Operation Sindoor: 'For first time India crossed a psychological threshold'

In this episode of Off the Beaten Track, senior journalist Nilanjan Mukhopadhyay speaks with Bharat Karnad, Distinguished Fellow at the United Services Institution of India and author of Staggering Forward: Narendra Modi and India’s Global Ambition. The discussion examines India’s response to the Pahalgam terror attack, the political messaging of Operation Sindoor, and the shifting terms of military and diplomatic engagement with Pakistan.

Q: Prime Minister Narendra Modi said India won't succumb to Pakistan's nuclear blackmail. How do you interpret that in the context of this crisis?

Bharat Karnad: Trump exaggerated the situation with his "nuclear war averted" statement. Neither India nor Pakistan even moved to a heightened nuclear alert. So, to say we were on the brink of a nuclear war is hyperbolic. Modi’s assertion that India won’t succumb to nuclear blackmail is a serious declaration that Pakistan’s traditional tactic — of using the nuclear threat to deter India from retaliating to terror attacks — won't work anymore.

The missile strike on Chaklala, where Pakistan's strategic plans division is based, was symbolically powerful. It conveyed India’s message loud and clear: don’t assume immunity behind nuclear threats. That was a psychological shift.

Also read: Tharoor, Kanimozhi in govt delegation to spread Op Sindoor message abroad

Q: You mentioned Chaklala. Was this strike a game-changer in the strategic messaging to Pakistan?

Karnad: Absolutely. Chaklala is where Pakistan’s nuclear command structure is located. The strike there wasn’t just tactical; it was meant to make a point. It's about conveying to Pakistan that we won’t hold back from striking high-value targets, even if they lie at the core of their strategic setup.

Also read: India-Pak have decided to work towards reducing alertness level: Army

Q: Does this mean India has moved past previous military restraint, like in the case of the 2001 Parliament attack or the 2008 Mumbai attacks?

Karnad: Indeed. Until now, India has shown great restraint, even after provocative incidents like the 2001 Parliament attack and 26/11. The lack of immediate military response reflected poor preparedness and a lack of political will.

For instance, after the Parliament attack, Prime Minister Vajpayee asked the then Army Chief General Padmanabhan, "Aap kuch kar sakte hain?" (Can you do anything?) The General just shook his head. That led to Operation Parakram — a costly, drawn-out mobilisation with no action.

Also read: When Operation Sindoor exposed the dysfunction of Hindutva

Q: How does Operation Sindoor compare to earlier responses like Balakot or Uri?

Karnad: Operation Sindoor was far more coordinated and militarily effective. It demonstrated both offensive and defensive prowess. Our missiles hit high-value targets, and our air defence worked superbly in layered fashion. It showed that we can neutralise incoming threats, whether missiles or drones.

This was also the first time India crossed a psychological threshold: targeting deep within Pakistani territory. It changed the rules of engagement.

Also read: Exclusive | Ex-DRDO chief Selvamurthy: 'Future wars will be unmanned, autonomous'

Q: Reports suggest Pakistan shot down an Indian Rafale. You wrote about this. What happened?

Karnad: The Indian Air Force has not officially confirmed it, but circumstantial evidence suggests a Rafale was hit. After the first day, the Rafale fleet was grounded. The suspicion is that it was downed by Pakistan’s PL-15 missile, aided by Swedish Saab AWACS providing targeting data.

The Rafale’s meteor missile, which is its strongest air-to-air weapon, wasn’t deployed beyond day one. It’s our most advanced ordinance, yet we couldn't use it to full potential. Meanwhile, Pakistan used cheaper, effective long-range missiles with better targeting integration.

Q: So was the Air Force underprepared for this kind of scenario?

Karnad: Yes, that’s our institutional flaw. Our military doesn't train for these high-tech scenarios. We were caught off guard. The Pakistani Air Force, using tactics involving passive radar and AWACS-based targeting, outperformed us on the first day.

Q: You argue India missed an opportunity to seize territory in PoK. Can you elaborate?

Karnad: Yes. Pakistan, by revoking the Shimla Accord and threatening the Indus Waters Treaty, gave India the legal grounds to act. We could have taken the Haji Pir Salient, a critical territory used by ISI for infiltration into Kashmir. Holding it would have changed ground realities.

It would have signalled a shift: that every terror attack would result in Pakistan losing a part of PoK. That’s real deterrence.

Q: What message has Operation Sindoor ultimately sent?

Karnad: Militarily, it showed India now considers Pakistan a proper valid theatre of operations, not just PoK. Psychologically, it broke the self-imposed limits we observed post-Shimla Accord.

Diplomatically, India is now positioned to make stronger claims about not talking unless terror stops. The government can now negotiate from a position of strength.

Q: But doesn’t this also call for political engagement in Kashmir?

Karnad: Absolutely. We must reach out to all groups, including former dissenters, to integrate Kashmir politically. Leaders like Omar Abdullah and Mehbooba Mufti have already suggested dialogue. Youth in the valley are asking to be part of India's fight against terrorism. That must be channelled constructively.

Q: What about civil treatment of Kashmiris elsewhere in India?

Karnad: That’s critical. Discrimination against Kashmiris only plays into Pakistan’s hands. They must be treated with respect and equality. Political gestures must be backed with ground-level inclusion.

Q: How do you assess the US role? The State Department suggested a broader Indo-Pak dialogue.

Karnad: That’s typical American interference. The US has deeply penetrated our system via think tanks and bureaucrats with children abroad. We need to resist that narrative and stay focused on our national interest, which means not rushing into dialogue just for diplomatic optics.

Q: Lastly, has Modi lived up to his India First vision in security policy?

Karnad: Sadly, no. Despite strong rhetoric, his government has not dismantled the socialist defence apparatus or empowered private sector innovation in defence manufacturing. India First means minimising government, but we are still stuck with an inefficient system.

(The content above has been generated 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.)