[Despatched by Email on 21.05.2025 at 1000-hrs] BY SPEED POST Dated: 21.5.2025
We feel distressed and anguished at the derogatory statements made by Deputy Chief Minister Jagdish Devda and Minister Vijay Shah against the Defence Forces, in the context of the recent India-Pakistan conflict following the horrific Pahalgam terrorist attack on innocent tourists.
First, Madhya Pradesh Minister Vijay Shah made a public statement referring to Colonel Sofiya Qureshi, the official spokesperson for the Defence Forces, as the “(terrorists) wiped the sindoor of our sisters and daughters (in the context of the recent Pahalgam attack by terrorists), and we sent their own sister to give it back to them in kind”.
[] In this, he publicly betrayed his gender-insensitive, non-secular, divisive state of mind, deprecating women in general, tending to incite communal fissures, and insulting India’s Defence Forces.
Second, Deputy CM Jagdish Devda, speaking at a training session for civil defence volunteers in Jabalpur, told the audience, “Pradhanmantri ji ko bhi dhanyawad dena chahenge, aur pura desh, desh ki wo sena, wo sainik, unke charno mein natmastak hain. Unke charno mein pura desh natmastak hai. Unhone jo jawab diya hai
प्रधानमंत्री जी को भी धन्यवाद देना चाहेंगे, और पूरा देश, देश की वो सेना, वो सैनिक, उनके चरणों में नतमस्तक हैं। उनके चरणों में पूरा देश नतमस्तक है। अनहोने जो जवाब दिया हा
(We would also like to thank the Prime Minister; the entire country, the country’s Army, its soldiers are bowing at his feet. The entire country is bowing at his feet, for the retaliatory response).” [. This link was available earlier, but appears to have been removed at present]. It may be recalled that earlier,
Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, Shri Yogi Adityanath, made a similar derogatory statement against the Defence Forces by calling it “modiji ki sena”,
मोदीजी की सेना”
in April 2019. [. This link was available earlier, but appears to have been removed at present].
It is unfortunate that Government chose to remain silent on the matter. Shri Adityanath’s earlier statement and Shri Jagdish Devda’s recent statement showed their disrespect for the letter and spirit of Article 53 of the Constitution of India, which defines executive power of the Union as follows: “Executive power of the Union. –
(1) The executive power of the Union shall be vested in the President and shall be exercised by him either directly or through officers subordinate to him in accordance with this Constitution.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision, the supreme command of the Defence Forces of the Union shall be vested in the President and the exercise thereof shall be regulated by law.
(3) Nothing in this article shall— (a) be deemed to transfer to the President any functions conferred by any existing law on the Government of any State or other authority;”
We need hardly emphasise that, under Article 53(2) of the Constitution, the supreme command of the Defence Forces of the Union shall vest in the President of India, and in no other authority. It is unfortunate that the remarks of Shri Jagdish Devda are actually being defended, as this link indicates [
]. Shri Jagdish Devda’s statement displays his disrespect for the authority of the President of India. Reportedly, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has suo moto ordered the police to file a case against Shri Vijay Shah []. While expressing solidarity with Colonel Sofiya Qureshi and the Defence Forces in general, for their unwavering commitment to safeguarding national security, we unequivocally condemn the statements made by the two Ministers named above.
We feel that the derogatory statements made by the two Ministers can adversely affect the morale of the serving personnel of our Defence Forces, resulting in weakening of national security and territorial integrity. Because of the stringent laws and rules governing discipline in the Defence Forces, its serving personnel are debarred from responding to these derogatory, humiliating statements.
We therefore respectfully request you, to issue directions for appropriate action to be taken by Government to prevent recurrence of such regrettable incidents, in the interest of national unity and security. Jai Hind!
