India has once again proven that it neither fears nor submits to any form of terrorism. The brutal terrorist attack in Pahalgam, Jammu & Kashmir on April 22, 2025, shook the entire nation, claiming the lives of 26 innocent civilians and leaving 17 seriously injured. The attack occurred while Prime Minister Narendra Modi was on a visit to the Saudi Arebia and U.S. Vice President JD Vance was visiting India. India’s response to this attack was recorded in history as “Operation Sindoor.”
The Terrorist Attack: A Cowardly Act
The primary targets of this attack were tourists vacationing in the picturesque valleys of Baisaran, often referred to as the “Mini Switzerland.” The assault was so meticulously planned and executed with such barbarity that it drew comparisons to the Pulwama attack of 2019. The attackers aimed not only to cause casualties but also to harm India’s security, integrity, and global image.
Planning and Execution of Operation Sindoor
The Indian government responded immediately. In the absence of the Prime Minister, the Home Minister, Defence Minister, and National Security Advisor (NSA) held high-level security meetings.
During the night between May 6 and 7, the Indian Armed Forces launched “Operation Sindoor.” The operation targeted terrorist camps located in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK). In a joint mission by the Indian Air Force and special forces, 24 precise strikes were carried out on 9 different locations in just 25 minutes. These strikes focused on camps belonging to groups like Jaish-e-Mohammed, Lashkar-e-Taiba, and Hizbul Mujahideen.
Defence Minister Rajnath Singh stated that the operation was executed with “precision, caution, and compassion” to ensure that only terrorist infrastructure was destroyed, without harming innocent civilians. He justified the move as India’s legitimate “right to respond.”
Pakistan’s Reaction and India’s Counter
Following Operation Sindoor, Pakistan attempted to target Indian military installations in Jammu, Pathankot, and Udhampur using drones and missiles. However, India’s air defence system, especially the S-400, intercepted and neutralised several Pakistani missiles and drones.
India promptly retaliated by striking Pakistan’s air defense installations, particularly disabling a system located in Lahore. Shortly after, both nations agreed on May 10 to cease all firing and military actions.
India’s Right Under International Law
Article 51 of the United Nations Charter grants member states the right to self-defense in case of an armed attack. While the Charter does not define “armed attack” explicitly, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) refers to it as “the most grave form of the use of force.”
India justified Operation Sindoor under Article 51, although Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri did not explicitly cite it. He described the attacks as “measured and non-provocative.” On May 8, he briefed ambassadors of 13 out of the 15 UN Security Council member states about the strikes. Pakistan’s ambassador was not invited.
Right to Self-Defense Against Non-State Actors
The UN Charter’s state-centric nature complicates action against non-state actors like terrorist groups. However, post-9/11, countries like the United States have argued that the right to self-defense also applies to terrorist organizations.
The ICJ maintains a more restrictive interpretation, suggesting that Article 51 cannot be invoked unless a state can be directly held responsible. India presented concrete evidence of Pakistan’s collusion and support for terrorists, thus framing the attack as state-sponsored terrorism.
Situation in Border Areas
Due to Operation Sindoor and subsequent shelling, a climate of fear gripped border regions like Jammu, Rajouri, Poonch, Baramulla, and Kupwara. Pakistani shelling resulted in the deaths of at least 12 civilians and one soldier, with 51 others injured.
Authorities set up temporary relief camps in these regions, and ₹5 crore was released for each border district. Chief Minister Omar Abdullah held emergency meetings via video conferencing with district commissioners to oversee relief and rescue operations.
Terrorist Organizations and Their Role
The camps targeted during Operation Sindoor were linked to major proscribed organizations:
Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM): Headquartered in Bahawalpur, Pakistan, and founded by Masood Azhar in 2000, this group has been involved in multiple attacks, including the Parliament attack and the Pulwama suicide bombing.
Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT): Responsible for the 2008 Mumbai attacks and the 2006 Mumbai train bombings, its headquarters are in Muridke near Lahore.
India’s Military Capabilities and Proficiency
India demonstrated its strategic and technological prowess during this entire operation. The S-400 air defense system successfully intercepted eight missiles and several drones launched by Pakistan. In its retaliatory strike, India shot down three Pakistani fighter jets — one F-16 and two JF-17s.
Once again, India proved that it neither fears nor bows to terrorism. The April 22, 2025, attack in Pahalgam shocked the nation, claiming 26 innocent lives and injuring 17 seriously. Despite the Prime Minister’s absence during his U.S. visit and the U.S. Vice President’s presence in India, India’s response — Operation Sindoor — etched its name in history.
