Introduction: A Victory or a Veneer?
Operation Sindoor, launched by the Indian Army to avenge the terrorist attack on innocent tourists by enquiring their religion in the Basarain valley of Pahalgam, Jammu & Kashmir, after nearly two weeks of the horrific terrorist attack on April 22, 2025, was touted by the NDA government as a bold strategic retaliation. But behind this official narrative lies a web of unanswered questions, defensive posture, and political maneuvering. But behind the celebrations lies a series of unanswered questions, delayed responses, political maneuvering, and disturbing patterns of silence. More than a military response, Operation Sindoor increasingly appears to be a controlled political theatre, deflecting attention from deeper failures in governance, intelligence, and diplomacy.
The Historical Backdrop: The Fragile Foundations of Jammu & Kashmir
The story of Jammu & Kashmir (J&K) is one of incomplete integration and consistent conflict.
In 1947, Maharaja Hari Singh acceded to India under pressure from Pakistani tribal invasion, triggering the first Indo-Pak war, ending in a UN-brokered ceasefire that created the Line of Control (LoC).
Article 370 was introduced as a temporary provision to reflect Kashmir’s unique circumstances but was exploited by both separatists and politicians to create a parallel narrative of identity politics and partial autonomy.
The Rise of Terrorism and Political Abdication
From the late 1980s, aided by Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), terrorism flourished in the Valley. The exodus of Kashmiri Pandits in 1990, bombings, and insurgency saw the region spiral into a proxy war zone.
Successive governments—both Congress and BJP-led coalitions—failed to contain terrorism or invest in lasting peace:
Peace talks were initiated and abandoned.
Elections were rigged or boycotted.
Militancy was treated with tactical force, not political foresight.
Abrogation of Article 370: Constitutional Integration or Political Consolidation?
In August 2019, the Narendra Modi government abrogated Article 370 and bifurcated the state into two Union Territories—Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh. The move was pitched as a decisive blow to separatism, a long-overdue correction to constitutional ambiguity.
However, the realities are complex:
Political leaders were detained, communications suspended, and civil liberties curtailed.
Kashmiris were disempowered politically and monitored militarily, further alienating the population.
Pakistan retaliated through increased cross-border firing, international lobbying, and renewed terror infiltrations.
Despite the government’s claim that “J&K is now fully integrated,” the Pahalgam attack of 2025 shattered that illusion.
Operation Sindoor: The Tactical Win and Its Constraints
A. Political Constraints and IAF Losses
Chief of Defence Staff General Anil Chauhan , speaking in Singapore, confirmed that India did suffer aircraft losses during the initial strikes of Operation Sindoor—though he downplayed the numbers and emphasized tactical learning:
“What is important is why they were downed…and what we did after.”
In Jakarta, Defence Attaché Captain Shiv Kumar went further, stating that those losses occurred “only because of the constraint given by the political leadership not to attack Pakistan’s military infrastructure or air defences.”
He explained that after that setback, India “adjusted tactics,” suppressed Pakistani air defences, and employed BrahMos missiles to strike effectively before the ceasefire. These admissions contradicted earlier state assertions of full operational freedom and fired up the opposition.
Parliamentary Debate: Opposing Voices Cite These Revelations
During the Lok Sabha debate, Rahul Gandhi forcefully cited both Chauhan and Shiv Kumar, accusing the government of tying India’s hands in the air conflict:
“If we lost jets, it was because we refused to strike military installations under political orders. That shows lack of political will.”
Gaurav Gogoi, Deputy Leader of the Lok Sabha, echoed concerns, quoting Lt. Gen Rahul R. Singh who described the Pahalgam episode as part of a two-front threat involving Pakistan and China. Gogoi demanded accountability from political leadership over constrained air operations.
Mallikarjun Kharge also referenced Chauhan’s remarks, demanding a special parliamentary session:
“The fog of war is lifting—why has the government misled the nation?”
