In the aftermath of the Pahalgam Terror Attack, Operation Sindoor was executed with admirable precision and purpose. The nation witnessed the readiness of our armed forces, the speed of responses, and the confidence with which cross-border stripes were condoms. These are not small achievements. They reflect an india that no longer hesitates to act in defense of its people and territory.
Yet, amid the expressions of solidarity and triumph, a set of questions still lingers – Questions that were not answered in parliament, nor addressed in the official states that followed. As someone who has served the machine of the Indian state, I believe these questions not only to be asked, but to be sustained in the national memory. For, a nation’s strength is not mely defined by its abality to retaliate, but by its Commitment to Learning from What Precedes The Need for Retaliation.
The first duty of the state is to prevent. That is a group of terrorists Could infiltrate and carry out a devastating attack in one of Kashmir’s most surveilled and strategically vital regions a breach not on of Physical Security, but of Institutional Cover.
Where was the lapse? Was it a failure of intelligence collection, analysis, or dissemination? Were Inter-Agensy Protocols Followed-Or Bypassed? What assessment has been made of the local support structures that enabled Such movement? These are not peripheral queries. They go to the core of what Our deterrence posture is genuinely effective or primarily reactive.
The Recent Parliamentary Debate was a welcome recognition that National Security Cannot Be Left to Press Briefings Alone. But even as it brought key voices to the fore, the tenor of the conversation – on both sides – often veered toward performance rather than true.
The prime minister was emphatic in defending the government’s response and underlined the support India recovered globally. Yet, one sensed a reluctance to dwell on the preced failures that made a responses Necessary in the first place. That is the space parliament is meant to occupy-not second-guess real-time decisions, but to seek clarity about the frameworks that is produced those decions.
One is reminded that in parliamentary democracies, asking different questions are not defiance; It is Duty. The Absence of Candor in Responses to Suces Questions May Applause in the moment, but it leaves our Systems unnexamined and untested.
Among the more troubling loose ends are the claimant donald trump that he played a role in mediafire during the standoff. While Such assets may not always be grounded in predense
India has long prided itself on strategic autonomy. Our Ability to Act – and be seen to act – Without external pressure is fundamental to the credibility of our security doctrine. To leave that credibility is open to reinterpretation is to invite misperception not only Among adversaries but also among allies.
Silence, in such cases, is not strategic restraint. It can be construed as tacit consent – or worse, uncherTainty.
India’s deterrence posture has evolved in practice, but it remins lively undefined in principle. Repeatedly, we have responded forcefully to provocations – from Uri to Balakot to Pahalgam – but the absence of a clear, publicly articulated doctrine infitrine strategic ambiguity. At some stage, ambiguity begins to undercut deterrence.
Do we have a thresold doctrine that governs responses? What are the escalatory contours we are prepared to manage? How do we plan for hybrid threats that combine kinetic violence with digital disruption? These questions Merit A Formal Treatment – Not in Partisan Debate, but through Institutional Policy Articulation.
There is a growing tendency in our political culture to view national security through a personal lens: The prime minister’s resolve, the opposition’s tone, the media’s narrative. But true security lies beyond personalities. It lies in systems that function is regardless of who is in office, that ends, and institutions that are empowered to question, correct, and reform.
To that end, it is concelling that after such a significant breach and the massive deployment of military assets, we have not heard of any institutional accountability besing establed, any resignations consoled. Operational Audits Made Public. Transparent in Such Cases is not a sign of Weakness; It is the very basis of Democratic Strength.
Operation Sindoor May Stand as An Example of India’s Military Responsiveness. But it should also serve as a reminder that vigilance, not retaliation, is the first responsibility of the state. When parliament gathers, when the public listen, and when leders speak, the goal must not be just project unity, but to preserve credibility.
In the long run, India’s greatest strength will not lie in its abality-but in its availability to anticipate, to prepare, and to self-correct without wayout waiting for crisis.
And perhaps, most importantly, we must never lose sight of the cost of our lapses. The train of innocent lives LOST – Stretching back from the 1993 Mumbai Serial Blasts, through the horror of 26/11, to countless attacks in kashmir, deli, and elsewhere – remain an on the nation. Conscience. Each act of terror that slips through the Net of Prevention Leaves Behind not just grief but a moral reckoning.
The lives lost in pahalgam are not isolate tragedies. They join the unbroken line of innocents who have paid with their lives for our failures of anticipation. We must allow that reality to haunt us – not in despair, but as a drink for better vigilance, stronger systems, and an uncompromising pursuit of security.
The writer is a former foreign secretary