Yours faithfully,
Admiral Vishnu Bhagwat, PVSM, AVSM (Retd)
Lt Gen Vijay Oberoi, PVSM, AVSM, VSM (Retd)
Lt Gen Ashok Vasudeva (Retd)
Maj Gen Rajendra Prakash, VSM (Retd) Maj Gen M.P.S.Kandal (Retd) Maj Gen S.G.Vombatkere, VSM (Retd) Maj Gen Inderjit Singh Dhillon (Retd) Maj Gen Brajesh Kumar, AVSM, VSM (Retd) Maj Gen M.Amin Naik, SM (Retd) Maj Gen A.J.S.Sandhu (Retd) Rear Admiral Alan O’Leary (Retd) Rear Admiral B.K.Ray, UYSM (Retd) Brig Vijay Atray (Retd) Cmde Lokesh Batra (Retd) Col Vivek Bopiah (Retd) Col Pavan Nair, VSM (Retd) Col Alok Asthana (Retd) Capt Aziz Lone, IN (Retd) Cdr David Isaacs (Retd) Cdr A. Sridharan (Retd) Cdr Raj Kumar (Retd) Ms. Lalita Ramdas, Secunderabad Shri. Vappala Balachandran, IPS (Retd) Ms. Meena Gupta, IAS (Retd) Shri. G. Balagopal, IAS (Retd) Shri. Ranjan Kashyap, IAS (Retd) Shri. Ravi Joshi, Mysuru Prof. Jagdeep Chhokar, Former Dean IIM, Ahmedabad Dr. S.Chatterjee, Retired Scientist, Bengaluru Dr. Vinod Vyasulu, Economist, Bengaluru Prof. Shalini Urs, Mysuru Dr. Swarnamala Sirsi, Mysuru Ms. Preethi Maroli, Mysuru Prof. N.S.Rangaraju, Mysuru Ms. Rashmi Oberoi, Chandigarh Ms. E.Roopa Rao, Mysuru Dr. Rati Rao, E., Retired Scientist, National President AIPWA Shri. C.P.Viswanatha Guptha, Mysuru Shri. Chhotebhai, Convenor Indian Catholic Forum, Kanpur Shri. Badri Narayan Krishnan, Mysuru Shri. Mansoor Ahmed, Mysuru Shri. D.T.Devare, Bengaluru Shri. M.F.Kaleem, Mysuru Ms. Rosamma Thomas, Pala Shri. P.A.Kumar, Mysuru
Operation Sindoor: BJP defends MP deputy CM as a row erupts over his remarks
Op Sindoor launched against the Terrorists and their creators ,protectors and financiers on 07 May 25 did achieve its aims and objectives.
Attacking the Headquarters of Jaish-e- Mohammed at Bahawalpur and Lashkar-e- Taiba at Muridke and seven additional safe heaven and launch pads/ training centres in Pakistan was indeed the action required/warranted to avenge the murder of 26 innocent lives ( male members of Hindu Community) at Pahalgam on 22 Apr 25.
It was the repeat of the brutality shown on the Hindu/Sikh families during the Partition in 1947. That time too, male members of both Communities were murdered in cold blood by the murderers/butchers of Pakistan and the widows along with their children were forced to flee to India but killed them in Trains too which reached Amritsar with dead bodies
Pakistan ever since their creation on 14 Aug 1947 has been showing its hatred for India on many occasions . Almost all Hindu /Sikh families faced the same challenge of fleeing Pakistan without their male members as they were murdered in cold blood by these murderers, looters and butchers. Thus killing innocent male members in front of their families is in their DNA.
Barely two months on getting independence, Pakistan launched attack on the Indian soil in the garb of raiders and captured a large chunk of our territory before the Indian Army intervened and stopped further ingress. Present day POK (Pak Occupied Kashmir) was annexed by Pakistan because of our ex Maharaza Hari Singh’ s late decision taken for accession and our inability to recapture the area . That point became and does remain a bone of contention between the two Nations.
Pakistan has always been Showing hatred and animosity towards Hindustan at all levels and has been resorting to unacceptable utterances for letting down India at the International forums. It tried again through 1965 war that proved to be a misadventure.
Determined to take revenge for 1965 defeat, Pakistan fought another unsuccessful battle in Dec1971, wherein 93000 Pakistani soldiers surrendered to the Indian Army and East Pakistan was converted to the present Bangladesh. Having lost so much of territory (erstwhile East Pakistan) and sizeable chunk on the Western front, followed by major treaties like Shimla Agreements 1972, return of POWs etc, her stance towards India never Changed.
