly, the Trump administration is in no mood to supply weapons and money to Pakistan, as the President of the US has himself called out Pakistan in the past. E. The grant of the IMF loan amidst these activities and parleys show how the Deep State and Anti-Trump Lobby controls the global purse and is ready to pay a long-standing stooge called 'Pakistan'. F. China has not openly come in support of Pakistan, and this has been due to the fact that the US-China standoff continues, and China needs Bharat for economic growth. G. Middle East countries have not come out openly to sing a lullaby for Pakistan either and, in fact, the UAE has admonished Pakistan this time. All this and more behind cameras, showcases the geopolitical might of a Bharat which is rising economically. Is the Ceasefire for Real? When in the past did a ceasefire stand the test of time and for how long? Well, for some years previously but never in the recent past and especially as Bharat has announced that it will not talk to Pakistan if it promotes terrorism as part of its statecraft and geopolitics. When the ceasefire was announced by Mr Trump from across the Atlantic, one had a feeling that the word 'mediation' was incorrect as Bharat never sought it. Mr Trump during an interview, earlier than Pahalgam, had mentioned that he had offered to mediate in the Trump 1.0 era but Shri Narendra Modi had refused and, in fact, said that he could take care of the terrorist state himself. So, the question of Team Modi seeking mediation is rather incorrect, while the Trump administration did speak to both Pakistan and Bharat. Who approached Team Trump; Pakistan or Bharat? Well, Team Trump approached Bharat and later spoke to the Prime Minister of Pakistan and then they were forced to speak to Asim Munir, who was categorically told by the Trump administration that Pakistan will not be given money or munitions or allowed to fire a nuke and that, coupled with the posturing of the aircraft carrier group of Bharat and intention made clear by Integrated Defence Staff during a press briefing, made Munir weep and agree to go for a 'stoppage of fire' in the total interest of Pakistan's survival. Well, that did not last an hour with attacks in Akhnoor by Pakistan drones. Logic: Hypothesis and Conspiracies Let us consider some situations that have unravelled thus far and see if there is a logical hypothesis or some conspiracy around: – A. A short skirmish suits Pakistan, especially when it can curate a 'notion of victory' from defeat and they have demonstrated that in 1965, 1971 and during Kargil Operations and even Operation 'PARAKRAM'. So this time too, it expected Bharat to start some ground operations and also mobilised its own forces along the border accordingly, but Bharat called its bluff. B. Pakistan has an ideological mindset that will always be against the homogeneity of Bharat and we must address and attack that ideological growth. That, as such, is a long-drawn battle and cannot be ended with hitting a few terror camps and eliminating some terrorists. Therefore, mere precision attacks can only be a signalling but never a long-lasting peace solution. C. How is it that Pakistan; a failed state, a terrorist state and a state which has initiated a terror attack and wants to draw Bharat into a skirmish, is granted a loan by the IMF? One must appreciate that Team Trump doesn't enjoy favour from the IMF and Deep State and opponents of Mr Trump control the IMF and, as such, Pakistan knows that and is emboldened to carry out these terrorist attacks; in spite of ample evidence and reports that Pakistan misuses these funds for terrorism. The American Enterprise Institute and also Transparency International have come out with adverse reports and yet the IMF turned a blind eye and an irrational Pakistan thought that it had money in the bag to carry out attacks on military targets in Bharat and launch a FATAH-1 which couldn't even reach its intended target. D. Each time and without exception, Pakistan carries out terror attacks and eventually indulges in sabre-rattling. Well, this time and like during the Balakot strike scenario, Bharat called out the bluff and, when attacks were launched on our military assets, the response to target military assets of Pakistan was overwhelming for Pakistan and that made Munir shiver and agree to a 'Trump Trance'. E. There is a pertinent conspiracy theory that from where Pakistan is gaining the strength and support to do what it is doing today. For one, Munir is under pressure to perform since his ranting earlier in April where he preached in a religious backdrop, and eventually a terrorist attack in Pahalgam was carried out. Another thought revolves around Turkey, Iran, China etc. and that is also much pedestrian to consider, except for China which has condemned the Pahalgam terrorist attack and there seems a scope for some reconciliations. Yet another thought which comes to mind is that there could be a powerful country or Deep State which doesn't want Bharat to progress at the rate it is and therefore is using Pakistan as a proxy against the interests of Bharat. Prognosis: Recommendations and Reconsiderations Bharat has been, for long, drawn into this abyss of terrorism which Pakistan has curated and harmed Bharat. We have had spates of war, acts of terrorism and border skirmishes with long periods of cross-border firing and even some spurts of beheading of our soldiers. For most of the last