India has made it clear that it does not seek war, but will not remain silent if its sovereignty and the safety of its citizens are threatened. The Defence Ministry emphasised that India’s response matched Pakistan’s aggression in scale and scope but was not aimed at escalation.
India’s policy is clear: it neither initiates aggression nor ignores provocation. “Operation Sindoor” is proof — not just a military action but a diplomatic and legal message to the world that India is fully capable of defending itself while adhering to international norms.
Trump’s ‘Peace Deal Policy’ and the Outrage in India
Amidst the ongoing military conflict, U.S. President Donald Trump unexpectedly announced on social media on May 10 that India and Pakistan had agreed to a ceasefire. He claimed that this was made possible through American mediation and that both countries would now engage in talks at a neutral location.
This announcement triggered widespread outrage in India. The Indian public saw Trump’s move as a soft stance towards Pakistan and an attempt to undermine India’s strong strategic posture. Experts argued that it went against India’s long-standing policy of not allowing third-party intervention in India-Pakistan matters.
Trump’s Threat and the Opposition’s Aggressive Stance
On May 12, another statement from Trump further inflamed the situation. He warned that if India and Pakistan did not halt hostilities, the United States would stop trading with them. This threat-like remark gave Indian opposition parties an opportunity to target Prime Minister Modi.
Opposition parties questioned whether India was willing to mortgage its strategic autonomy for U.S. commercial interests. The Congress, RJD, and other parties demanded a special session of Parliament to send a clear global message against Trump’s “bullying.”
RJD MP Manoj Jha harshly criticised Trump, asking who gave him the right to intervene in the Kashmir issue. RJD spokesperson Priyanka Bharti went so far as to sarcastically call Modi a “drenched kitten with a 56-inch chest.”
Brahma Chellaney’s Analysis: Policy vs. Leadership
Foreign affairs expert Brahma Chellaney criticised Trump’s approach, stating that he had essentially shielded Pakistan from the Indian military’s punitive actions. He also noted that Trump’s interference fueled Pakistan’s agenda to internationalise the Kashmir issue.
However, Chellaney praised PM Modi’s veiled criticism of Trump during a public address. Modi made it clear that India would only discuss two issues with Pakistan—the return of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir and the eradication of terrorism.
Anger Among Indian Americans
Indian Americans also condemned Trump’s actions. Prominent Indian-American author and commentator Vibhuti Jha addressed Trump directly, stating that by equating Narendra Modi and Shehbaz Sharif, he had insulted the very concept of “friendship.” He added that leaders who cannot distinguish between soldiers and terrorists cannot be considered good leaders.
On X (formerly Twitter), Indian Americans like Mohan Sinha also strongly criticised Trump’s ignorance and labelled America’s South Asia policy as historically one-sided and pro-Pakistan.
Shift in Trump’s Stance: Election Strategy or U.S. Policy?
A major question arose—why did Trump, who had earlier suspended military aid to Pakistan and supported India against China, suddenly take a U-turn? Analysts believe Trump is trying to portray himself as a global peace broker ahead of upcoming elections.
Having failed to play a significant role in the Russia-Ukraine and Israel-Hamas conflicts, the India-Pakistan tension presented him with an opportunity to display diplomatic activism. It was likely an effort to enhance his domestic image.
However, some experts argue that this was not a personal decision by Trump but a reflection of America’s traditional strategy. Pakistan’s geographical location and military infrastructure have always held strategic importance for the U.S.
Impact of Indian Strikes and the Fear of a ‘Nuclear Crisis’
On May 12, the Indian military targeted key Pakistani air bases, including Rafiqui Airbase (Shorkot), Noor Khan Airbase (Rawalpindi), Malir Cantonment (Karachi), and several radar sites. This demonstrated India’s capability to strike military targets across Pakistan’s strategic urban centres.
Also, India had attacked a nuclear facility, prompting the U.S. to deploy its B-350 AMS nuclear security aircraft. Although the Indian military dismissed these claims, the very speculation reflects the high level of tension.
Balancing Diplomacy and National Pride
This entire episode makes it clear that India is no longer the India of 1999 or 2001 that would bow to external pressure. While maintaining strategic relations with countries like the U.S. is important, these cannot come at the cost of sovereignty.
Trump’s recent role has revealed the complex dynamics of U.S.-India relations. It marks a critical juncture in India’s foreign policy, where it must balance global diplomacy, regional security, and domestic politics.
PM Modi needs to adopt a more proactive and transparent diplomatic approach to deal with unpredictable leaders like Trump so that India’s dignity and security remain uncompromised.
