The only purpose the debate on Pahalgam attack, Operation Sindoor and the three-day escalation between India and Pakistan has achieved is to showcase that India is still a functioning democracy where tough questions can be asked of the government. This may be good for optics, but the questions remain unanswered.
After three days of debate, the events that brought the country close to a war with its neighbour, remain clouded in layers of thick mist. Whether it was the question of infrastructural losses, security lapses or the genesis of the ceasefire, in hours of speeches, the treasury benches responded with whataboutery, Nehru blaming, religion of terrorists, or at best the narrative of “success of the operation” which the government believes is reason enough to discard and ignore everything else.
While such sophistry is fundamentally flawed and masks the ground realities, a more profound question is this: What is the measure of “success”? The success of any military operation in another country can be tested on three grounds – its immediate achievement, its outcome and impact domestically, and its international fallout. These need to be fully analysed in the light of facts which still remain obscure and contested.
Operation Sindoor was India’s response to the heinous Pahalgam killings of 26 civilians by terrorists on April 22. Indian government blames Pakistan based terror groups for executing the attacks and maintains that the operation was an attack on terror headquarters in Pakistan and not escalatory military warfare. The government also claimed that 100 terrorists were eliminated in the air strikes conducted without crossing the borders. There is, however, no clarity with regard to the intended purpose of the strikes. Was it vendetta? Was it fighting terrorism to the finish?
An analysis on whether any of these purposes have been achieved, requires a scrutiny of the facts about the operation which have been obfuscated by the claims and counterclaims between India and Pakistan. While India avers that terror headquarters were targeted with exact precision in cities and towns like Bahawalpur and Muridke, Pakistan claims these were seminaries. While India maintains ‘100 terrorists’ were killed, Pakistan claims ‘31 civilians were killed’.
In a region where media on both sides of the border has never been free from the ultra-nationalist and jingoistic fervour, there is little credible reportage on what happened on the ground. While no known terrorists have been named among the casualties, some reports pointed out that among the killed were some relatives of Jaish-e-Muhammad chief Azhar Masood. Some other reports pointed out that Pakistan army organized funerals for the 31 killed, which on the Indian side is taken as an indication of the proximity of the terror groups and Pakistani establishment.
It is no secret that Pakistani establishment has had a shadowy relationship with many terror organisations, which it either tolerates or uses to achieve political objectives. Be that as it may, there are no indications yet of who and how many were killed in Operation Sindoor. While Pakistan’s historic obfuscation of facts about war and proxy-wars is a no-brainer and little reliance can be placed on its claims, how did Indian government count the number of people, whether or not they were terrorists, in the air to surface attacks that were undertaken without crossing the borders or the air space? What is the basis of that number?
Secondly, there is, as yet, no indication about the identity of the casualties, other than the sketchy reference of sister and three other family members of Azhar Masood among the dead. Whether or not these family members have anything to do with Jaish or Azhar’s politics and activities is not known. Whether any terror operative of any reckoning was a casualty is also not known.
How does then one conclude that any of the perceived objectives of the attack have been achieved? If it was simple vendetta, there should have been major damage to the terror organisations. If it was meant to be a fight to finish, then all of their infrastructures and their operatives should have perished. There is no indication of either. If the intended objective was to convey to Pakistan to distance itself from terror groups, the news about Pakistan Army posing at the funeral of 31 dead demonstrates a reality to the contrary. If the 31 casualties were civilians, Pakistan army was nailing India’s lie. If they were terrorists, it was exhibiting its defiance to India.
The long-term objective of the operation was to demonstrate India’s intolerance to terrorism and to end terrorism. The ongoing theatre of violence that sporadically breaks out in Jammu and Kashmir every now and then, gives no such indication. A month after the operation, Asim Munir, the Pakistan Army Chief, now elevated as Field Marshal, openly declared to support militant groups in Kashmir, revealing that the low key simmering terrorism could blow out of proportion if Munir is to walk his talk.
So, what has Operation Sindoor achieved domestically and internationally? Whether India intended the strike to be non-escalatory or not, it doesn’t take rocket science to understand that if a country conducts military strikes in another country, the latter is bound to react and respond unless the former is a superpower, as was the case when the United States of America conducted the operation against Osama bin Laden in 2011.
As expected, Operation Sindoor brought India and Pakistan close to a war, resulted in one of the worst ever skirmishes where airpower on both sides was on full display – causing deaths of a score civilian lives on Indian side alone, injuries to several others, largescale damage to properties, displacements besides the hidden cost of psychological fear psychosis.
Does a nation’s success come over trampled bodies, lost homes and livelihoods? Does it come as the threat of an imminent war – full-fledged, limited or proxy war - now perpetually looms over the heads of the people in the border areas, particularly in Jammu and Kashmir?
As for the global outcome, despite India taking the high moral ground India stands isolated internationally after Operation Sindoor and Pakistan, once a pariah, has risen in stature – whether it is because of India’s poor diplomatic strategies, its messaging, Pakistan’s strategic location, the China factor or Trump’s egoistic desires.
On what other indices has the success of Operation Sindoor been measured? If there are valid reasons, the government must rationally explain. Without these, all the jumlas that its leaders churn out are simple fluff with no substance.
Have you liked the news article?