Baseless doubts on Op Sindoor reveal bankruptcy of Indian politics

While some may term it as politicisation of the armed forces, the fact remains that the Indian Air Chief, Air Chief Marshal AP Singh, spoke from his heart on Operation Sindoor while delivering the Air Chief Marshal LM Katre Memorial Lecture in Bengaluru recently. A few days before the air chief’s address, the army chief, General Upendra Dwivedi, gave his version of the operation while inaugurating ‘Agnishodh’, the Indian Army Research Cell at IIT Madras.

Both spoke on near-similar subjects: political will, clear directions, no restrictions and major damage to Pakistan’s infrastructure and assets. Their tone and tenor also conveyed that the armed forces were tired of being criticised by our own polity, which sought to play down their success, questioned conditions under which the ceasefire was imposed and sought answers to assets lost.

More from Opinion

Sergio Gor’s senate hearing signals the future of Indo-American ties How Trump’s ‘War on Drugs’ buildup against Venezuela has a hidden agenda

The frustration was evident when the air chief mentioned Balakot: ‘We had intelligence of what had gone on inside, a very clear picture that there had been huge damage, that so many terrorists had been neutralised. But we could not convince our own people.’ He implied that the Indian polity was the first to doubt their success in Balakot, which did impact the morale of those involved in the operations. He added that this time there was ample evidence.

On Sindoor, setting aside doubts on the downing of Pakistan aircraft, a question never raised in parliament, the air chief highlighted that India’s air defence systems destroyed five Pakistani fighter jets and an AWAC/ELINT (airborne surveillance and early warning) aircraft. He added that some parked F-16s, under maintenance, were destroyed in Jacobabad, and an AWAC was destroyed at the Bholari airfield. To date almost none from the polity have acknowledged this announcement.

Impact Shorts

More Shorts

How army remains Pakistan’s biggest business house

60 years on, why 1965 India–Pakistan war still matters

He backed his inputs by mentioning, ‘One thing that was good this time was not only did we have satellite pictures, we also had a lot of inputs from the local media, which was giving us inside pictures.’ The air chief was quietening those who questioned the military’s success, intending to target the current government. It was also to set the record straight and lift the morale of the air force, whose personnel were tired of being criticised.

Both the army and air chiefs defended their freedom to act, once again hitting back at politicians who claimed in parliament that the forces acted with their ‘hands tied behind their backs’. The army chief mentioned that a day after Pahalgam the defence minister conveyed to them, ‘You decide what is to be done,’ adding, ‘That is what raised our morale.’

The air chief mentioned, ‘We had full freedom to plan and execute.’ He also added, ‘If there were any constraints, they were self-made… We decided how much to escalate.’ The service chiefs had evaluated different levels of escalation and how they would respond. They were unanimous in their decision that prolonging the conflict would not provide any advantage.

On this, the air chief simply stated, ‘We cannot afford to be continuously at war. We were in a mode of deterrence. The decision was taken at the higher level not to continue the war, and we were part of it.’ It was evident that the decision was a politico-military decision and logical, as India had given the requisite message to Pakistan.

If even now the doubting Thomases in India cannot comprehend, then the standard of our polity is fairly poor. For India, prolonging the war is exactly what China would have desired. The fact that it compelled a ‘nuclear power’ to seek a truce in 88 hours is in itself remarkable.

The air chief singled out the capabilities of the Russian S400 missile systems and our own indigenous air defence networks. He mentioned that one large aircraft was destroyed at a range of 300 km, adding, ‘This is actually the largest ever recorded surface-to-air kill that we can talk about.’ India is bound to procure more such systems from Russia, a subject discussed when the Indian National Security Advisor (NSA) visited Russia recently.

The air chief also mentioned that no Pakistani aircraft came close to the Indian air defence network. Simultaneously, keeping ongoing diplomatic outreach in mind, there was no criticism of the performance of Chinese equipment, nor any mention of US F-16s.

The address of the air chief also blasted apart Pakistan’s narrative of Indian losses alone. Pakistan was recently spinning a new narrative that their air chief, Zaheer Sidhu, who has only been photographed sitting in the rear seat of a Pakistani aircraft, had been sleeping on a mattress for days in anticipation of an Indian assault. Since the Indian announcement, there has been only a comment from the Pakistani defence minister claiming none of their aircraft were downed. It is now Pakistan which is struggling to hide its losses.

General Dwivedi, on his part, tore apart the Pakistan army chief, failed Field Marshal Asim Munir’s claim of victory based on a fake narrative. He mentioned, “If you ask a Pakistani whether you won or lost, he’d say, ‘My chief has become a field marshal; we must have won.’” It was a punch which had to be replied to.

Asim Munir retaliated by playing up his nuclear threat from the US. He threatened to launch missiles on any Indian dam constructed on rivers under the Indus Water Treaty (IWT), as well as on a nuclear reactor, in case Pakistan is threatened. He mentioned, ‘We are a nuclear nation. If we think we are going down, we’ll take half the world down with us.’ Is the threat from Munir, or was he speaking on someone else’s behalf?

Most likely this comment, made on US soil, was aimed at galvanising Trump into announcing he will negotiate the Kashmir dispute and possibly even the IWT based on threats of tariffs and trade, hoping to be again nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. What both fail to realise is the strong Indian stance of bilateral talks only. Rejecting Trump’s offer will push Indo-US ties further down while enhancing Pakistan-US ties. It is hoped that our polity does not play up this statement for political gains.

Both the air chief and his army counterpart specifically addressed the questions being raised by the polity. If even now, the Indian armed forces are not praised for Operation Sindoor and the reason for accepting the ceasefire is not understood, then it will only display the poor understanding of our polity.

The author is a former Indian Army officer, strategic analyst and columnist. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views.