Category: Nation

India’s Operation Sindoor and Israel’s Operation Rising Lion share a crucial similarity: both were launched with the aim of eliminating potential future threats. However, the resemblance stops there. India’s operation remained strictly limited to targeting terrorist facilities and military structures. Israel, by contrast, expanded its reach beyond conventional military objectives, targeting senior political and military figures, along with nuclear scientists. These scientists, who are technically non-combatants, were attacked within the supposed safety of their homes.

What is even more striking than the operational differences is the disparity in the international reaction. India, despite being a consistent victim of terrorism for over 40 years, was urged to exercise restraint during its operation. On the other hand, Israel has faced no such pressure even after Operation Rising Lion entered its tenth day. In fact, the United States has actively joined the Israeli campaign, targeting critical nuclear facilities in Iran, including the highly fortified Fordow site.

This development comes not long after the US president took credit for facilitating a ceasefire between India and Pakistan. To add insult to injury, he hosted Pakistan’s Army Chief, Asim Munir, for a lunch meeting at the White House. These actions reveal that what is often referred to as a “strategic partnership” between India and the United States is, in reality, largely superficial and transactional.

When American military leaders openly identify Pakistan as an ally in the fight against terrorism, it inadvertently rewards Islamabad for its long-standing policy of sponsoring terrorism against India. It also underscores India’s inability to persuade the global community to take concrete action against Pakistan. This failure is a clear sign of India’s struggle to dominate international narratives or win the perception war, a struggle worsened by an overzealous and largely unchecked electronic media.

Several global media analyses support this view. The Washington Post, for instance, noted that certain media outlets in India had created a “parallel reality,” aided by military analysts offering speculative views. The French publication L’Opinion made a similar observation, acknowledging India’s military success but stressing that it had lost the information war. As a result, Pakistan was able to control the global narrative and portray itself more favorably.

In another example of international skepticism, Ashley J. Tellis, writing in Foreign Affairs, was dismissive of India’s strategic ambitions. His tone appeared to reflect frustration with India’s unwillingness to follow American policy preferences. India, in an attempt to reclaim the narrative, dispatched seven delegations representing all political parties. These teams, composed of seasoned politicians and diplomats, visited 32 countries and the European Union headquarters in Brussels—a total of 33 global capitals. Their mission was to draw attention to cross-border terrorism emanating from Pakistan and to reinforce India’s position on self-defense and counter-terrorism following Operation Sindoor. However, by then, as the saying goes, the horse had already bolted.

This brings into focus the importance of ongoing and well-planned perception management, which must extend far beyond individual incidents. It should be a carefully crafted policy designed at the highest levels of government, with clear directives for various departments to implement. Unfortunately, casual or careless remarks by both current and former ministers can severely undermine this campaign.

In contrast, China’s implementation of its ‘Three Warfares Strategy’ serves as a powerful example of effective perception control. This strategy includes information warfare, psychological warfare, and legal warfare—each meticulously used to advance national interests.

Information warfare, in the Chinese context, involves shaping global perceptions using state-controlled media, diplomatic efforts, and international platforms. One example of this was in 2016, when the Permanent Court of Arbitration ruled against China’s claims in the South China Sea. Beijing responded by labeling the decision a farce and used its media machinery to sway international opinion in its favor.

Psychological warfare, another component of the Chinese strategy, aims to destabilize adversaries by exploiting their anxieties. This is often done through disinformation, veiled threats, and historical reminders. A relevant example is the 2017 Doklam standoff with India. China repeatedly invoked the 1962 border war to create psychological pressure, though this attempt did not achieve the desired outcome.

The third pillar, legal warfare or “lawfare,” involves manipulating international legal frameworks to validate China’s actions while discrediting its opponents. After the 2016 South China Sea verdict, China dismissed the ruling but simultaneously portrayed itself as a defender of international law, gaining diplomatic ground.

Given these realities, India must craft a long-term, multi-dimensional approach to projecting its national image. This is not something that can be hastily assembled in reaction to a terrorist incident. The inability to isolate Pakistan diplomatically reinforces the urgency of formulating a structured strategy that includes the following components:

First, India needs to develop an integrated approach that combines military preparedness with sophisticated information and legal operations. This means boosting cyber defense, enacting strong legal instruments, and building credible media outreach to counter adversarial propaganda.

Second, psychological resilience should be cultivated both within the armed forces and among civilians. As it stands, the Indian public is susceptible to emotional overreaction, a vulnerability that adversaries often exploit. Educational initiatives focused on psychological tactics and information warfare can better equip citizens and soldiers to handle such strategies.