Having failed on the war front, Pakistan chose the Proxy war policy of bleeding India by thousand cuts but in her heart never changed its stance of treating India as its ENEMY No 1.
India on the contrary has been continuing to be identified as a most peace loving Nation in the world and to achieve that aim has been resolving to appeasement and keeping its neighbours amused at all costs. Pakistan showed its intent and resolve to bleed India in May 1999 after having infiltrated and occupied higher ridges in Kargil,post the famous Bus Diplomacy ( Lahore to Delhi Bus Service) in February 1999, Inaugural bus service was done on 19 February.
To evict the Pakistan‘s Army, Indian Army had to lose 527 of brave hearts and about 1363 injured. We yet failed to identify our Enemy and tried to exploit our appeasement policy
Pakistan has been inflicting major casualties to our life and property rather successfully as our reactions have been to resolve the issues diplomatically.
Pakistan has been all out to make India bleed either by trained Militanta or by Infilteration of terrorist . Many Glaring incidents are as listed below
Many Terrorists activities before Pahalgam attack have been extremely painful and beyond tolerance for any respectful Nation and deserved severe punitive action.
2. An attack on the Parliament in Dec 2001, Martyred 7 Security Personnel,
3. Killing of 167 and more than 300 injured by 10 Terrorists from Lashkar-e- Taiba in Mumbai on 26 Nov 2008,
4. attack on Pathankot airbase on 02 January, 7 Killed,
on 18 Sep 2016 Attack at Uri Camp, 23 killed.
14 Feb 2019 Pulwama attack by rogues of Jaish-e-Mohammad,
46 of our jawans,
5. CRPF, Martyred and counting till we said No More, as a Nation.
It’s only on the launch of Operation Sindoor that addressed Pakistan protected/sheltered/financed Terrorists as the Enemy. It’s main objective, I suppose was to avenge the killings of Pahalgam
and to convey a strong message to Pakistan to refrain from such activities. It has indeed taken decades for identifying our Enemy that shows our resolve as a Nation.
Many Terrorists activities before Pahalgam attack have been extremely painful and beyond tolerance for any respectful Nation and deserved severe punitive action. Broadly massacre of 24 Sikhs in Chittsinghpora, Jammu & Kashmir on March 20, 2000, An attack on the Parliament in Dec 2001, Martyred 7 Security Personnel, Killing of 167 and more than 300 injured by 10 Terrorists from Lashkar-e- Taiba in Mumbai on 26 Nov 2008, attack on Pathankot airbase on 02 January, 7 Killed, on 18 Sep 2016 Attack at Uri Camp, 23 killed. 14 Feb 2019 Pulwama attack by rogues of Jaish-e-Mohammad, 46 of our jawans, CRPF, Martyred and counting till we said No More, as a Nation. It’s only on the launch ofOperation Sindoor that addressed Pakistan protected/sheltered/financed Terrorists as the Enemy. It’s main objective, I suppose was to avenge the killings of Pahalgam and to convey a strong message to Pakistan to refrain from such activities. It has indeed taken decades for identifying our Enemy that shows our resolve as a Nation.
Now that a ceasefire to firing has been accepted and enforced by Pakistan and India, its time to introspect and Identify the Enemy coming in the way of India’s fast growing economy, becoming a progressive and developed Nation. Terrorists being harboured, trained and indoctrinated by Pakistan need help to unite with their colleagues in heaven to fulfil the dictates of Allah.
As per me, Pakistan is not going to change their stance towards India, but requires periodic dose of hammering should it start with Terrorist activities again. We need to start living our life with a hostile neighbour that happens with quite a few countries around the world.
Smoke over Bahawalpur and Muridke has not settled down; the fog of war has not lifted.
Foreign Minister S Jaishankar’s clanger last week that “at the start of the operation we messaged Pakistan, we were hitting only terrorist targets and not Pakistan’s military so it could stay out” (though it chose not to) has proved disingenuous. Why was it said 20 days after Operation Sindoor? Earlier, at Uri and Balakot, “exclusion of Pakistan military” was qualified after the operations. So was it this time. But Pakistan’s response was inevitable. The MEA has clarified it was said during phase 1 at the end of the operation when the DGMOs spoke.