few decades, we have let off Pakistan without paying due price. Post a spectacular victory in 1971, we returned vast tracts of land and compromised our defensive positions while giving away back captured territories which would have today accorded a line of sight into key terrain and terror camps. One such example has been Hajipir Pass; something which should eventually be taken back. What Can Pakistan Do? A. Escalate. B. Deceive along the border and fool the world. C. Deny its actions along and across the LC and IB. D. Play to galleries within Pakistan with effective propaganda. E. Attack Indian civilians and military installations and assets. F. Indicate and amplify retaliations by Bharat as a violation of the ceasefire. G. Nuke itself eventually with a thought to nuke Bharat! It is time to reconsider the following and also showcase Bharat as a decisive and no-nonsense nation: – A. As Pakistan has held the Shimla Agreement in suspension, we must make it null and void and seek geographical gains through the return of territories by Pakistan which it holds illegally. B. The Indus Water Treaty, which is currently held in abeyance, should eventually be made null and void so that not only water security of Bharat is guaranteed but Pakistan doesn't get undue advantage of our waters. C. The 'No First Use' delineation, which currently suggests that we might not adhere to it, should be reconsidered to state 'First Use' and that would make it clear that Bharat retains the use of nuclear force as a military option and certainly tactical nuclear weapons would be a go hereon. We have to reimagine the launch of our strike corps under a nuclear umbrella and gain on this aspect of operational manoeuvre. D. We must certainly withdraw the request taken to the United Nations by Team Nehru as Pakistan has not adhered to UNSC resolutions and has not withdrawn from POK. E. Our economic growth hinges on collaborations and, besides other friends and prospects, we must find synergies, which should be enough to keep them at bay when we take Pakistan to task. We may use China to get to the UNSC now and also isolate Pakistan from some key multilaterals. So that implies reassessment of our bilaterals and multilaterals. While we are at a 'cusp of war' with Pakistan and certainly Pakistan needs it more while we don't need it, one would like to make a few recommendations, a dozen each for two scenarios; while some others are kept secret for now as they are purely 'out-of-the-box' and might entail a security threat for Bharat itself for now: Situation 1: Pakistan Violates Ceasefire A. Aggressively posture that aircraft carrier group and invest in Karachi, primarily using the Indian Navy (IN) and Indian Air Force (IAF). B. Assist Baluchistan and get international focus on the freedom struggle of Baluchistan and others in Kyber Pakhtunkhwa. Beyond moral support and garnering international attention, indirectly help with weapons, clothing, gear and more. A 'Purulia' drop can happen with ease. C. Aid Afghanistan. D. Unleash perception warfare and attempt to divert the ire of common Pakistanis towards their leadership. E. Keep the LC lit up and conduct trans-border operations to demoralise the Pakistan Army. F. Seek stoppage on IMF lending and by any other country. Seek economic sanctions. G. Ask QUAD and therein USA and Japan to keep China focused in the South China Sea and thereabouts, while Bharat dominates the Arabian Sea. H. Open the LC and execute plans to capture key terrain and dominating heights which eventually make our defensive posture stronger and the lives of civilians living below safer. I. Strike Command and Control (C2) centres, airbases and air defence assets, ammunition and fuel depots, ports, strategic assets, etc and also key chokepoints that enable strikes by Baluchis, Afghanis and others. J. Sabre sounding while retaining the opportunity and capability to strike first through a tactical mission. K. Track social media and other forms of communication and prepare a list of the Anti-India cabal within and abroad. Shortlist and take actions. L. Create a 'Perception Management Warriors" team with veterans and others, including cyber experts, to tackle ongoing perception warfare and ideological warfare unleashed by Pakistan. Situation 2: Pakistan Adheres to Ceasefire and We Wait for Another Day A. Keep the LC lit up. B. Enable political eliminations of leadership, both political and military. C. Aid Afghanistan. D. Unleash perception warfare and attempt to divert the ire of common Pakistanis towards their leadership. E. Lobby to get Pakistan under FATF and IMF sanctions. Make a clear list of partners and preachers and solidify relations with partners. F. Engage with China and keep economic dialogues open for the next 50 years while making considered choices, mostly governed by people's choices. G. Work on countries like Qatar, Turkey and others, some of whom are friends or our friends, and get them into a condition of non-interference when we interact forcefully with Pakistan. H. Build a better team for perception warfare for next time and keep this team engaged 24x7x365 to serve national interests. Coordination between media agencies is vital as a part of routine interaction and training for the future. I. Nibble territory along the LC and improve the defensive posture. J. Continuously drain military capacities of Pakistan by always keeping the LC alive, with minimum expenses. K. Focus