Operation Sindoor
A Planned Approach to Countering Terrorism
Introduction :
On May 6, 2025, India launched a military operation codenamed Operation Sindoor, targeting alleged terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistani-administered Kashmir. This was done in response to the terrorist attack that took place on April 22 in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir. It killed 26 people, including 25 Hindu tourists and one Nepalese citizen. India holds Pakistan-based militant groups responsible for the attack, a claim that Pakistan denies.
Operation Sindoor's Goals
The primary objectives of Operation Sindoor were :
- Neutralization of Terrorist Infrastructure: To dismantle the operational capabilities of groups such as Jaish-e-Mohammed and Lashkar-e-Taiba, which are allegedly involved in cross-border terrorism.
- Deterrence: To send a clear message that India will not tolerate attacks on its citizens and will take decisive action against those responsible.
- Minimization of Civilian Casualties: To conduct precise strikes that target only terrorist facilities, thereby reducing the risk to civilian lives.
Execution of the Operation
Operation Sindoor commenced on the night of May 6 and lasted approximately 23 minutes. The Indian Air Force deployed Rafale fighter jets armed with SCALP cruise missiles and AASM Hammer bombs to carry out the strikes. The targets included nine locations across Pakistan and Pakistani-administered Kashmir, such as Bahawalpur, Muridke, Bhimber, Kotli, and Muzaffarabad. The operation was executed without Indian aircraft entering Pakistani airspace, as confirmed by a Pakistani general. According to Indian officials, the strikes resulted in the elimination of at least 100 militants. Notably, Abdul Rauf Azhar, the commander of Jaish-e-Mohammed and a key figure behind the 1999 IC-814 hijacking and the 2002 Daniel Pearl murder, was reportedly killed during the operation.
Strategic and Tactical Considerations
The selection of targets was strategic, focusing on known hubs of terrorist activity. Bahawalpur, for instance, is associated with Jaish-e-Mohammed, while Muridke is linked to Lashkar-e-Taiba. The use of advanced weaponry, such as the SCALP missiles and AASM bombs, allowed for precise strikes, minimizing collateral damage. Additionally, the deployment of the Sudarshan Chakra air defense system, India's variant of the Russian S-400, played a crucial role in intercepting hostile missiles and drones, thereby protecting Indian cities from potential retaliatory attacks.
International Reactions
- Pakistan : Pakistan condemned the strikes as a "cowardly attack" on civilians and vowed retaliation. In response to the airstrikes, protests broke out in a number of cities, including Islamabad and Karachi. Humayun Saeed and Hadiqa Kiani, two well-known Pakistani celebrities, called for dialogue and peace.
- India : The Indian government maintained that the operation was a necessary response to terrorism. Prime Minister Narendra Modi canceled his planned trip to Europe to monitor the situation. An all-party meeting expressed unanimous support for the operation, emphasizing the need to combat terrorism.
- International Community : World leaders, including those from the United States, China, and Russia, called for de-escalation and dialogue between the two nuclear-armed nations. Additionally, the United Nations urged both nations to refrain from further military confrontations.
India's domestic reactions !!!
The operation received widespread support across India. The government's efforts to combat terrorism were supported by political parties, including opposition ones. Bollywood celebrities, such as Akshay Kumar, Hema Malini, and Sidharth Malhotra, praised the Indian Armed Forces for their bravery and dedication. However, the naming of the operation as "Sindoor" sparked controversy. The term "Sindoor" refers to the red powder worn by married Hindu women, symbolizing marital status. Critics argued that the name was insensitive, as it could be seen as exploiting the tragedy for symbolic purposes. In response to public backlash, Reliance Industries withdrew its trademark application for the term "Operation Sindoor," clarifying that it was filed without proper authorization.
Conclusion :
A significant development in the ongoing India-Pakistan conflict is Operation Sindoor. The operation was successful in its goal of destroying terrorist infrastructure, but it also brought to light the complexity of military operations in a region with a long history of tensions. The international community's calls for dialogue underscore the need for sustained efforts toward peace and stability. As both nations navigate this volatile situation, the hope remains that diplomacy will prevail over further escalation.
About the Creator
Bishal Chakraborty
From haunted forests to high-tech frontiers, I dive into the eerie, the urgent, and the untamed. 🧟♂️🌐🐅
I don’t just tell stories—I dissect them, expose them.
🖤 Welcome to the crossroads of fear, fact, and fascination.
Keep reading
More stories from Bishal Chakraborty and writers in Criminal and other communities.
"Ashes in the Wind"
The morning of November 14th began like any other in the bustling city of Riyanpur. The streets buzzed with life — schoolchildren rushed with backpacks flopping, vendors shouted their daily deals, and the scent of cardamom tea wafted through narrow alleys. For Amina, a 34-year-old teacher, it was the start of a typical Thursday. She kissed her 7-year-old son Aarav goodbye, promising to be back by lunchtime.
