Content
On May 7, 2025, the Indian Armed Forces launched Operation Sindoor —a precision strike on terrorist camps in Pakistan-administered Kashmir and neighbouring border areas—in retaliation for the February attack on Hindu pilgrims in Pahalgam. From an Indian perspective, the operation aimed to:
1. Disrupt Terror Networks: By targeting Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed facilities that planned cross-border attacks, India sought to degrade infrastructure directly responsible for civilian massacres.
2. Reinforce Deterrence: After multiple security lapses, a decisive response was deemed essential to signal that any assault on Indian civilians would invite immediate retaliation, restoring strategic balance along the Line of Control.
3. Protect National Security: Precision-guided munitions and drones were employed to minimize collateral damage, ensuring strikes focused strictly on confirmed terrorist training sites rather than civilian areas.
However, critics in India raised concerns:
1. Risk of Wider Conflict: Any strike inside Pakistani territory—even surgical—risks provoking a broader military standoff. There were fears Islamabad’s countermeasures might spiral into prolonged skirmishes, straining diplomatic channels.
2. Civilian Safety & International Law: Despite official claims of clean targeting, reports emerged of collateral damage in border villages. Detractors argued that operating without explicit UN or bilateral approval could harm India’s global standing.
Debate Questions
1. Was Operation Sindoor a necessary act of self-defence to safeguard Indian lives, or a perilous move that risked regional escalation?
2. Could India have achieved deterrence through intensified intelligence cooperation and diplomatic pressure rather than direct strikes?
3. Does naming the mission “Sindoor” strengthen national resolve, or does it risk conflating military action with cultural sentiment?