Nearly three weeks on, smoke over Bahawalpur and Muridke has not settled down. The fog of war has not lifted. Truth remains the first casualty. The ceasefire has no expiry date. Two terrorist incidents have taken place in Shopian and Tral and six local terrorists killed. Pahalgam culprits have not been caught. A new Multi-Agency Centre has come up; akin to shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. For the sixth time, Donald Trump has said he “‘managed to arrange ceasefire and avoid a bad nuclear war.” In all previous India-Pakistan conflicts, US crisis management has been a notable feature.
During Kargil and Balakot, diplomacy was riding on the back of the military. In Op Sindoor, Indian diplomacy could not keep pace with the velocity of the brilliantly executed operations that had only one questionable supporter, Israel. No neighbouring country has backed India’s kinetic response, though all have condemned the Pahalgam attack without naming Pakistan. China and Turkiye have come out in support of Pakistan. Despite India’s veiled denial of US intercession, diplomatic teams are being sent abroad for fire-fighting. Pakistan is following suit. In the month of July, Pakistan will hold the UNSC presidency, during which Kashmir is likely to come up.
Both India and Pakistan have celebrated victory. The balance of advantage in the aerial exchange is unarguably with India. Pakistan will live to fight another day as cross-border terrorism will not cease soon. While India may not have a national security policy, it has coined a complex counter-terrorism doctrine, declaring a terrorist attack an act of war and removing the light between proxies and sponsors. Delhi has dispensed with Pakistan’s deniability and dossiers exchange.
Not only is Op Sindoor the shortest stand-off, non-contact skirmish, but also the briefest nuclear crisis. For the first time, the IAF has taken the honours by proving to be the sword arm. It has established air power is minimally escalatory. The termination of the operation was qualified with “any Pakistan misadventure would attract a corresponding response.” Pakistan’s inevitable one-notch-up response therefore had escalation built in. Rawalpindi had to escalate to de-escalate and get off ramp. Superior technology and skill in delivery enabled India to maintain domination over escalation control.
This has restored deterrence and expanded space for conventional operations by raising Pakistan’s nuclear threshold. During the conflict, there was no nuclear signalling, except US detection of dynamic targeting that set off the nuclear alarm. The sale-worthiness of made-in-India and tested against Pakistan weaponry has enhanced even as the Chinese watched with a hawk eye.
Despite the stunning rise of technology, the man behind the machine is supreme. The foot soldier will dominate in conquest and defence of territory (PoK and LAC). Op Sindoor was a war of attrition and achieving psychological ascendency. The relevance of the Army will remain due to India’s unsettled borders, internal instabilities and defending sovereignty and territorial integrity.
The internationalisation of Kashmir and re-hyphenation with Pakistan have already happened. On bilateralism, Islamabad’s National Security Committee stated on April 25 in response to Delhi’s slew of non-kinetic measures that “Pakistan shall exercise the right to hold all bilateral agreements with India including but not limited to Simla Agreement in abeyance till India desists from its manifest behaviour of fomenting terrorism inside Pakistan, non-adherence to international law and UN resolutions on Kashmir.” The US may say it has “influence”, not “control” over Pakistan, it exercises both.
The Composite Dialogue begun in 2004 has remained on-off since 2008. The contours of the post-Pahalgam dialogue will be known after the cessation of firing stabilises into ceasefire. India should drop the charade: response was against terrorist infrastructure not the military, proportionate, responsible and non-escalatory. Ironically, Op Sindoor was required to break the Gordian knot terror and talks won’t go together.
Maj Gen Ashok K Mehta (retd) is a military commentator.
DRDO scientists are developing its more lethal versions, BrahMos-NG and BrahMos-II
AIR power pioneers asserted during the Great War years that aerial power is inherently offensive and should be independent; control of air is essential for victory; bombers would always penetrate defences and the enemy’s will could be broken through strategic bombing. Recently, the Indian Air Force, with the combination of air-launched BrahMos and Su-30 MKI, reaffirmed that these tenets still hold true, forcing Pakistan to request a ceasefire.