Together, these statements formed the backbone of opposition criticism—that India’s policy limitations, not military incompetence, caused early losses in doing what was otherwise hailed as a precision strike.
Unanswered Questions Raised in Parliament
Below is the complete list of critical questions, raised by opposition figures such as Rahul Gandhi, Gaurav Gogoi, Priyanka Gandhi, Kharge, Mahua Moitra, and Kanimozi of DMK,left and other opposition political parties unanswered:
1. Why was Operation Sindoor launched two weeks after the Pahalgam attack, allowing terrorists to regroup?
2. How did terrorists reach Pahalgam despite heavy militarization?
3. Was there a failure in HUMINT or SIGINT intelligence?
4. Why was Pakistan informed in advance about the strikes?
5. What were the specific terms of the ceasefire on May 10?
6. Was the ceasefire mediated by the U.S., especially Donald Trump, as he repeatedly claims?
7. Why did PM Modi not deny Trump’s assertion that five aircraft were “put down”?
8. Why was no protest lodged when Trump hosted Pakistan Army Chief General Asim Munir?
9. Why did the PM prioritize the election rally in Bihar over the All-Party Meeting on national security?
10. Why did no major world power condemn the Pahalgam terror attack, and how did IMF/ADB still sanction loans to Pakistan?
11. What was China’s role and surveillance activity at the LoC during this period?
12. Why did Turkey and Azerbaijan openly support Pakistan without strong Indian counteraction?
13. If foreign policy was effective, why was India diplomatically isolated?
14. Why was no action taken against the BJP minister who labeled Col. Sofia “sister of terrorists”?
15. Why were widows and victims’ families vilified for advocating unity and accountability?
16. Why did the encounter killing of perpetrators happen just before Parliament met, as Akhilesh Yadav alleged?
17. Why is the government withholding a clear factual timeline from the public?
These questions gained added weight as leaders invoked Chauhan’s and Shiv Kumar’s candid admissions—but were met with no satisfying governmental response.
Trump Factor & Strategic Erosion
Rahul Gandhi further challenged PM Modi:
“If Trump did not broker peace, stand up and say so. If he did impose a ceasefire, why are we pretending otherwise?”
Despite Trump’s repeated claims of having brokered the truce, India maintained silence—thus letting an external narrative shape its diplomatic story.
Conclusion: The Price of Political Constraints
Operation Sindoor’s military execution may have achieved limited objectives—but its strategic credibility is marred by self-imposed constraints, delayed execution, and political opacity.
Leaders like Chauhan and Shiv Kumar reveal that political caution limited military freedom and led to tangible losses.
Opposition speeches in Parliament used these revelations to demand clarity—but were systematically deflected.
With no truth delivered to the public or Parliament, trust in decision-making and national leadership continues to erode.
As Rahul Gandhi posed in the Lok Sabha:
“Let the Prime Minister dare to name Trump and deny foreign intervention. If he can’t, the nation needs answers.”
Until these fundamental questions are faced rather than deflected, no value—even military success—can mask the greater failure of transparency and accountability.
References
[1] Scroll.in, “India lost jets in Operation Sindoor due to political constraint: Defence Attaché,” July 2025.
[2] Indian Express, “IAF lost aircraft due to constraint from political leadership: Defence Attaché,” July 2025.
[3] Economic Times, “Operation Sindoor debate: How did terrorists enter wearing soldier uniforms, asks Gaurav Gogoi,” July 2025.
[4] Economic Times, “Rahul Gandhi blames government for jet losses; points to new China-Pakistan axis,” July 2025.
[5] Moneycontrol, “Parliament Monsoon Session: Operation Sindoor debate in Rajya Sabha,” July 2025.
[6] The Independent, “India’s fighter jet losses and China-Pakistan axis: What Rahul Gandhi said in Parliament,” July 2025.
[7] Times of India, “In Lok Sabha, Rajnath and Jaishankar reject Trump mediation claim,” July 2025.
No comments:
Post a Comment