relentlessly on the eco-geopolitical isolation of Pakistan and ensure the weakening of its military. L. Take legal action against the Anti-India cabal for their roleplay in jeopardising the security of Bharat and conniving with the enemies. M. Retain the 'Perception Management Warriors" team with veterans and others, including cyber experts, to tackle ongoing perception warfare and ideological warfare unleashed by Pakistan. In any of the scenarios, we ought to 'seize the initiative" and break into the 'Observe Orient Decide Act" OODA Loop and control the OODA Cycle while retaining the momentum and aim at all times. Standing Recommendation While much needs to do and will be done, I would personally urge every media person, Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS), military young officer hereon and current cadre, and citizens to take a soft copy and read 'The Qur'anic Concept of War' written by Brigadier SK Malik under the tutelage of then General Zia-ul-Haq. A reader will get insights as to how Pakistan is ideologically indoctrinated, how its military leaders are trained and how the Islamist ideology creates hate for humanity in the false name of Allah. This book must be taught in the National Defence Academy and other training academies of the three services. Can We Walk The Talk? Pakistan has walked the talk always and never disappointed our assessment, as it has been treacherous, harboured and trained terrorists, hit civilian targets, carried out genocide in its own territories and POK, built paid propagandists across the globe, misfed information with the 'notion of victory' in the name of Allah; always and every time, gone near bankrupt many times, been on terror lists and much more. On the other hand, Bharat for years has absorbed the terrorism emanating from Pakistan and not done much and that seems rather consistent till recently since the last decade. Bharat has walked the talk in not speaking to Pakistan so long as it is a terrorism sponsor and not allowed any interference from anyone else. However, have we really walked through the talk? Have we seized opportunities and made Pakistan pay enough? Have we addressed the epicentre of terrorism? Have we even struck the centre of gravity within ideological domains of Pakistan? top videos View all We need to be more of a powerful nation, and we must! JAI HIND! Colonel Rohit Dev, a 2nd Generation Army Officer, is an Adjunct Professor at the Rashtriya Raksha University, a geopolitical analyst and a primetime TV personality. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect News18's views. tags : India-Pakistan ties Operation Sindoor Location : New Delhi, India, India First Published: May 11, 2025, 11:32 IST News opinion OPINION | Utopian Ceasefire: It Is 'Viraam' And Not 'Poorna Viraam'
Hindustan Times
08-05-2025
- Hindustan Times
Bengaluru-built suicide drones play crucial role in Operation Sindoor strikes: Report
In a major technological breakthrough for India's defense capabilities, suicide drones manufactured in Bengaluru made their operational debut during Operation Sindoor, the Indian Army's high-precision counter-terror mission launched early Wednesday. Also Read - DK Shivakumar proposes dedicated flyover from Hebbal to Bengaluru airport, writes to Nitin Gadkari According to a report in The Times of India, the drones, known as SkyStrikers, were deployed to execute pinpoint strikes on terror infrastructure across Bahawalpur and Muridke in Pakistan, targeting key bases of Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) and Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT). These unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), often referred to as loitering munitions, are designed to hover over a battlefield, locate enemy targets, and destroy them with onboard explosive, essentially functioning as airborne kamikaze units. What makes this mission especially significant is the origin of the drones: they were reportedly built in an industrial estate in western Bengaluru. The SkyStrikers are the product of a joint venture between Alpha Design Technologies, headquartered in Bengaluru, and Israel's Elbit Systems. The Indian Army had placed an emergency procurement order in 2021 for over 100 such drones, anticipating their utility in evolving combat scenarios post-Balakot, said the report furtger. Also Read - Bengaluru airport issues advisory as flight cancellations hit amid Operation Sindhoor airspace curbs Each SkyStriker drone is equipped with either a 5kg or 10kg warhead, and has a range of up to 100 kilometers. The electric propulsion system ensures a minimal acoustic footprint, enabling silent and covert operations even at low altitudes. Their autonomous navigation and precision-guidance system allow them to strike like a missile while being harder to detect or intercept. The SkyStriker is also said to be cost-effective, next-gen weapon that improves situational awareness, survivability, and accuracy for troops, especially during special forces operations. These drones enable direct-fire aerial attacks on high-value targets without risking soldiers' lives. Elbit Systems describes the drone as behaving like a UAV but striking with the precision and surprise of a missile. 'As a silent, invisible, and surprise attacker, SkyStriker delivers the utmost in precision and reliability, offering a critical edge in modern warfare,' the company is quoted as a saying by the publication.