In 1983, the Government of India formed the Integrated Guided Missile Development Programme. Initially, it was focussed on ballistic missiles. But the devastating effect of US ship- and air-launched Tomahawk cruise missiles on Iraqi air defence systems during the 1991 Gulf war inspired India. In 1998, Dr APJ Abdul Kalam signed a pact with his Russian counterpart, establishing the BrahMos Aerospace joint venture. In 2001, the first test launch of BrahMos was conducted.
BrahMos is a two-stage cruise missile with a solid-propellant booster in the first stage that accelerates the missile to supersonic speeds. Once separated, a liquid-fuelled ramjet engine takes over, propelling it to a cruising speed of Mach 3. It operates at altitudes of 15 km to 10 m and has a range of 300-800 km. It carries a 200-300 kg conventional warhead and operates on the fire-and-forget principle. After firing, it autonomously navigates to its target, using inertial navigation, satellite guidance and terrain contour-matching, achieving accuracy of less than one metre.
The air-to-surface version was launched in 2017 and inducted into 222 Squadron, Tigersharks, in 2020. Its speed, accuracy and kinetic impact makes BrahMos one of the deadliest conventional cruise missiles. A direct hit from BrahMos can destroy reinforced bunkers, warships or command centres through its momentum. Its kinetic energy is 32 times of the US Tomahawk missile.
As ground-based air defence systems have become more accurate and lethal, the operational freedom once enjoyed by aerial platforms has diminished. The Ukraine-Russia war is a live example. After suffering heavy losses in the early stages, both sides avoided overflying contested areas and relied on long-range standoff weapons.
A similar approach was observed in the recent India-Pakistan conflict, when neither Indian nor Pakistani aircraft crossed the border. Pakistan relied on Turkish-made drones. Most of them were intercepted. Pakistan also used the ‘Fateh’ ballistic missile. Ballistic missiles have large-radar cross-section and follow a predictable, high-altitude parabolic trajectory. It makes them vulnerable to interception. Sure enough, India intercepted all missiles. In contrast, India launched BrahMos missiles from Su-30 MKIs to destroy targets with pinpoint accuracy. Though detailed results remain classified, the operational impact was undeniable. These missiles ensured minimal risk to pilots while achieving precision strike objectives. Due to its low-altitude, supersonic cruise profile, BrahMos is virtually impossible to intercept with existing air defence systems.
Indian scientists are already developing a future, more lethal version, BrahMos-NG (Next Generation). This will be smaller and lighter, enabling integration with platforms such as Tejas, Mirage and Rafale. Importantly, there will be no compromise on speed, range, lethality or stealth. Equipped with Active Electronically Scanned Array radar, it will offer enhanced precision. Simultaneously, a hypersonic version, known as BrahMos-II, inspired by the Russian Zircon missile, is being developed. It will be powered by scramjet to have a speed of more than 8 Mach and range of over 1,500 km. It will be impossible to intercept. This missile could be a true game-changer.
Arms exports play a vital role in enhancing a nation’s strategic influence. India has promoted BrahMos, with the Philippines becoming the first customer in 2022. Vietnam and Indonesia have expressed interest. Given concerns over China’s growing presence in the South China Sea, the acquisition of BrahMos by ASEAN nations could bolster regional deterrence. India’s entry into this niche market will enhance its strategic and economic ties across Asia.
The BrahMos showcased success of the government’s push for ‘Atmanirbhar Bharat’. The missile has more than 70 per cent Indian components. Its success is likely to catalyse collaboration between DRDO, Indian industries and academia and boost innovation.
The success of BrahMos is a testament to the changing nature of the battlefield, shifting from tactics to technologically-driven warfare, particularly the rise of precision-guided munitions like cruise missiles. BrahMos is poised to be a tactical asset and strategic game-changer for the security landscape.
Air Marshal Amit Tiwari (Retd) is former AOC-in-C, Central air command.
