‘Op Sindoor has drawn red line for Pakistan’

Operation Sindoor saw Punjab — the core of the Western Command’s operational area — bearing the brunt of missile and drone attacks launched by Pakistan in response to India carrying out precision strikes on terrorist camps to avenge the Pahalgam massacre in which 25 tourists and a civilian were killed. In an exclusive interview with The Tribune Editor-in-Chief Jyoti Malhotra, Lt Gen Manoj Kumar Katiyar, General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Western Command, shares the finer aspects of the operation, the role of the Pakistani military in sponsoring terrorism and the evolving operational paradigms.

Why was a gruesome terror attack carried out in Pahalgam when Kashmir was returning to normalcy?

This can be best answered by the establishment in Pakistan, which plans and executes terror attacks in India. However, the aim of the attack in Pahalgam could have been three-fold:

Firstly, it was to disturb peace in Kashmir. The return of normalcy had an important peace dividend — the economic revival in Kashmir. When you compare the economically vibrant Valley with the near-starving conditions in the PoK, it discredits Pakistan’s propaganda that the people in Kashmir are suffering. Also, when there is prosperity, the youth in the Valley get employment and it denies Pakistan-based terror outfits such as the LeT and the JeM opportunities to misguide them.

Secondly, the selective killing of tourists in Pahalgam was clearly aimed at straining the secular fabric of India. It seems to be part of a well-thought-out strategy to disturb the communal harmony and attempt polarisation in our society. Polarisation weakens us and it also gives credence to the debunked two-nation theory, which was recently espoused by Pakistan army chief Asif Munir.

Thirdly, the internal dynamics of Pakistan are also at play. There is perpetual power play between the army and the elected government. At present, the image of the army in Pakistan is perhaps at its lowest ebb. You have seen houses of senior officers inside the military cantonment being ransacked by disgruntled civilians. It seems possible that the terrorist action in India was an attempt by the Pakistan army chief to expand his appeal and widen his support base.

What was the aim of Operation Sindoor? How was the task carried out?

The aim was to give a punitive and demonstrative punishment to the terrorists and their mentors in Pakistan who were responsible for the selective cold-blooded murders in Pahalgam. It was achieved through the destruction of nine terrorist bases, including the headquarters of the LeT and the JeM, their training camps and launch pads in border areas.

By precision targeting post-midnight on May 7, the initial aim set for the operation was achieved magnificently. The plan was bold and audacious, and was executed under utmost secrecy with clockwork precision.

It caught the terrorists in Pakistan and their mentors off guard. In terms of planning and execution, it was unparalleled and can be ranked as one of the most effective military strikes in the annals of global warfare.

So only terrorist bases were targeted and there was no collateral damage?

Our strikes targeted only terrorist establishments and their infrastructure. We did not target Pakistan military facilities or civilian population. However, the Pakistan army enhanced the scope of fighting by targeting our military establishments and civilian population. In response, we retaliated with swift and lethal strikes from the ground and the air, causing heavy damage to Pakistani military establishments. Our retribution was so impactful that Pakistan immediately sought the cessation of hostilities.

Has the aim of Operation Sindoor been achieved?

Yes. I would categorically and emphatically state that we achieved our aim. We destroyed terror infrastructure in Pakistan and gave a message to its army and the ruling dispensation that we will no longer tolerate attacks by Pakistan-based terrorist groups in India. We also demonstrated our resolve and ability to strike at the time and place of our choosing and strike with impunity.

The Pakistan army and its ruling establishment, despite false bravado and misleading media outpourings, have understood the intent of the Indian leadership and the capability of the Indian military very well. They stand totally exposed for their blatant support to internationally banned terror outfits. I hope that the world at large, having gravely suffered from terrorism, will now be wary of the Pakistan establishment for its continued support to terror outfits.

What weapons and equipment were used by the Indian armed forces in the operation?

Without going into the details of the weapons and equipment employed in the operation, I would like to state that the initial strikes — from the ground and the air — were carried out using precision weapons to ensure the desired results without any collateral damage. Subsequently, once Pakistan enhanced the scope of the conflict, we used a variety of weapon systems to destroy their posts along the border areas. Strikes on their airbases though were carried out employing precision weapons only. Air defence weapons and counter-UAS systems played a pivotal role in bringing down Pakistani drones, missiles and fighter aircraft. It was evident from the Russia-Ukraine war and has also been demonstrated during Operation Sindoor that drones and counter-drone systems will remain crucial in any future military conflict.

Should we have continued with the operation instead of accepting the ceasefire?