By Bishal Chakraborty 9 months ago in Criminal
Minneapolis ICE Shooting Updates
In recent weeks, Minneapolis has found itself at the center of a growing legal and political controversy following a shooting involving Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents. What initially appeared to be a straightforward federal use-of-force investigation has evolved into a broader dispute between state authorities and federal officials, raising serious questions about transparency, jurisdiction, and accountability. The most significant development so far is the state’s claim that it has been denied access to key evidence related to the incident. As public attention intensifies, the case is no longer just about what happened during the shooting. It is increasingly about who controls the facts, who gets to investigate them, and how justice is supposed to function when federal and state systems collide. What We Know About the Minneapolis ICE Shooting The shooting occurred during a federal immigration enforcement operation in Minneapolis. ICE agents were reportedly conducting official duties when gunfire erupted, resulting in injuries and immediate emergency response. Federal authorities confirmed the incident and stated that internal protocols were activated, including an automatic review by federal oversight bodies. From the beginning, details were limited. Officials cited the ongoing nature of the investigation and concerns about officer safety. This lack of information, while not unusual in federal cases, quickly became a point of friction for Minnesota state authorities, who argued that the public deserved clarity and that the state had a legal role to play in examining the incident. State Authorities Push for Transparency Minnesota state officials, including investigators and legal representatives, formally requested access to evidence connected to the shooting. This evidence reportedly includes body camera footage, surveillance recordings, forensic reports, and internal communication logs from the operation. According to state representatives, these requests were either delayed or denied outright. The state has since gone on record stating that it cannot independently assess the legality of the shooting without full access to the materials. This denial has fueled concerns that federal agencies are operating without sufficient external oversight, especially in incidents involving potential civilian harm. State leaders emphasized that their position is not adversarial by default. Rather, they argue that cooperation between federal and state agencies is essential to maintain public trust, particularly in communities already wary of immigration enforcement. Federal Response and Jurisdictional Limits Federal officials, for their part, maintain that the investigation falls squarely under federal jurisdiction. ICE operates as a federal agency, and shootings involving federal officers are typically reviewed internally and, when appropriate, by federal prosecutors or inspectors general. In statements released following the controversy, federal representatives cited legal restrictions that limit the sharing of evidence during an active investigation. They also stressed that premature disclosure could compromise witness testimony or investigative integrity. This explanation, while legally grounded, has done little to ease state frustrations. Critics argue that “ongoing investigation” has too often been used as a blanket justification for withholding information, even in cases where transparency could prevent misinformation and public unrest. Community Reaction and Public Trust The Minneapolis community has responded with a mix of concern, anger, and fatigue. For many residents, particularly in immigrant and marginalized communities, the shooting has reopened long-standing fears about aggressive enforcement tactics and lack of accountability. Community leaders and advocacy groups have called for the immediate release of non-sensitive evidence, arguing that transparency is a prerequisite for trust. Peaceful demonstrations and public forums have highlighted a broader demand: that no law enforcement agency, federal or otherwise, should be beyond scrutiny. Local officials echoed these concerns, noting that Minneapolis has spent years attempting to rebuild trust between residents and law enforcement. The perception that evidence is being withheld threatens to undermine that progress. Legal Implications of Denied Evidence From a legal standpoint, the state’s inability to access evidence raises complex questions. While federal agencies do have authority over their operations, states also have a responsibility to investigate deaths or injuries occurring within their borders. Legal experts suggest that this dispute could set a precedent. If states are routinely blocked from reviewing evidence in federal use-of-force cases, it may limit their ability to pursue independent inquiries or bring charges under state law when applicable. Some analysts believe the issue could ultimately be resolved in court, with judges determining whether the state has a legal right to access certain materials. Such a ruling could have national implications, influencing how future federal-state conflicts are handled. Political Dimensions of the Case The Minneapolis ICE shooting has also taken on a political dimension. Immigration enforcement remains a deeply divisive issue, and incidents like this tend to amplify existing ideological divides. State officials critical of federal immigration policies view the denial of evidence as symptomatic of a larger lack of accountability. Meanwhile, supporters of strict federal enforcement argue that state interference could hinder effective operations and put officers at risk. This political tension complicates the path forward. What might otherwise be a procedural disagreement risks becoming a symbolic battle over immigration, law enforcement authority, and states’ rights. What Happens Next? As of now, the investigation continues under federal oversight, while the state explores its legal options. Negotiations between state and federal officials have reportedly not been ruled out, suggesting that a compromise could still be reached. Potential next steps include limited evidence sharing under confidentiality agreements, congressional inquiries, or judicial review. Each option carries its own risks and consequences, both legally and politically. What remains clear is that public pressure is unlikely to fade. Minneapolis residents, like many Americans, are demanding clarity, fairness, and accountability in cases involving law enforcement use of force. A Broader Conversation About Accountability The Minneapolis ICE shooting is no longer just a single incident under investigation. It has become a lens through which broader issues are being examined: the balance of power between federal and state authorities, the limits of transparency, and the role of public oversight in a democratic society. Whether or not the state ultimately gains access to the evidence, the controversy has already sparked an important conversation. How that conversation translates into policy, practice, or reform remains to be seen, but its impact will likely extend far beyond Minneapolis. In the end, accountability is not only about assigning blame. It is about ensuring that systems function openly and fairly, especially when lives are affected. The outcome of this case may help determine how well those principles are upheld in the future.
By Saboor Brohi 5 days ago in Criminal
Federal Law Enforcement Shooting in Minneapolis Sparks National Debat
## **Federal Law Enforcement Shooting in Minneapolis Sparks National Debate** In early 2026, a serious incident unfolded in Minneapolis when federal law enforcement officers shot a civilian during a large-scale operation in the city. The event immediately drew public attention and ignited widespread discussion about the role of federal agencies, public safety, and accountability. The shooting occurred in a residential area, creating fear and confusion among residents and prompting strong reactions from local leaders and community groups.
By America today 6 days ago in Criminal
Comments
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.