Operation Sindoor an emphatic message showing both our political will and military capability: Gen VP Malik
Regarding its nuclear threats, he added that Pakistan now understands any misadventure could lead to its complete destruction. Excerpts from the conversation:
The Indian armed forces successfully executed Operation Sindoor. How do you view it?
See, it had become necessary to take action against Pakistan because they have been continuing the proxy war for a long time and they crossed a red line in Pahalgam.
I call it a red line — after that, we had to take action. So, we took very strong action, and this time the approach was a whole-of-nation effort. It wasn't just the armed forces; we began with political and diplomatic steps. We initiated action on the Indus Water Treaty, which is both an economic and political tool. Then we launched Operation Sindoor, a kinetic action.
We had already taken earlier steps like the surgical strikes in 2016 and Operation Balakot, yet they continued. This time, a much stronger response was necessary to send a clear message. I see Operation Sindoor as very successful — a firm and emphatic message demonstrating both our political will and our military confidence and capability.
When you were the Army chief, the Kargil War took place. What is the difference now and then?
There was a significant difference at that time—not just politically, but militarily as well. They had come under the garb of jihadis. Initially, they claimed to be jihadis, and it took us some time to realise that they were actually Pakistani army personnel. So, we were reacting to a situation that had already landed in our lap.
The conflict took place in high-altitude mountainous terrain, making the operation extremely difficult. We had to operate with shortages of weapons and absolutely no intelligence. The conditions were entirely different in terms of terrain and the equipment we had. What truly stood out in the Kargil War was the courage—shaurya, veerta—the sheer bravery of our Army.
Another key point is that during Kargil, we were still cautious. Although we were capable of going across the Line of Control, we were restrained. The Cabinet at that time had imposed a clear condition: do not cross the Line of Control. It was a defensive restriction, not a proactive stance.
But this time, politically, the armed forces were given full freedom—and that freedom has been effectively utilised. We must also not forget that today we are much better off as far as our technology is concerned. The capability we have built over the last 25 years is important.
What is the difference at the western front then and now?
That time we kept it as a limited war and this time also it is a limited war. That time the limited war meant we remained in J&K and we were fighting over a front of 160 kilometres. It was a defensive war, the objective and mandate given to us was throw them out but without crossing the Line of Control. But the mandate given this time was to go and hit all the terrorist camps and their headquarters.
The way innocent tourists were selectively massacred in Pahalgam, it appears that it was a complete intelligence failure. What are your comments?
This matter needs to be investigated. I am sure some inquires must be going on and it has not been made public. To some extent you can consider it a lack of intelligence. I do not want to point figures at anybody until the inquiry report is out.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
24 minutes ago
- Mint
Demographic changes in Assam, Bengal 'ticking time bomb', need to find solutions: TN Guv RN Ravi
Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi has expressed concern over 'demographic changes' in some parts of the country, including Assam and West Bengal. He said the demographic changes were a 'ticking time bomb', as he urged stakeholders to find solutions to the changes in parts of the country. Addressing students and faculty at Rashtriya Raksha University (RRU) in Gandhinagar, RN Ravi remarked that harbouring bitterness over language is not in India's character or culture. "This country always managed to fight external aggression. But when it comes to internal matters, what happened in the past? In 1947, India was Partitioned because of internal implosion. People following an ideology announced they don't want to live with the rest of us. This ideology broke our nation," emphasised Ravi. "Is anyone concerned about the changes in demography which took place in Assam, West Bengal and Purvanchal (parts of UP and Bihar) during the last 30-40 years? Can anyone predict today that in the coming 50 years, work for partitioning the nation will not happen in these areas?" he asked. "We should conduct a study on the sensitive demography growing in some regions and what will be its future. This issue is like a ticking time bomb. We have to think about how we will deal with this issue in the future and start finding solutions from today itself," he said. Speaking of the language rows in Maharashtra and Karnataka, RN Ravi said, 'After independence, we started fighting with each other. One of the reasons was language. They [those advocating states based on linguistic identity] called it linguistic nationalism.' He said the Central government has consistently emphasised that all languages deserve same respect. "Union Home Minister Amit Shah has said on numerous occasions that all Indian languages are our national languages and we respect each one of them. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has also said that at least primary education should be imparted in local languages in each state," said Ravi.
Deccan Herald
26 minutes ago
- Deccan Herald
PM Modi can't say 'Trump is lying' over ceasefire as US President will lay bare truth: Rahul Gandhi
Gandhi said Trump is making the remarks to put pressure on the Indian government for the trade deal.