Third, legal readiness is essential. India must invest in training its diplomats, military attachés, and legal advisors to skillfully handle international legal systems and diplomatic protocols. This is vital for contesting false claims and advancing India’s position on global platforms.

Fourth, public diplomacy must become a cornerstone of India’s outreach efforts. Transparent communication, strategic media participation, and active involvement in international bodies are necessary to mold favorable global perceptions.

During Operation Sindoor, India’s media played a key role in rallying domestic support and communicating the government’s position. However, it also highlighted some critical drawbacks in the perception battle. Sensationalist and excessively nationalistic reporting diluted the credibility of India’s message on the international front. While such coverage may have succeeded in boosting morale at home, it was ineffective in securing broader global support.

In the future, India must devise a balanced and comprehensive information warfare strategy. This should involve identifying different target audiences—both domestic and international—crafting specific themes for each, and selecting the most effective channels for dissemination. A narrative that resonates emotionally within India might not translate well globally.

Ultimately, combining emotion with accuracy will be the key to succeeding in the perception war. And that campaign needs to begin now.

India’s Defence Minister Rajnath Singh stated on Friday that Operation Sindoor was only a limited preview of the nation’s military strength, hinting that a much larger response would be unleashed if necessary. While addressing air warriors and security personnel at the Indian Air Force base in Bhuj, Gujarat, Singh emphasized that India’s military capabilities go far beyond what has been demonstrated.

“Operation Sindoor isn’t over. What the world saw was just a trailer. The Indian armed forces will show the full picture when the right time comes,” he told the personnel gathered at the base, making it clear that the mission had not concluded and that India’s full might had yet to be deployed.

His remarks also carried a stern warning directed at Pakistan, which he accused of harboring and nurturing terrorism. Singh minced no words in condemning the neighboring country, saying it has effectively become a hub of terrorist activities. “Pakistan has become a terror factory. Like habitual offenders kept under surveillance, we’ve placed them on probation. A ceasefire is not the end of action—if they repeat their misadventures, our forces will respond firmly. Again,” Singh declared, in a sharp message that underscored India’s no-tolerance approach to cross-border terrorism.

The Defence Minister’s comments came during his visit to Bhuj, where he was accompanied by Air Chief Marshal A.P. Singh. During the visit, Rajnath Singh commended the Indian Air Force for its precise and speedy execution of Operation Sindoor. The operation, which was carried out using indigenous defense systems, highlighted the country’s technological advancements in defense.

“There’s a saying in our country—‘Din mein taare dekhna’ (to see stars in broad daylight). The Made-in-India BrahMos missile lit up their night like day. Just 23 minutes were enough for the Indian Air Force to dismantle the terror infrastructure being nurtured across the border,” Singh said, drawing loud applause and cheers from the military personnel in attendance.

Singh stressed that the operation was a reflection of India’s changing defense policy. While India had historically exercised restraint in response to provocation, the Defence Minister made it clear that the country was now embracing a more assertive approach, focused on retribution and deterrence.

Reaffirming India’s tough stand against terrorism, Singh promised that those responsible for such acts, including their sponsors, would face consequences no matter where they were. This shift in India’s strategic posture reflects a broader transition in the nation’s security doctrine, emphasizing proactive measures over reactive ones.

“Through Operation Sindoor, you’ve shown that ‘Sindoor’ is not just a symbol of adornment, but of courage and unshakable resolve,” he told the assembled troops, praising their bravery and determination in carrying out the mission.

In addition to addressing military matters, Singh voiced apprehensions about the international funding that Pakistan receives, particularly from financial institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF). He questioned how these funds were being utilized by Pakistan and warned that they may not be directed toward economic stabilization, but rather to further terrorist activities.

“Pakistan will divert a large portion of the funds received from the IMF to strengthen its terror infrastructure,” Singh alleged, pointing specifically to a $1.023 billion tranche recently released to Pakistan under the IMF’s Extended Fund Facility. This funding, he suggested, could end up being misused to bolster terror networks instead of addressing the country’s economic woes.

Pakistan has long depended on external financial aid to manage its economic crisis, and support from the IMF has played a crucial role in this effort. However, Indian officials have repeatedly expressed concern over the potential misuse of such funds. According to Singh, the risk of financial assistance being funneled into terrorist operations cannot be ignored, and international bodies must take a closer look at how such money is spent.

