On May 7, 2025, India launched Operation Sindoor, a surgical military strike targeting nine terror-linked sites in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) in response to the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack that killed 26 civilians. Hailed as a precise, non-escalatory operation, it has sparked heated debate: was this a masterstroke of strategic deterrence or a calculated move to bolster political fortunes ahead of key elections? As a Political observer, I unpack the operation’s layers to reveal the delicate balance between national security and democratic accountability.
The Tactical Canvas
Using Rafale and Su-30MKI jets, the Indian Air Force deployed advanced weaponry - BrahMos missiles, SCALP cruise missiles, HAMMER bombs, and loitering munitions - to destroy Lashkar-e-Taiba’s Markaz Taiba in Muridke, Jaish-e-Mohammed’s facilities in Bahawalpur, and a training camp in Kotli. The Ministry of Defence emphasized that no civilian or military infrastructure was targeted, ensuring a proportionate response. Satellite imagery confirmed the strikes’ precision, with minimal collateral damage[^1].
The operation’s name, Sindoor - evoking the vermilion mark of married Hindu women, a nod to the widows of Pahalgam - was a powerful narrative choice. As strategic analyst Lt. Gen. (Retd.) D.S. Hooda noted, it blended military action with emotional resonance, rallying public support.
The Attaché’s Remark and Its Fallout
The operation’s sheen was briefly tarnished when Captain Shiv Kumar, India’s Defence Attaché to Indonesia, suggested at a Jakarta seminar that political directives initially barred the IAF from targeting Pakistani air defenses, reportedly resulting in the loss. The Ministry of Defence countered that the losses stemmed from unexpected Pakistani missile activity, not political constraints, and electronic countermeasures ensured mission success[^2]. The Indian Embassy clarified that Kumar’s remarks were misconstrued, reaffirming civilian oversight of the military.
Chief of Defence Staff General Anil Chauhan admitted to initial tactical errors but highlighted mid-operation corrections. The opposition, seizing on these revelations, has demanded a parliamentary probe, arguing that transparency is non-negotiable in matters of national security.
Strategic Restraint or Political Optics?
The government insists Operation Sindoor was driven by strategic imperatives. China’s satellite intelligence sharing with Pakistan and Turkey’s supply of advanced drones necessitated a restrained, time-bound strike to avoid escalation. U.S. calls for de-escalation amid NATO talks further shaped India’s approach[^3]. The operation’s timing, however, has raised eyebrows, coming months before Bihar and Maharashtra elections. History suggests a pattern:
Post-Balakot, a 2019 Lokniti-CSDS survey showed a 5-7% vote swing toward the BJP in northern states. A recent CVoter poll indicates a similar 4-6% approval boost in Bihar post-Sindoor[^4]. The BJP’s Tiranga Yatra, launched days after the operation with PM Modi invoking “national pride,” fuels suspicions of electoral motives.
Yet, security concerns were undeniable. The Pahalgam attack, traced to Jaish-e-Mohammed’s cross-border networks, demanded a response. Pakistan’s inaction against terror groups, despite global scrutiny, justified India’s strike, argues Lt. Gen. Hooda. The operation’s success in neutralizing terror hubs without triggering war underscores its strategic merit.
Public Sentiment and Narrative Management
An online Hindustan Times poll found 89% public approval for Sindoor, amplified by the government’s savvy communication: women IAF officers as spokespersons, PM Modi’s Adampur air base visit, and viral videos of Rafale sorties. But the lack of detailed briefings on losses has sparked skepticism. Posts on X, with hashtags like #SindoorTruth, reflect growing demands for transparency in an age of instant digital scrutiny[^5]. Without clear communication, even a successful operation risks losing public trust.
The Civil–Military Equation
India’s armed forces operate under firm civilian control, a democratic strength. But when political considerations appear to shape operational decisions, risks emerge:
Mission flexibility: Restrictions on targeting air defenses increased pilot exposure, as noted by a retired IAF officer.
Morale: Public debates over losses can dent troop confidence, as seen post-Balakot.
Doctrinal credibility: Inconsistent mandates weaken India’s deterrence, warns former NSA Shivshankar Menon[^6].
Other democracies face similar tensions. The U.S. debated political motives during the 2020 Soleimani strike, yet mitigated mistrust through congressional briefings. India could emulate such practices by:
Establishing bipartisan parliamentary oversight for cross-border operations, like the UK’s Defence Committee.
Offering classified briefings to opposition leaders.
Codifying a military-political engagement doctrine, as proposed by the 2018 Naresh Chandra Task Force.
Conclusion: Between Deterrence and Democracy
Operation Sindoor showcased India’s ability to deliver precise, proportionate strikes against terrorism. Its success—neutralizing key terror hubs without escalation - reflects strategic finesse. Yet, its legacy depends on addressing questions of transparency and intent. By fostering bipartisan trust and institutional accountability, India can ensure national security unites its people. The electorate deserves not just decisive action, but unwavering credibility.
Post a Comment