Singh said that on the nights of May 6 and 7, the Indian Army launched ‘Operation Sindoor’ to neutralise terror outfits in the wake of the Pahalgam terror attack. He added that immediately after the April 22 attack, Prime Minister Narendra Modi met India’s defence chiefs and granted them complete immunity to formulate and execute a plan against terrorists. “We had many options but chose the one that would cause maximum damage to terrorist camps without harming innocents in Pakistan,” Singh said, adding that with precision strikes, Indian forces targeted Pakistan-based terror outfits, eliminating over 100 terrorists, including members of Lashkar-e-Taiba. He further stated that the entire operation was completed within 22 minutes.
The April 22 Pahalgam terror attack, which killed 26 civilians, marked one of the deadliest terror attacks in Jammu & Kashmir in recent years. The attack prompted swift retaliation from India, culminating in Operation Sindoor, a series of precision strikes targeting terror infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir. The strikes were hailed by the government as a demonstration of India’s military resolve and technological self-reliance.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi asserted that Operation Sindoor met “100% of its objectives,” underscoring India’s “new normal” of striking deep inside Pakistani territory to dismantle terrorist sanctuaries. The BJP and its allies have credited the operation for showcasing India’s indigenous defence platforms while asserting that it reinforced Modi’s policy of zero tolerance for terrorism.
Four-day conflict and ceasefire dynamics
In the aftermath of Operation Sindoor, Pakistan retaliated with cross-border shelling and limited air incursions, sparking a four-day conflict. According to Indian officials, the hostilities ended after Pakistan’s Director General of Military Operations (DGMO) reached out to his Indian counterpart to request a ceasefire.
Indian security sources claim that several Pakistani air bases and terror facilities suffered significant damage during the strikes, significantly degrading their operational capacity.
Trump’s mediation claims stir political row
Amid these developments, US President Donald Trump repeatedly cited his claimed role in brokering a ceasefire between India and Pakistan, saying his success gave him confidence to mediate other conflicts such as the ongoing Thailand-Cambodia border clashes. Trump boasted of using trade leverage to press Islamabad into talks, linking it to his approach in Southeast Asia.
India has firmly rejected Trump’s assertions, with senior officials clarifying that no third-party mediation occurred and that the ceasefire followed a direct outreach from Pakistan. Nonetheless, Trump’s repeated claims have sparked political controversy at home, with the Opposition seizing on them to question the government’s diplomatic handling of the situation.
Opposition’s criticism: Intelligence lapses and diplomatic messaging
The Opposition, led by Congress, has framed its attacks on two fronts: alleged intelligence failures preceding the Pahalgam attack and Trump’s “mediation” narrative undermining India’s position globally.
Rahul Gandhi has repeatedly claimed that India failed to rally international support post-Operation Sindoor and accused the Modi government of enabling foreign leaders to mischaracterise India’s diplomatic stance.
Shashi Tharoor’s divergent stance adds to political churn
Complicating matters further, Congress MP Shashi Tharoor, who led a multi-party delegation abroad to explain India’s position after the strikes, has drawn internal criticism for remarks seen as softening the Opposition’s tone. Tharoor’s public statements, diverging from Congress’s combative approach, prompted party chief Mallikarjun Kharge to accuse him indirectly of prioritising “Modi first, country later.”
In response, Tharoor posted a cryptic note on X, saying: “Don’t ask permission to fly. The wings are yours. And the sky belongs to no one.” His stance has deepened divisions within Congress over how to engage with the government’s national security narrative.