Singh’s remarks come at a time of heightened tension in the region, with India continuing to monitor developments across the border. His speech in Bhuj was not only a message of encouragement to Indian forces but also a clear signal to adversaries that any form of aggression or terrorism would be met with swift and decisive retaliation.

Operation Sindoor, according to Indian officials, was designed to send a strong message—not just to Pakistan, but to the international community—that India will no longer remain passive in the face of continued threats. The operation, carried out by the Indian Air Force, reportedly struck multiple terror-related targets across the border in a limited time span, demonstrating the country’s enhanced capability for high-impact, time-sensitive operations.

By highlighting the fact that the BrahMos missile used in the operation was domestically developed, Singh underscored India’s growing self-reliance in defense production. This aligns with the government’s broader “Make in India” initiative, aimed at reducing dependence on foreign arms imports and strengthening domestic military manufacturing.

Singh’s strong language and assertive tone reflect a significant evolution in India’s national security approach. Where earlier responses to provocation often leaned toward diplomacy and restraint, the message now is one of firm action and preparedness. India, as articulated by its Defence Minister, is no longer content with mere warnings or symbolic gestures—it is ready to act with force when provoked.

The speech also served to boost morale among Indian troops, especially those stationed in sensitive areas like Bhuj, which lies close to the Pakistan border. By directly addressing air warriors and security personnel, Singh acknowledged their vital role in national security and assured them of the government’s unwavering support.

As Singh concluded his visit, the overarching message was clear: India remains vigilant and prepared to protect its sovereignty and security. The response to terrorism will be firm and unrelenting, and operations like Sindoor are only the beginning of a broader strategy that prioritizes national defense over diplomatic niceties.

Operation Sindoor stands not just as a tactical success but as a symbolic shift in India’s military strategy. It embodies a new era in which deterrence is achieved through demonstrable action, and where every provocation is likely to be met with an equally powerful reply. As Singh reminded the world, what has been seen so far is only the trailer—India’s true response will unfold when the time is right.

**Enhancing Human Rights Oversight: India’s NHRC in Focus**

The establishment of the National Human Rights Commission of India (NHRC) in accordance with the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 (PHRA) was a significant step towards safeguarding human rights within the nation. Enacted on 28th September 1993, the PHRA delineates the framework for the constitution of the NHRC, State Human Rights Commissions, and Human Rights Courts, with the aim of bolstering human rights protection and related matters.

According to Section 2(d) of the PHRA, human rights encompass “the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in the International Covenants and enforceable by courts in India.” These international covenants, as defined in Section 2(f), include agreements such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 16, 1966.

The PHRA also outlines the functions of the NHRC in Section 12, affirming its role in upholding human rights standards. Furthermore, the Central Government has the authority to notify additional covenants or conventions aimed at strengthening civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights, aligning with international norms endorsed by the United Nations General Assembly.

The NHRC’s accreditation status holds immense significance in the global human rights landscape. The commission attained ‘A’ status accreditation from the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI) in 1999, indicating full compliance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) principles and the 1993 ‘Paris Principles’. The accreditation process, conducted every five years, involves rigorous review and peer assessment to ensure adherence to international standards.

India’s retention of ‘A’ status accreditation through successive reviews until 2017 underscored its commitment to human rights values. The accreditation not only facilitates India’s active participation in UN forums but also enhances its credibility on the global stage. However, recent developments have raised concerns regarding NHRC’s autonomy and effectiveness in addressing human rights violations.

The denial of ‘A’ status accreditation in the latest review held on May 1, 2024, signals a critical juncture for the NHRC. Issues such as transparency in member appointments, the presence of police officers in human rights investigations, and inadequate gender and minority representation have been cited as areas needing improvement. These shortcomings challenge the commission’s ability to uphold the ‘Paris Principles’ and maintain independence from governmental influence.

The inclusion of Manusmriti references in NHRC’s official brochure has sparked controversy due to its conflicting principles with constitutional values. While Manusmriti offers insights into ancient Indian literature, its endorsement by the NHRC raises concerns about religious bias and undermines the commission’s credibility in promoting modern human rights concepts.

To address these challenges, the NHRC must heed the recommendations of international bodies like the OHCHR and GANHRI, focusing on enhancing transparency, independence, and accountability. Additionally, proactive measures from state and central governments, along with judicial intervention, are essential to uphold human rights standards and restore India’s reputation in the global human rights arena.

Bolstering the NHRC’s functionality is imperative for advancing human rights in India and restoring the nation’s standing in the international community. By aligning its practices with constitutional values and international norms, the NHRC can play a pivotal role in ensuring justice, equality, and dignity for all individuals.