Harvard calls move unlawful, pledges support for foreign students
US President Donald Trump’s Administration revoked Harvard University’s ability to enroll international students on Thursday, and is forcing current foreign students to transfer to other schools or lose their legal status, while also threatening to expand the crackdown to other colleges.
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem ordered the department to terminate Harvard University’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification effective for the 2025-2026 school year, the department said in a statement.
Noem accused the university of “fostering violence, antisemitism, and coordinating with the Chinese Communist Party.”
Harvard said the move by the Trump administration – which affects thousands of students – was illegal and amounted to retaliation.
The decision marked a significant escalation of the Trump administration’s campaign against the elite Ivy League university in Cambridge, Massachusetts, which has emerged as one of Trump’s most prominent institutional targets. The move came after Harvard refused to provide information that Noem demanded about some foreign student visa holders at Harvard, the department said.
Harvard enrolled nearly 6,800 international students in the 2024-2025 school year, amounting to 27% of its total enrollment, according to university statistics.
In 2022, Chinese nationals were the biggest group of foreign students at 1,016, university figures showed. After that were students from Canada, India, South Korea, Britain, Germany, Australia, Singapore and Japan.
The Chinese Embassy in Washington did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
“It is a privilege, not a right, for universities to enroll foreign students and benefit from their higher tuition payments to help pad their multibillion-dollar endowments,” Noem said in a statement.
In a letter to the university, Noem gave Harvard “the opportunity” to regain its certification by turning over within 72 hours a raft of records about foreign students, including any video or audio of their protest activity in the past five years.
Harvard called the government’s action “unlawful” and said it was “fully committed” to educating foreign students.
“This retaliatory action threatens serious harm to the Harvard community and our country, and undermines Harvard’s academic and research mission,” the university said in a statement.
Congressional Democrats denounced the revocation, with US Representative Jaime Raskin calling it an “intolerable attack on Harvard’s independence and academic freedom” and saying it was government retaliation for Harvard’s previous resistance to Trump.
Trump has already frozen some $3 billion in federal grants to Harvard in recent weeks, leading the university to sue to restore the funding.
In a separate lawsuit related to Trump’s efforts to terminate the legal status of hundreds of foreign students across the U.S., a federal judge ruled on Thursday that the administration could not end their status without following proper regulatory procedures. It was not immediately clear how that ruling would affect the action against Harvard.
During an interview with Fox News’ “The Story with Martha MacCallum,” Noem was asked if she was considering similar moves at other universities, including Columbia University in New York.
“Absolutely, we are,” Noem said. “This should be a warning to every other university to get your act together.”
RUMP TARGETS UNIVERSITIES
Trump, a Republican, took office in January pledging a wide-ranging immigration crackdown. His administration has tried to revoke student visas and green cards of foreign students who participated in pro-Palestinian protests.
He has undertaken an extraordinary effort to revamp private colleges and schools across the U.S., claiming they foster anti-American, Marxist and “radical left” ideologies. He has criticized Harvard for hiring prominent Democrats for teaching or leadership positions.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said on Monday that it was terminating a further $60 million in federal grants to Harvard because it failed to address antisemitic harassment and ethnic discrimination.
In a legal complaint filed earlier this month, Harvard said it was committed to combating antisemitism and had taken steps to ensure its campus is safe and welcoming to Jewish and Israeli students.
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow with the American Immigration Council, a pro-immigration advocacy group, said the action against Harvard’s student visa program “needlessly punishes thousands of innocent students.” “None of them have done anything wrong, they’re just collateral damage to Trump,” he said on the social media site Bluesky. Reuters
In first diplomatic response since conflict, New Delhi draws a red line on cross-border terror
In the first official response to China and Turkiye, both of which had backed Pakistan in the recent skirmish, India reminded the two countries that “trust” and “sensitivities” must be kept in mind for relations to function effectively.
Randhir Jaiswal, spokesperson, Ministry of External Affairs, when asked whether India had conveyed a message to China during Operation Sindoor (May 7-10), said National Security Adviser Ajit Doval had spoken with the Chinese Foreign Minister and Special Representative on the boundary issue on May 10.