New Indian Express
08-05-2025
- Politics
- New Indian Express
Delivering a broad impact within a narrow escape
India's response ticked many boxes—action, optics, message. We have learnt lessons from past strikes that a lack of pictorial evidence can let narratives spiral. This time, we presented the evidence professionally. By avoiding military targets, India offered the Pakistan Army an off-ramp. It's up to Pakistan to choose how to interpret the message India's response to the Pahalgam attack was both unprecedented and calibrated. While some may have expected more in terms of scale, what unfolded was deliberate and measured. As many as nine camps were hit across Pakistan-occupied Kashmir and Pakistan itself. No military installations were targeted—only terror infrastructure. The operation was narrow in scope, but broad in impact. What stood out was the finesse. India sent a clear message. We said, 'This is our response. It's for you not to escalate from here.' The optics, too, were striking—from the operation's name to the choice of two senior women officers at the press briefing. If I recall correctly, never before had the foreign secretary been flanked by two women in uniform at such a briefing. They looked extremely professional and lent credibility and poise to the announcement. The messaging ticked every box. Compared to the strike on Balakot, the transparency this time was remarkable. Each site's selection was explained, and the rationale made public. Clearly, a lesson had been learned. Today's battlefields are more transparent—artificially, perhaps. But perception matters. If you go back in history, for example, in 1971, India didn't produce pictorial records after hitting Karachi. At the time, operational commanders wouldn't have thought it necessary to gather 'proof'—that wasn't their priority. But post-Balakot, India realised that lack of imagery or the photographic kind of palpable evidence allows narratives to spiral. This time, that gap was closed. There was enough corroboration, enough circumstantial evidence—and even an admission from Pakistan's own foreign minister about past support to terror networks. That set the stage for global credibility. The strikes going deep into 'mainland' Pakistan are significant. That they were launched from Indian soil adds yet another layer. Without crossing the border, India achieved its objectives—delivering impact and endeavouring to avoid the airspace escalation that could follow. Availability of stand-off platforms with enhanced capabilities to hit deep into Pakistan complicates Pakistan's problems of response. For example, Rafales conducting a routine patrol on our side of the border could confuse them about whether it is a drill or a real provocation. We can disrupt his OODA (observe, orient, decide, act) loop or, in simple words, make his decision cycle difficult. If they react blindly, escalation is possible—but the initiative remains with India. Both nations have long-range missiles that can carry different payloads. However, most of them are area weapons, designed for broad impact. India's strike in this case was surgical. It hit specific buildings while avoiding civilian areas. That sends a clear message: we're targeting terror infrastructure, not the country. The Pakistan Army is now in a bind. Given that it controls nearly 60 percent of the country's economy and loathes appearing weak, some response is likely. Yet, by avoiding military targets, India offered them an off-ramp. They can issue statements, visit families of the dead—and still avoid escalation. If they're smart, they'll take it. Conflict threatens their economic interests. But you can't rely on rationality. The army controls public opinion and has long fed its people a diet of hate and denial. Harsh as it seems, it's like dealing with a 'street lumpen'—he doesn't care what he's clothed in or whether he has a job, as long as he gets his fix. That's potentially dangerous. People with nothing to lose can act irrationally, or give the impression of being so. India, by contrast, is a country looking towards prosperity. Our armed forces are ready. But we hope this is seen as a message, not a provocation. It's up to Pakistan to choose how to interpret it. What's also striking is how India's machinery hasn't paused. Twenty years ago, a Pahalgam-like attack would have created a certain amount of confusion within the system. There would have been much hand-wringing, a certain sense of helplessness and lots of discordance about the kind of response. Today, even newspapers that didn't headline the response moved on to UK trade talks and space conferences. The government planned and executed a complex strike without missing a beat. Whatever one's politics, the establishment has shown certain strategic decisiveness and operational savvy—in piracy ops, border standoffs, and cross-border strikes. Beyond military action, it has handled diplomacy with purpose. The global response has thus been muted. Not due to apathy, but because of clarity. When India said it would act, the world believed it. What may have surprised them was the restraint thus far. Even China, which may want Pakistan to stay afloat, knows it can't back endless failure. The consensus is simple: India is a country worth engaging. Pakistan offers little in return.
