
Ajit Doval dares foreign media | Operation Sindoor
Why is Ajit Doval speaking about Operation Sindoor now? Capital Beat
Is Doval's speech about foreign media coverage of Op Sindoor an attempt to reclaim lost relevance? Retd Lt Gen Ashok Mehta offers a sharp, candid analysis
Over two months after the high-stakes Operation Sindhu unfolded along the India-Pakistan border, National Security Advisor Ajit Doval has finally spoken—raising more questions than answers.
In a public address at IIT Madras, Doval dismissed claims of Indian damage from Pakistani strikes, challenged foreign media narratives, and hailed the use of indigenous technology.
But is this belated intervention a strategic move—or an attempt to reclaim lost relevance? Retired Lieutenant General Ashok Mehta offers a sharp, candid analysis.
How do you interpret Ajit Doval's recent remarks on Operation Sindoor?
It's astonishing. Ajit Doval is the National Security Advisor—the country’s top security voice, arguably even above the Defence Minister, next only to the Prime Minister. And yet, he remained completely silent for two and a half months. During that time, others were speaking: air force officials, the Defence Minister, the Foreign Minister, the Chief of Defence Staff. But not a word from Doval.
His claim that not even a window pane was broken on the Indian side is equally surprising. What evidence does he expect? The satellite images he refers to only show the Pakistani side—no before-and-after images of India have been released.
Is this a case of trying to insert himself back into the narrative after being sidelined?
Possibly. As you noted, he was completely absent from public discourse during and after the operation. Now suddenly, at an academic event, he speaks up and dares the foreign media. That timing is curious.
To be fair, he did appear in visuals during high-level briefings with the Prime Minister, alongside the three service chiefs and ministers. But beyond that, he was invisible. This low-profile approach seems part of the image he’s cultivated—that of India’s covert “James Bond.” But his public silence during such a major national security event is difficult to justify.
You said there are important questions that still need asking. What are they?
There are several. He said nine terrorist targets in Pakistan were struck with precision. Fine. But he doesn’t mention casualties or provide evidence. Remember, in Balakot, it was claimed that 200 terrorists were killed. Here, again, we have no proof.
Also, Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar had earlier said that Pakistan was informed before the operation that India would only hit terrorist infrastructure. Later, that changed—first to ‘at the start’ and then ‘at the end’ of the operation. That flip-flop raises questions.
And let’s not forget: some of those so-called terrorist hubs were likely vacated beforehand. The element of surprise was clearly missing. Everyone knew India would retaliate. So, what exactly was achieved?
As someone from the armed forces, were you surprised Doval remained silent for so long?
Immensely. It's baffling. This is a man who has been central to shaping India's security doctrine under Modi. He's highly visible in strategic circles. Yet during Operation Sindhu—arguably one of the most significant security episodes in recent memory—he was completely missing from the narrative.
Then, out of the blue, he speaks at a convocation where very few journalists are even present. Why now? What prompted this sudden urge to challenge foreign media narratives?
Some argue this suggests Doval's influence is waning. Do you agree?
It’s hard to say definitively, but yes, such speculation is natural. His absence, followed by a delayed and seemingly defensive statement, does raise eyebrows. That said, he remains a powerful figure who operates behind the scenes. We shouldn’t rush to conclusions about his standing.
Doval said there was “no damage” on the Indian side and demanded photographic proof from the foreign press. Is that claim credible?
Not at all. It’s a gross exaggeration. Damage clearly occurred on our side—especially in Jammu & Kashmir, Punjab, and Rajasthan. Civilians were evacuated, and shelling caused substantial damage. There were even reports of drone attacks—Pakistan launched at least a thousand drones. It’s simply not believable that all were intercepted and none caused damage.
Also, Rahul Gandhi visited border areas weeks after the operation and highlighted visible destruction. To dismiss that as non-existent or irrelevant is misleading.
Is it fair to say Doval’s statement at IIT Madras was, in parts, misleading?
Yes, it's hugely exaggerated. While greater damage may have been inflicted on Pakistan, there’s no denying that India suffered losses too. Doval's implication that we emerged completely unscathed does not match what we know on the ground.
Doval also praised the role of indigenous technology in the operation. What’s your assessment?
He was speaking at IIT Madras, so naturally the focus was on technology. And yes, India has made tremendous strides—systems like Akash missiles, radar networks, and air defense are increasingly indigenized.
But let’s be realistic: around 70–80% of our key systems still rely on foreign inputs. Take BrahMos—it’s Indo-Russian. The Rafales used in the operation carry imported weapons like SCALP and Meteor missiles. Even our radar systems often have foreign origins.
The S-400 system, which played a central role in our defense, is entirely Russian. So, while indigenous efforts deserve praise, Doval’s claim overstates the case.
He mentioned that the operation lasted 23 minutes and involved highly targeted strikes. Does that match your understanding?
That’s plausible. The operation likely involved precise planning and execution. But again, the larger question is: where are the results? What happened to the terrorists responsible for the initial attack? For the first time in such a scenario, the attackers escaped. No bodies, no captures—nothing.
The Prime Minister had said they would be hunted to the ends of the earth. But today, no one’s talking about that. Even as cross-border terrorism continues, the conversation has shifted elsewhere.
Has India’s post-Sindhu diplomatic effort failed to garner global support?
Absolutely. Despite spending crores sending delegations abroad, we didn’t convince a single major power to explicitly condemn Pakistan. Most stuck to generic statements about condemning terrorism. That should prompt introspection.
Meanwhile, the world has moved on—to Ukraine, Gaza, the Middle East. Sindhu is already forgotten internationally. Domestically too, we seem more interested in narrative-building than evidence-based clarity.
Shouldn’t the NSA be focusing on real issues rather than debating window panes?
Precisely. We’re still unclear on what constitutes a “red line.” The government said every terror attack would be treated as an act of war. Yet, no one knows how that’s defined.
The NSA should be answering tough questions—about accountability, strategy, intelligence lapses, and long-term deterrence. Instead, we get sound bites about damage denial and photo challenges. That’s not helpful.
The content above has been transcribed from video using a fine-tuned AI model. To ensure accuracy, quality, and editorial integrity, we employ a Human-In-The-Loop (HITL) process. While AI assists in creating the initial draft, our experienced editorial team carefully reviews, edits, and refines the content before publication. At The Federal, we combine the efficiency of AI with the expertise of human editors to deliver reliable and insightful journalism.