Jaiswal said, “The NSA conveyed India’s resolute stance against cross-border terrorism emanating from Pakistan… The Chinese side is aware that mutual trust, mutual respect and mutual sensitivity remain the basis of India-China relations.” Though Jaiswal did not explicitly mention it, the remark appeared to allude to assessments within the strategic affairs community suggesting that Beijing had provided real-time satellite imagery to Pakistan for launching attacks on Indian assets. Besides, media reports have emerged indicating that China, following Operation Sindoor, offered Pakistan its fifth-generation stealth fighter jet, the J-20.
On Turkiye-Pakistan relations, Jaiswal said India expected Turkiye to strongly urge Pakistan to end its support for cross-border terrorism and take credible, verifiable action against the terror ecosystem it had harboured for decades. He delivered a clear message to Turkiye, saying “relations are built on the basis of sensitivities to each other’s concerns.”
Turkiye had backed Pakistan with logistical support. Indian security agencies estimated that over 350 drones and Turkish military operatives assisted Pakistan during its four-day hostilities with India. This assistance included operational coordination and drone warfare tactics, marking a direct military role by Turkiye in the clashes.
Pakistan launched drone attacks following India’s May 7 strikes, which targeted terror camps deep inside Pakistani territory in response to the April 22 Pahalgam massacre. Islamabad deployed Bayraktar TB2 and YIHA drones in its retaliatory strikes, using them for surveillance, target marking, and, in some cases, kamikaze-style attacks against Indian forward positions and military convoys.
Turkiye’s defence cooperation with Pakistan has intensified in recent years. According to a report by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) titled “Trends in International Arms Transfers-2024”, 10 per cent of all Turkish arms exports between 2020 and 2024 were sent to Pakistan. During the same period, 63 per cent of all Chinese arms exports went to Pakistan. The report noted that Beijing is the fourth-largest arms exporter globally after the US, France and Russia.
Says while ceasefire has halted military action for now, there will be consequences if terror attacks from Pakistan continue
India on Thursday called on Pakistan to hand over terrorists named in the list previously shared with Islamabad even as External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar, during his Europe tour, accused the Pakistani government and its army of actively supporting terrorism.
Informed Pak after strikes: MEA
MEA spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal rejected Opposition’s charge that EAM S Jaishankar had informed Pakistan at the start of Operation Sindoor. “We told them that we had exercised our right to respond after the retaliatory strikes were carried out,” he said.
In an interview with Dutch publication “De Volkskrant”, Jaishankar reiterated India’s demand for a permanent end to terrorism, warning that while the ceasefire has halted military action for now, there would be consequences if terror attacks from Pakistan continued.
The minister said it was erroneous to go along with the narrative that Pakistan “doesn’t know what is going on”. “The most notorious terrorists on the UN sanctions list are all in Pakistan. Let’s not pretend Pakistan is not involved. The state is involved. The army is up to its neck in it.” His remarks came ahead of an all-party Indian delegation’s visit to Europe from May 25. The delegation will travel to France, Italy, Denmark, the UK, Belgium and Germany where the leaders will reinforce India’s stance that all terror links, direct and indirect, trace back to Pakistan.
The minister rejected any justification for terrorism, calling it an “unacceptable international crime”. On Kashmir, he reiterated India’s position that Pakistan must vacate illegally occupied territories and said, “Our position is clear. The illegal occupiers (Pakistan) must return what belongs to India. No third-party intervention is acceptable. This is a bilateral issue.”
In New Delhi, Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal echoed Jaishankar’s message. “Talks and terror cannot go together. We remain open to discussing the extradition of wanted terrorists whose list was provided to Pakistan some years ago,” he said. Regarding any future dialogue on J&K, Jaiswal said, “Discussions will only proceed if Pakistan vacates illegally occupied Indian territory.”
On the Indus Waters Treaty, Jaiswal said it would remain suspended until Pakistan “credibly and irrevocably” ended cross-border terrorism. He quoted PM Narendra Modi’s warning that “water and blood cannot flow together”.
On Opposition’s allegations that Jaishankar admitted that India informed Pakistan about the retaliatory strikes “at the start”, Jaiswal said, “We informed Pakistan after the May 7 action.”
