
India should be cautious about Pakistan's false claims: Op Sindoor
India carried out precision airstrikes on nine terrorist sites in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK). It was very close to war, but India acted with restraint and targeted only terrorist camps and military bases, and not civilians.
India can target every system at Pakistan's base, but Air Marshal AK Bharti explained that the country has maintained restraint despite its high capability. Our military operation, Operation Sindoor, targeted terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan and PoK, especially militant camps in Muzaffarabad, Kotli, and Bahawalpur. Despite these setbacks, Pakistan breached the ceasefire within hours after the May 10 agreement.
It was an attack from Pakistan!
On May 8-9, Pakistan launched a massive drone attack using around 300-400 drones, targeting 36 locations in India, including military bases and religious sites like those in Srinagar and Naliya.
India suffered serious human losses because of mindless terror. Still, the IAF's response was directed only at military installations, avoiding civilians and collateral damage. Pakistan launched a massive drone attack on Indian cities, while our fully prepared air defence forces successfully countered the drone attacks, preventing any damage to the intended targets. Pakistan launched its own military operation, targeting several key bases in India. They allowed civilian aircraft to fly out of Lahore during the drone attacks, including international passenger aircraft, which posed a significant challenge for India's response. Yes. Indian air defence shot down most of the drones, and no major damage occurred.
Japan Times' report
Well-known columnist, Brahma Chellaney wrote in his column, 'The Japan Times,' that the J-10Cs launched multiple PL-15E missiles at Indian targets, but there is no independent verification of successful hits. India's integrated air defences withstood the onslaught, gaining air superiority'.
Every Indian, and our army, felt proud 'by the conflict's end, Indian airstrikes had crippled major Pakistani air bases — including Nur Khan and Bholari — without suffering any confirmed retaliatory damage. Nur Khan, near Pakistan's nuclear command and army headquarters, was particularly symbolic. Its precise targeting by Indian cruise missiles signaled a calibrated message: Even high-value, well-defended assets are not beyond reach.'
And 'Pakistan reportedly launched 300 to 400 drones in a single night, yet satellite imagery showed little damage on Indian soil. India, by contrast, relied on precision standoff weapons — especially the supersonic BrahMos cruise missile, codeveloped with Russia, which successfully hit high-value targets in Pakistan with minimal risk to Indian military personnel.'
The Japan Times wrote that India and China remain locked in a military standoff at the Himalayas and this was triggered in 2020 by Chinese encroachments on Indian border lands. Despite diplomatic moves to ease tensions, both countries continue to mass troops and weaponry along the disputed frontier. The combat data generated from the conflict with Pakistan offers India an invaluable edge in anticipating Chinese capabilities and countermeasures.
Meanwhile, Pakistan claimed that they had shot down at least five Indian fighter jets on the first day. But there was no proof, no wreckage photos and satellite imagery to corroborate the claim. The Indian military dismissed the allegation, stating that all its pilots had returned safely.
It was a major embarrassment for Pakistan. Its Defence Minister Khawaja Asif was under fire for promoting misinformation in the wake of Operation Sindoor.
False and fake
Readers should use fact-checkers like Factly.
Fact: This video showing visuals of a crashed fighter jet being lifted by a helicopter is AI-generated. It was uploaded on May 3, before the start of 'Operation Sindoor'. Hence, the claim made in the post is FALSE'.
'Factly' explained,
'We found discrepancies in the viral video, prompting suspicion that it might have been generated using AI. To gather more information, we conducted a reverse image search of the key frames, which led us to the same video uploaded on a YouTube channel on May 3, three days before Operation Sindoor. In that video, it is described as an AI-generated scene showing a crashed fighter jet being lifted by a helicopter'.
BrahMos: Standout performer
It is called Brahmastra against our rivals 'The BrahMos missile, already exported by India, emerged as the standout performer during the conflict.
Further, the newspaper commented, ''This was not a conventional border conflict, but a high-tech showdown featuring drones, cruise and ballistic missiles, and long-range air defences. While India and Pakistan were the primary belligerents, a third power — China — played a pivotal, if indirect, role…. Beijing's involvement via the supply of advanced weapon systems and real-time satellite reconnaissance data to Pakistan turned the engagement into a revealing trial run for Chinese arms in a live combat setting.
It was reported by the media that IAF Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) General Anil Chauhan had on May 31 rejected Pakistan's claims that it had shot down six Indian warplanes during Operation Sindoor, calling the information 'absolutely incorrect'. The CDS added, 'what is important is not the jet being down, but why they were being downed'. General Chauhan clarified that the good part is that we are able to understand the tactical mistake, which was made, remedy it, rectify it, and then implement it again after two days and fly our jets again, targeting at long range'. He stated that 'the backbone of Pakistan' was badly damaged.
