Latest news with #post-Balakot
Hindustan Times
4 days ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Pak Army chief Asim Munir joins last rites of major tied to Abhinandan's capture
Pakistan Army chief General Asim Munir attended the funeral of Major Syed Moiz Abbas Shah, the officer who had earlier claimed responsibility for capturing Indian Air Force pilot Abhinandan Varthaman following the 2019 aerial dogfight that occurred after India's Balakot air strike in response to the Pulwama terror attack. Pakistan Army chief General Asim Munir(AP) The 37-year-old officer was killed during a clash with Taliban militants in the Sararogha area of South Waziristan, located near the Afghan border, on Tuesday. His funeral was held in his hometown at Chaklala Garrison in Rawalpindi. The Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) confirmed Munir's presence at the ceremony. 'Major Syed Moiz Abbas fought bravely in the face of resistance and ultimately laid down his life in the line of duty, upholding the highest traditions of bravery, sacrifice, and patriotism,' the ISPR statement quoted the army chief as saying. The major was buried with full military honours, the statement added. Major Shah commissioned into Pakistani Army in 2011 Commissioned into the Pakistan Army in 2011, Major Syed Moiz Abbas Shah later joined the elite Special Services Group (SSG) and was deployed in the volatile Waziristan region at the time of his death. Following his killing, local media reports identified him as the same officer who had captured Indian Air Force pilot Abhinandan Varthaman in 2019 and shielded him from a mob after his aircraft went down during a post-Balakot air clash. A resurfaced video from his earlier interview with Geo TV, where he appeared as a captain, shows Moiz recounting how he captured Abhinandan. The clip has been widely shared on social media since his death. The Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), also known as the Pakistan Taliban, emerged in 2007 as a coalition of various militant factions. Its stated goal is to enforce a rigid version of Islam across the country. The TTP, which Pakistan considers to be closely aligned with al-Qaeda, has been linked to numerous deadly attacks, including the 2008 bombing of Islamabad's Marriott Hotel, assaults on military installations, and the 2009 attack on army headquarters. Pakistan refers to the TTP as "Fitna al-Khawarij", referencing a historical group associated with rebellion and violence in early Islamic history. (With PTI inputs)
Hans India
5 days ago
- Politics
- Hans India
Pakistani Officer Linked To Abhinandan Capture Dies In Taliban Attack
A Pakistani Army officer who gained prominence for his alleged role in capturing Indian Air Force pilot Abhinandan Varthaman during the 2019 post-Balakot tensions has been killed in a counter-terrorism operation against Taliban militants in Pakistan's volatile tribal region. Major Syed Moiz Abbas Shah died alongside Lance Naik Jibran during an intelligence-based operation in South Waziristan district, where Pakistani security forces engaged with Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) terrorists. The operation, conducted by Pakistan's Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR), resulted in the elimination of 11 TTP militants while claiming the lives of two Pakistani security personnel. Major Shah had previously claimed credit for the capture of then-Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman, who was shot down during the aerial confrontation that followed India's airstrikes on terrorist training camps in Balakot, Pakistan. The incident occurred on February 27, 2019, just one day after India's retaliatory action against terrorist infrastructure in response to the Pulwama attack that killed 40 CRPF personnel. The aerial engagement between Indian and Pakistani forces began when Pakistan launched a counter-operation involving up to 24 fighter aircraft targeting Indian military installations. During the ensuing dogfight, Varthaman's MiG-21 Bison was shot down after he reportedly engaged and destroyed a Pakistani F-16 fighter jet. The Indian pilot was forced to eject and landed on the Pakistani side of the Line of Control, where he was subsequently captured by Pakistani forces. Major Shah, who hailed from Pakistan's Chakwal district, was serving with the elite Special Services Group (SSG) at the time of his death. His involvement in the Varthaman capture had made him a notable figure in Pakistan's military circles, particularly given the international attention the incident received. The capture of Abhinandan Varthaman became a major flashpoint in India-Pakistan relations, triggering intense diplomatic activity and back-channel communications between the two nuclear-armed neighbors. India reportedly issued stern warnings against any attempt by Pakistan to use the captured pilot as a bargaining chip, threatening further military retaliation if he was not released promptly. The crisis reached its peak when world powers, concerned about the potential for escalation between two nuclear-armed states, intervened diplomatically to urge restraint from both sides. After 58 hours in Pakistani custody, Prime Minister Imran Khan announced Varthaman's release as a "gesture of peace," a decision that was widely interpreted as a de-escalatory move under international pressure. Varthaman was released on March 1, 2019, which helped to lower tensions between the two nuclear-armed nations. He crossed back into India through the Attari-Wagah border on the evening of February 28, where he was received by Indian officials and later honored for his service. The death of Major Shah occurs amid Pakistan's ongoing struggle with internal terrorism, particularly in the tribal regions bordering Afghanistan. The TTP, which emerged as a significant threat to Pakistani security, has been responsible for numerous attacks against military and civilian targets across the country. South Waziristan, where the fatal encounter took place, has been a particular hotbed of militant activity. The region has witnessed numerous military operations as Pakistani forces attempt to clear terrorist sanctuaries and restore government control over these strategically important areas. The incident underscores the complex security challenges facing Pakistan, where military personnel who once operated against external threats now find themselves engaged in protracted counter-insurgency operations against domestic terrorist groups. The loss of experienced officers like Major Shah represents a significant blow to Pakistan's counter-terrorism capabilities in these sensitive regions. For India, the news of Major Shah's death serves as a reminder of the 2019 crisis that demonstrated both the escalatory potential of Indo-Pakistani conflicts and the importance of diplomatic intervention in preventing full-scale military confrontation between nuclear-armed neighbors.
Indian Express
03-06-2025
- 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
03-06-2025
- 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'