The Print
26 minutes ago
- The Print
China is enjoying the strain in India-US ties and Trump cosying up to Pakistan
For years, India and the US appeared united in their efforts to counterbalance China. Today, that unity seems more transactional than strategic, according to Chinese analysts . They point to Donald Trump's renewed interest in mediating India-Pakistan tensions, high-level US engagements with Pakistan's military leadership, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio's outreach to Islamabad as signs of a shift . As one Chinese commentator put it, 'Trump's erratic policies have not hurt China; they have hurt India.' Chinese media are rife with headlines such as 'US pursues 'mineral diplomacy' with Pakistan while sidelining India' and 'By backing Pakistan, the US has effectively joined China in cornering India.' Once hailed as a counterbalance to Chinese influence in Asia, the India-US partnership is now showing signs of strain. As the Trump administration renews and deepens its ties with Pakistan, Beijing is pushing the narrative that Washington is gradually sidelining New Delhi. India sidelined, Pakistan revived Chinese commentators underscore Washington's abrupt pivot. Barely a month after imposing tariffs on Pakistan, the US was discussing an $8 trillion mineral venture in Balochistan. For Beijing, this is a clear signal of Pakistan's strategic value being restored, while India's diplomatic space continues to shrink. According to Chinese discourse, India misread US signals and launched a military operation against Pakistan, a move that allegedly backfired. With Pakistan's defence bolstered by Chinese arms, India suffered substantial losses. Meanwhile, delivery of US weapons to India is delayed. From Beijing's vantage point, the US treated India not as an equal partner, but as a regional actor to be mediated. The result, Chinese commentators argue, was military embarrassment, diplomatic isolation, and a weakened regional posture. One Weibo post declared: 'Modi's lies are exposed, and Trump's comments are a slap in the face as he openly sides with Pakistan.' Another user wrote: 'The United States is trying to balance both sides to protect its regional interests.' For Beijing, this underscores a core message that Washington prioritises its own interests over siding firmly with India. The result is a strategic dilemma, where Indian expectations diverge from US strategic calculations. India's diplomatic challenges in Beijing's narrative Chinese analysts consistently characterise India's diplomacy as brittle and ineffective. Despite New Delhi's longstanding labelling of Pakistan as a terrorist state, they argue India has failed to secure unequivocal backing from Washington. Instead, US engagement with and praise for Pakistan have further complicated India's regional standing and credibility. 'The deterioration in US–India relations is two-sided and visible,' read a widely circulated Weibo post. Guancha editor Yang Rong noted that while the Biden administration once promoted India as a regional alternative to China, Trump-era policy has become more cautious, unwilling to fully integrate security and trade interests. Analyst Liu Chenghui warns that any US–China détente would also leave India further exposed. Beijing's narrative casts India as squeezed between assertive Chinese pressure and American ambivalence. Pakistan, by contrast, is depicted as deftly maintaining good relations with both powers. The US tilt towards Pakistan, in this context, signals that India's much-vaunted strategic autonomy is reactive and vulnerable in an evolving world order. Shen Yi, assistant dean at Fudan University's School of International Relations and Public Affairs, argues that the US is not a genuine strategic partner for India. Instead, it is a power willing to undermine New Delhi's standing to maintain regional fluidity, fuelling instability and hastening the collapse of the so-called 'second island chain' strategy. In this telling, India's strategic posture is increasingly precarious. Surrounded by adversarial neighbours and lacking dependable partners, Chinese commentators suggest India must focus on stabilising ties at home and with key regional players, particularly Pakistan and China, before it can project broader influence. China is a clear winner The US offers of mediation, including military and economic aid to Pakistan, sparked outrage in India, where Kashmir remains deeply sensitive. Chinese commentators argue that Washington continues to underestimate South Asian nationalist sentiments. India's rejection of these overtures, in their view, reflects not just diminished trust but growing strategic insecurity. 'The more India caters to Washington, the more it 'cuts its own flesh',' said Liu Zongyi, senior research fellow at the Shanghai Institutes for International Studies, a government think tank. Once touted as a cornerstone of Indo-Pacific strategy, the India-US relationship now appears weakened following Washington's engagement with Pakistan and its perceived failure to support India in times of need. From Beijing's perspective, this indifference by Washington is driving India closer to China. In Chinese discourse, the US is framed as a power driven by expediency, quick to pivot, slow to commit, and increasingly withdrawing support for India. India, in turn, is portrayed as playing both sides, indecisive, and lacking strategic coherence, a 'fence-sitter' unable to secure the confidence of either Washington or Beijing. It further declares India as overestimating its strategic value to Washington while underestimating the risks of aligning too closely with the US and drifting away from China. In contrast, China's self-image is one of strategic constancy, a steady hand in a volatile region, comfortable with long-term positioning. It presents itself as the only consistent beneficiary of the evolving regional realignment. With Pakistan firmly within its orbit and the US rekindling ties with Islamabad, the regional dynamics is, in Beijing's telling, tilting decisively in China's favour while India scrambles to recalibrate. Sana Hashmi is a fellow at the Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation. She tweets @sanahashmi1. Views are personal. (Edited by Prashant)