Let me state here categorically that the cessation of hostilities is a temporary phase. Operation Sindoor is the fight of the nation against terrorism, and it continues. Pakistan has been warned that in case of any more misadventure, the response will be more lethal. I am aware of the sentiments of some of our citizens who feel that we should not have agreed to the cessation of hostilities and continued with our operations. I fully respect these differing opinions. After all, the dissenting voices only add to the strength of our democratic culture. However, the decisions on military matters need to be guided more by rationality than emotions. What we had set out to achieve, was achieved in totality by actions short of full-fledged military operations and with minimum cost to ourselves and, therefore, it was only prudent for us not to have escalated the hostilities further.

Will Pakistan launch terror attacks in the future and what will be our response?

Pakistan’s populace must be yearning for peace — peace in their country and peace on the borders. However, certain establishments in Pakistan, the so-called deep state, employ terror as a tool. They perpetuate violence in their own country and violence across the borders to justify their existence and maintain their relevance. I am sanguine that good sense will now prevail and the Pakistan establishment will desist from terror attacks in India in future. However, in case of any more terrorist attacks, we will respond in a punitive manner.

Op Sindoor is the fight of the nation against terror, and it continues. Pakistan has been warned that in case of any more misadventure, the response will be more lethal…. What we had set out to achieve, was achieved in totality by actions short of full-fledged military operations and with minimum cost to ourselves.

The operation has been marked by transparency by the Indian Army, but Pakistan is in denial about the damage caused by India. How do you assess this facet?

Operations carried out by us were reported on the very night of May 7 itself along with videos of the damage to terrorist infrastructure. Details of these strikes, and other operations carried out subsequently, were also verified by satellite imageries. Also, videos and photos circulating on the Pakistan social media prove the successful conduct of operations and the resultant damage to the target areas. However, since Pakistani drones and missile attacks have largely failed with no or minimal damage, it was only natural that Pakistan would resort to distorting the truth by doctoring imageries and photographs and showing edited clips of unrelated incidents.

It was a war-like situation after over two decades since Operation Parakram. How has the strategic environment in the Western Theatre evolved since?

During Operation Parakram in 2001-02, we mobilised and threatened Pakistan with war, it was deterrence by threat. Once the aim was achieved, we demobilised. However, over the years, the concept of deterrence against terrorist actions has evolved from “threat” to “punishment”.

We did it post-Uri, we did it in Balakot. We did it now in Operation Sindoor. This time though the scope and canvas of punishment was very vast. Before the strikes, the Prime Minister had already emphatically stated that terrorism would not go unpunished. Deterrence by punishment is how the strategic environment has evolved. Of course, while punishing the terrorists and their mentors, we remain prepared for an all-out war. With Operation Sindoor, we have established a new normal, we have drawn a new red line for Pakistan to take note of and this time the red line has been drawn by ‘sindoor’. So, now Pakistan can ignore it only at its own peril.

During Op Sindoor, what was the deployment of the Pakistan army along our western border and how credible was its threat?

The Pakistan army enhanced its deployment in the border areas as it anticipated that we would surely avenge Pahalgam. It had occupied most of the forward posts and had also mobilised some of its reserve formations and mechanised forces. Hence, there was a possibility that the Pakistan army might undertake some misadventures along the border areas. Therefore, we had to be fully prepared for all eventualities. We had deployed our defensive safeguards, including air defence and surveillance elements and our offensive formations were also geared up to undertake operations at a short notice.

Was Pakistan’s nuclear card at play and whether Operation Sindoor negated this?

Pakistan has been professing the theory of nuclear irrationality, threatening India with nuclear strikes at different times. Pakistan has mistakenly assumed that the theory of nuclear irrationality will allow it to carry out terrorist activities in India and there will be no retaliation by us. Our Prime Minister has emphatically stated that in our resolute action against terrorism, we will not be deterred by Pakistan’s nuclear blackmail. So, now in our successful conduct of strikes, we have effectively called the Pakistan nuclear bluff.

Can you tell us about inter-service synergy during the operations?

There was total synergy between the services. From the initial strikes on May 7 to our response to various Pakistan threats, actions were coordinated at the highest level and integrated at the ground level. In addition, we were able to integrate and synergise our actions with the BSF, which is crucial in defending the border areas. We also received full support from the civil administration of different states.

What are your thoughts on the naming of Operation Sindoor

‘Sindoor’, the very name of our operation, gave us the rasion d’etre for the military actions. We were fighting to avenge the ‘sindoor’ of our mothers and sisters and in the process restoring the faith of the nation in its leadership and its armed forces. In the Army, we always pride ourselves in fighting for “Naam, Namak and Nishan”. ‘Sindoor’ perhaps integrates these values and today it signifies the honour of not only our mothers and sisters, but also the honour of the 1.4 billion Indians. Our fight to safeguard this honour, our fight against terrorism is unending, Operation Sindoor continues.

Top News