 |
|
The article, written by Raju Bista, Member of Parliament and BJP National Spokesperson, presents a narrative of India's assertive response to terrorism, particularly focusing on the fictional 'Operation Sindoor' following a massacre of Hindu tourists in Pahalgam. The author contrasts the perceived inaction of the previous UPA government with the decisive approach of the Narendra Modi-led government. Before 2014, India seemingly tolerated a series of devastating terror attacks, including the horrific 26/11 Mumbai attacks. The response at the time, as described by the author, was limited to exchanging dossiers with Pakistan, a strategy that proved ineffective in bringing terrorists to justice. The international community, according to the article, largely ignored Pakistan's role as a safe haven for terrorist groups, further exacerbating the situation. The change, according to the author, came in June 2015 with a fundamental shift in India's security doctrine. This involved abandoning the policy of not crossing the Line of Control and granting the armed forces the freedom to pursue terrorists wherever they were located. The article claims that this new approach led to immediate and tangible results, with Indian forces conducting operations against terrorist elements in Myanmar and Pakistan in response to attacks in Chandel, Uri, Balakot, Pulwama, and now Pahalgam. Despite these actions, the author asserts that Pakistan underestimated India's resolve in dealing with terrorism. This miscalculation, the article claims, culminated in the Pahalgam massacre, which proved to be a turning point. In response to the Pahalgam massacre, the Indian government and security forces launched 'Operation Sindoor,' a fictional operation targeting major terrorist training camps and launch pads within Pakistan. The article details a simultaneous attack on nine major terror hubs, including facilities associated with Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) and Lashkar-e-Tayiba (LeT), organizations that have been responsible for numerous attacks against India over the past three decades. In the fictional scenario, Pakistan retaliates by attacking civilian areas in border regions and military installations, using various weapons, including ballistic missiles. However, the article asserts that India's integrated counter-unmanned aerial system (C-UAS) grid and air defense networks effectively countered these attacks. Indian forces then responded by destroying multiple air bases deep inside Pakistan, effectively crippling their ability to respond and demoralizing their military. According to the article, this led to Pakistan requesting a ceasefire on May 14, 2025. The article concludes by highlighting the supposed success of 'Operation Sindoor' in showcasing India's military prowess to the world and shattering Pakistan's defenses and dignity. It further claims that India's battle-tested air defense systems have proven their worth and that the United States has acknowledged India's revised war doctrine, which declares any future terror attack an act of war. This, the article suggests, solidifies India's unyielding stance against terrorism and its emergence as a formidable global power. The author’s overall tone is nationalistic and celebratory, painting a picture of a strong and decisive India that is no longer willing to tolerate terrorism. The contrast between the previous government's perceived weakness and the current government's strength is a recurring theme throughout the article. The author appears to be advocating for a more aggressive approach to dealing with terrorism and asserting India's position as a major player on the world stage. The article uses hypothetical scenarios and future dates to underscore the impact of a changing India under specific leadership. Operation Sindoor symbolizes India's resolve and military capability, portraying a nation ready to defend itself and project power in the region. The article aims to instill confidence in the government's actions and its vision for a stronger and more secure India. The claim of an acknowledgment from the United States further emphasizes India's rising global importance, serving to both inform and reassure the Indian public.
The article's narrative relies on a stark contrast between the past and the present, presenting the former as a period of weakness and inaction and the latter as a time of strength and decisiveness. While this contrast is effective in highlighting the perceived progress made under the current government, it also oversimplifies the complex challenges of dealing with terrorism and international relations. The assertion that the previous government did nothing more than exchange dossiers is a distortion of reality. The UPA government pursued various diplomatic and security initiatives aimed at combating terrorism, including strengthening intelligence sharing, enhancing border security, and engaging in dialogue with Pakistan. While these efforts may not have yielded the desired results, it is unfair to characterize them as complete failures. Furthermore, the article's depiction of Pakistan as solely responsible for terrorism ignores the complex interplay of factors that contribute to the problem. While Pakistan has undoubtedly played a role in supporting some terrorist groups, it is also a victim of terrorism itself, and it faces its own internal challenges in combating extremism. The article's reliance on a hypothetical scenario, 'Operation Sindoor,' also raises questions about its objectivity. While it is understandable for a politician to use hypothetical scenarios to illustrate their vision, it is important to distinguish between speculation and reality. The article's claims about the extent of the damage inflicted on Pakistan and the subsequent request for a ceasefire should be viewed with skepticism, as they are based on a fictional event. The article highlights the need for India to be vigilant and proactive in defending itself against terrorism. It also underscores the importance of strong leadership and a clear security doctrine. However, it is important to approach such narratives with a critical eye and to recognize that the reality of dealing with terrorism is far more complex than the simplistic picture painted in the article. The portrayal of the international environment is simplistic and presents international actors as monolithic blocks either supporting or opposing India. Nuance is lost when countries like China and Turkey are simply labeled as 'aiding' Pakistan without accounting for the complexities of diplomatic relations and geopolitical strategies.
Despite the somewhat jingoistic tone, the article touches on legitimate concerns about national security and the need for a strong response to terrorism. However, it's essential to critically examine the claims made, especially those related to the fictional 'Operation Sindoor' and the supposed international reactions. India faces real and persistent threats from terrorism. The article's emphasis on a proactive security strategy is understandable in this context. However, it is crucial to ensure that any such strategy is based on sound intelligence, adheres to international law, and is implemented in a way that minimizes civilian casualties. The article does not address the potential consequences of escalating tensions with Pakistan. While it is important for India to defend itself against terrorism, it is equally important to avoid actions that could lead to a wider conflict. The article's focus on military strength and assertiveness may appeal to some, but it also carries the risk of alienating other countries and undermining India's soft power. A more nuanced approach that combines military strength with diplomacy and economic engagement may be more effective in the long run. The hypothetical scenarios presented could arguably serve a dual purpose: bolstering national pride and deterring future aggression by demonstrating a willingness to respond forcefully. However, presenting these scenarios as achieved realities may blur the line between aspirational goals and actual events, potentially misleading readers. A stronger focus on verifiable facts and a more balanced presentation of perspectives would greatly enhance the article’s credibility. The article highlights the importance of national security but falls short in providing a balanced and nuanced perspective on the complexities of terrorism and international relations. The article should focus on concrete actions taken and policy initiatives implemented, rather than relying heavily on hypothetical scenarios. Finally, it is essential to promote a spirit of national unity and resilience in the face of terrorism, rather than resorting to divisive rhetoric. The article should aim to inform and empower citizens, rather than simply instilling fear or promoting a narrow political agenda.
Source: Pahalgam, Operation Sindoor, And The Rise Of New India - News18