Congress questions:
Congress leaders like Mallikarjun Kharge and Jairam Ramesh wanted to know why the Prime Minister did call for an all-party meeting on the issue 'Why did people learn about the operation through an interview with General Chauhan in Singapore?' 'Were some Indian jets destroyed in the early stages? Why no clear info?
Some Telangana leaders accused the Centre of giving in to pressure from the US President Donald President Trump and hastily rushing into a ceasefire. Jairam Ramesh said on X that the Centre had not taken Parliament into confidence even as the nation gets to know of the first phase of Operation Sindoor. The Chief Minister of Telangana claimed that the Centre was afraid of Trump's pressure and had surrendered to the ceasefire.
Citizens should verify
India is under threat not just from terrorists and enemy countries, but also from fake news and social media rumours. Criticism is welcome in a democracy, but it must be responsible and based on facts. National security should come before politics. Let's support our armed forces, verify information, and stay united. Pakistan can never be trusted.
(The writer is Professor of the Constitution of India and founder-Dean, School of Law, Mahindra University, Hyderabad)
Hashtags

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


The Hindu
41 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Secularism — implicit from day one, explicit in 1976
'God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. Yet his shadow still looms…', said Friedrich Nietzsche. As many as 66 Constitutions make some reference to God in their Preamble. True, Nehru led from the front in India's adoption of secularism. He explicitly said in his autobiography of how what he called 'organized religion' filled him 'with horror... almost always it seemed to stand for a blind belief and reaction, dogma and bigotry, superstition and exploitation'. Nehru's strong views on religion did play a significant role in India's choice of secular polity. Unlike today's politicians, he did not need religion to succeed in politics. Though the Supreme Court has said more than once that the term secular in India does not connote either strict separation between religion and state like in France or the non-establishment of religion like in the United States, the debate on the artificial imposition of secularism during the Emergency and the urgent need for its deletion continues though Indian secularism is rooted in Emperor Ashoka's Dhamma and is consistent with noble ideals of India's freedom struggle. Article 51A(b) makes it a fundamental duty of every citizen 'to cherish and uphold noble ideals which inspired our national struggle for freedom'. Secularism was one such ideal. Secularism spells autonomy The advocates of Hindutva think that minorities have got some special privileges through secularism and that the time has come to bring an end to neutrality of the state in religious matters. Unfortunately, supporters of a theocratic state do not understand that secularism is basically good for religions as it protects religions from state domination and interference. Religions remain independent and autonomous under secularism. If a religion becomes state religion, the state takes over the control of such religion. Our secularism ensures autonomy of the Hindu religion and the proponents of Hindutva must understand this. Has not Islam been destroyed through various so-called Islamic states? Mahmud Ghazni and Illtutmish defied the caliph and assumed the title of king . Zawabit or state-made laws prevailed over Shariah during medieval India. Did not Henry VIII defy Papal authority just to marry Anne Boleyn and create the Anglican Church with the King as its head. In the consecration of the Ram temple in January 2024, the state's decision prevailed over the theological view of the Shankaracharyas. The state, not religion, decided what is auspicious. Is the salvation of souls really the mandate of a modern state? British Political theorist John Locke in his famous 'A Letter Concerning Toleration' (1689) forcefully said no because the state was brought into existence only for 'procuring, preserving, and advancing' citizens' civil interests. Care of souls, he argued, was not given to the state because the state consists of only outward force while religion consists of the inward persuasion of mind. Roger Williams, the founder of Rhode Island, favoured separation of the church from the state to protect the garden of the church from the 'wilderness of secular order'. Secularism could triumph in the 18th century because reason triumphed over religions. While secularism is nothing but an idea of modernity, a non-secular theocratic state is the relic of the past. Even if we are fed up with modernity, the moot question is this: should we become a Saudi Arabia, an Iran or a Pakistan? An overwhelming majority of Hindus do not want to emulate these regressive countries. The importance of the Ashokan edicts Should we reject secularism because this term was not used in the original Constitution? To say that India's Constitution became secular in 1976 is a blatant lie. Like several other things borrowed from Ashoka the Great who ruled from 268-232 BC, the seeds of Indian secularism too can be traced back to Ashokan edicts. Rajeev Bhargava has written extensively on the significance of these edicts. Rejecting the idea of one particular religion as a state religion, Rock Edict 7 said that all religions should reside everywhere, for all of them desire self-control and purity of heart. One of the biggest problems of today's India is hate speech. Rock Edict 12 prohibited glorification of one's religion and condemnation of others' religions. Ashoka's dhamma was not religion but the principles of governance, i.e., constitutional morality and ethics that a king must follow. He favoured the acceptance and co-existence of different religions and went beyond mere toleration. The Motilal Nehru Committee's constitution (1928) which was the first attempt to draft the Constitution clearly stated in Clause 4(11) that 'there shall be no state religion for the Commonwealth of India or for any province in the Commonwealth, nor shall the state either directly or indirectly endow any religion or give any preference or impose any disability on account of religious belief or religious status'. The Karachi Resolution of the Congress in 1931 which presented the blueprint of a future Swaraj in Resolution no 2(9), specifically declared that the 'state shall maintain neutrality in regard to all religions'. Even the Hindu Mahasabha's draft constitution of 1944 with V.D. Savarkar's blessings too declared in explicit terms in Article 7(15) that 'there shall be no state religion or either centre or provinces.'. Why do we refuse to follow even Savarkar? On October 17, 1949 when the Preamble of the Constitution was under discussion in the Constituent Assembly, H.V. Kamath proposed that the Preamble should begin with the words 'in the name of God'. We should thank god that in an overwhelmingly religious country, god lost by 17 votes in a tally of 68 to 41. Similarly, the word 'secular' was not specifically included; yet, members, in one voice, spoke of it being a fait accompli of a liberal democratic constitution and consistent with the ideals of our freedom struggle. No member of the Constituent Assembly ever proposed a Hindu Rashtra including Syama Prasad Mookerjee. Three years prior to the insertion of the word secular, the Supreme Court had held secularism to be the basic structure in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973). Silences of the Constitution are equally important. For instance, the words federal, judicial review, rule of law too have not been used in the Constitution. But these ideas have rightly been held as part of the basic structure. On the jurisdiction model If we are really fed up with the separation model of secularism, we should consider the jurisdiction model. We have several options from modern democracies. Certainly, we may declare in the Constitution that Hinduism (not Hindutva) is the dominant spiritual heritage of India — just like in England where the Anglican Church is the official Church of England and the king is the defender of faith but recognises equal rights to all citizens ensuring freedom of religion and prohibiting all discriminations on the basis of religion. The Irish Constitution is another model. Its Preamble begins with the name of the Most Holy Trinity, but the state cannot endow any religion or discriminate on religious grounds. Article 3 of the Greek Constitution declares the Greek Orthodox Church as the dominant religion. The opening words of the Preamble are – 'In the name of Holy, Consubstantial and Undivided Trinity'. But Article 4 talks of the right to equality. Article 5(2) guarantees the right to life, liberty and honour without any discrimination based on religion and gives freedom of religion to all faiths. Muslims of Western Thrace in fact have the right to elect their own Mufti (religious and judicial officer) and their disputes are resolved in accordance with Islamic law. They have an option of either using civil courts or sharia courts. Article 2 of Pakistan's Constitution declares Islam as the state religion. Only a Muslim can occupy high constitutional office. But even the Preamble itself explicitly lays down that the 'adequate provision shall be made for the minorities freely to profess, practice freedom of religion and develop their culture'. Moreover Article 36 again says that the state shall safeguard the legitimate rights and the interests of minorities including their due representation in the federal and provincial services. Accordingly, the Constitution makes a provision of reservation for them. Though Article 9 of the Sri Lankan Constitution falls short of declaring Buddhism as state religion, it does give 'Buddhism' the 'foremost place' and places an obligation on the state to protect and foster Buddha Sasna. Of course, it not only guarantees freedom of religion but (unlike India) in Article 10, explicitly gives 'freedom to have or adopt a religion or belief of his choice'. Minorities are governed by their personal laws and sharia courts function within the premises of regular courts and High Courts. Our secularism based on Ashoka's Dhamma was designed to allow people to live together in civility and promote equal respect for all religions. The state must remain religion neutral. India's opposition to Pakistan was based on the separation of religion and state. The framers of the Constitution too intended a secular state, and not a theocratic state. Even the Bharatiya Janata Party has been insisting on its opposition to the Congress's negative secularism and used to promise positive secularism. If what was implicit from day one was merely made explicit in 1976, 'Humgama Hai Ku barpa (what is the fuss about')? Faizan Mustafa is a Constitutional Law expert and presently serving as the Vice-Chancellor of Chanakya National Law University, Patna, Bihar. The views expressed are personal


Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Three senior members killed in Indian strikes: Ulfa; Army denies Op
New Delhi | Guwahati: Precision strikes were carried out on United Liberation Front of Asom (Independent) camps in Myanmar , targeting the terrorist outfit's senior leadership sheltering across the border to stay out of the reach of Indian armed forces. Sources said pinpointed attacks were carried out and loitering munitions and drones were used to take down high-value targets. They added the attacks were carried out from a standoff distance. In a statement, Ulfa(I) claimed that three of its senior leadership were killed and 19 others injured after the Indian Army launched an operation across the border. However, the Army said that it hasn't carried out any such operation. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Villas For Sale in Dubai Might Surprise You Villas in Dubai | Search Ads Get Info Undo Operations on the India-Myanmar border have taken place in the past, with forces at times operating under secrecy. While the Army is deployed extensively in the northeast, anti-terror operations are also carried out by Assam Rifles that is tasked with the Myanmar border as well. In a statement, Ulfa(I) claimed that three of its senior leadership were killed and 19 others injured after the Indian Army launched an operation across the border. However, the Army said that it hasn't carried out any such operation. Live Events The precision attacks took place early Sunday, with locations across the border in Arunachal Pradesh and Nagaland targeted with loitering munitions. These precision weapons can be launched from a range of over 100 km, with several Indian manufacturers supplying them to the forces in the past few years. Similar loitering drones were also used during Operation Sindoor. Ulfa(I), the anti-talk faction, said the attack led to the death of self-styled Lt Gen Nayan Asom. The outfit is led by Paresh Barua, who has remained elusive for years, while Asom was believed to be the second in hierarchy and was tasked with training cadres. He was known as a Barua confidant. In a statement, Ulfa (I) said, "Indian Army had launched drone attacks between Longwa on Indo-Myanmar border near Nagaland and Pangsau Pass along the international border near Arunachal Pradesh... Attack took place between 2 am and 4 am on Sunday." The outfit claimed that there was another attack later in the day on Sunday. It also said that mobile camps of the banned outfit have been severely affected as Indian forces dropped about 150 bombs in the area. In a second statement, the Ulfa (I) said another attack was launched as they were cremating Asom's body, leading to death of two other senior cadres, identified as Ganesh Asom and Pradip Asom. Assam chief minister Himanta Biswa Sarma on Sunday asserted that the state police was not involved in the drone attack carried out at Ulfa(I) camps.


The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Smoke and sulphur: on sulphur dioxide emissions, public health
The axe has dropped. The Environment Ministry has exempted the majority of India's coal-fired plants from mandatorily installing Flue Gas Desulphurisation (FGD) systems, which are designed to cut sulphur dioxide (SO 2 ) emissions. In effect, this undermines its own mandate from 2015 that required all such plants — there are about 180 of them now, comprising 600 units — to install these systems. While these were expected to be in place by 2017, only about 8% of the units have actually installed FGD — nearly all by the public-sector National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC). SO 2 is among the gases monitored by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) as exposure beyond a degree can be harmful. Less appreciated is its propensity to form sulphates in the air and contributing to particulate matter pollution. In general, India's average ground-level SO 2 measurements have been below the permissible levels — one among several reasons that there has not been a sense of urgency in implementing FGD norms. The official reasons are the limited number of vendors in India, high installation costs, the potential rise in electricity bills, and disruptions due to the COVID-19 pandemic. While the latest deadlines flew by in 2024, the Environment's Ministry's decision — it follows consultations with scientific institutions and new commissioned studies — is a sharp disavowal of the current policy. An expert appraisal committee says that Indian coal is low in sulphur; SO 2 levels in cities near plants with operational FGD units do not differ significantly from those without these units, and all of these were anyway well below permissible levels. The committee had said that concerns about sulphates are unfounded. It also argued, echoed by the Minister for Power, that sulphates had a beneficial side-effect in suppressing warming from greenhouse gas emissions. Thus, reducing sulphates would actually worsen warming and compromise India's climate goals. While IPCC assessments do account for the heat-suppressing action of sulphates, nowhere is it projected as an unalloyed good. A minority of plants, about a fifth — those within a 10 km radius of the NCR; in cities with a population of over a million, or known to be in pollution hotspots — must install FGDs by 2028. This seems to suggest that what determines their installation is the location of a coal plant and not whether FGDs are effective or SO 2 is harmful. This is a rare instance when there are different environmental standards within India on controlling exposure to a pollutant. While it is not unscientific to revise understanding of the harms or benefits of substances, this needs debate in the public domain before a policy is changed. Otherwise it amounts to undermining India's commitment to scientifically informed public health.