The Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC) on Monday disapproved of an Army officer’s statement that Pakistan had targeted the Golden Temple with drones and missiles, which were shot down by Indian forces. The statement was made by Major General Kartik…
The Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC) on Monday disapproved of an Army officer’s statement that Pakistan had targeted the Golden Temple with drones and missiles, which were shot down by Indian forces.
The statement was made by Major General Kartik C Seshadri, General Officer Commanding, 15 Infantry Division, in an interview to a media outlet here.
Pakistan had launched a wave of drone and missile attacks after India struck at nine terrorist sites in the neighbouring country in response to the brutal Pahalgam terror attack on April 22 that had claimed 26 lives.
Both countries had announced a ceasefire on May 10 after three days of hostilities, in which India had neutralised swarms of drones and missiles fired from across the border.
Hours after the Army officer made the remarks, SGPC chief secretary Kulwant Singh Mannan said he “didn’t believe the version” as no force “could think of attacking” the shrine, to which he referred to as the abode of Guru Ram Das.
“Agencies have their own way of thinking, about which I can’t say anything. There is no dip in the flow of sangat (at the shrine)” he added.
Meanwhile, responding to the news, Punjab Cabinet Minister Kuldeep Singh Dhaliwal said Pakistani soldiers “showed a negative mindset as they tried to attack a universally acclaimed religious place”.
Amritsar MP Gurjit Singh Aujla thanked the Indian Army for stopping the attacks by Pakistan on the Golden Temple.
He said on May 10, Sikhs had protested against Pakistan that they were deliberately targeting gurdwaras. He appreciated the Indian Army “for creating a secure cordon around Amritsar and keeping it completely safe”.
Earlier in the day, BJP leader Amit Malviya wrote on X (formerly Twitter), “Indian Army’s confirmation of drone and missile attacks targeting the Golden temple is both shocking and deeply disturbing. It underscores the true intent of Pakistan’s military establishment and its proxies – to sow chaos and hurt the very soul of India.”
OPERATION Sindoor has served as a compelling demonstration of India’s growing military capabilities in several key areas. The technical means to acquire intelligence of targets deep inside the opponent’s territory; to strike them with long-range missiles with pinpoint accuracy — all the while maintaining a multi-layered, impervious air defence of its own assets. This capacity for waging “non-contact warfare”, using guided weapons and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) without ground troops or air forces crossing borders, marks a paradigm shift in warfare.
In this context, maritime power has, historically, specialised in employing strategies that aim to achieve political objectives through their presence and “non-contact” force projection rather than by engaging in direct combat. Decades ago, Admiral Sergey Gorshkov (Commander-in-Chief, Soviet Navy, 1956-85) had described the perennial utility of naval power: “Demonstrative actions by the fleet, in many cases, have made it possible to achieve political ends without resorting to armed action, merely by application of pressure and threat of military operations.”
The Indian Navy’s (IN) 2015 maritime strategy offers, in detail, various options for potential force projection. These include maritime strikes with carrier-borne aircraft or long-range weapons like the ship-launched BrahMos, or the ship/submarine-launched Klub land-attack missiles. In order to apply “strategic leverage, including economic and psychological pressure”, the strategy also envisages disruption/denial of the adversary’s use of the sea for military purposes and maritime trade.
The IN, while drawing up its contingency plans for Operation Sindoor in coordination with sister services, would have taken note of Pakistan’s maritime vulnerabilities stemming from its geography, relatively limited naval capabilities and economic dependence on key coastal infrastructure.
Pakistan’s 1,000-km-long coastline, stretching mostly across the troubled province of Balochistan, hosts just a handful of ports. Of these, only Karachi, Port Qasim and Gwadar handle merchant ship traffic, while Ormara is a naval base and the rest are fishing harbours. Pakistan’s economy, already strained, relies heavily on maritime trade, mostly through Karachi and Port Qasim. Disruption of shipping traffic to and from these ports, even temporarily, can cause a significant impact on Pakistan’s economy, industry and military operations, apart from affecting public wellbeing and morale.
As far as naval strength goes, the IN is a diverse and substantial force organised into two fleets, each fielding an aircraft carrier and a cohort of missile-armed destroyers and frigates as well as fleet support vessels. India’s submarine force of nuclear and diesel-powered submarines is strategically deployed on both seaboards. The Pakistan Navy (PN) is relatively smaller and lacks many of these key assets.
While the IN aspires to play the role of a blue-water navy, with power-projection capabilities across the Indian Ocean and beyond, the PN’s focus is primarily on coastal defence and maintaining credible maritime deterrence against India through a strategy of “sea denial”. Although the past few decades have seen both navies growing in size and capabilities, the IN has managed to retain its significant edge.
In the 1971 war, India’s maritime power had played a key role in the outcome of the operations in both theatres of war. In the west, it had undertaken two attacks with ship-launched surface-to-surface missiles, inflicting attrition on the PN and heavy damage to the Karachi port, bringing its operations to a halt. In the eastern theatre, the IN’s carrier-borne aircraft had ranged far and wide over East Pakistan and inflicted heavy damage on ports, shipping and riverine traffic. The trauma of this conflict has lingered in the Pakistani psyche, and PN units did not venture forth during Operation Sindoor.
Today, a major advantage accrues to the IN from its comprehensive capability for “maritime domain awareness”. This is a dynamic framework that receives inputs from satellites, aircraft, UAVs, ships and coastal radars to compile a real-time operational picture of all activities at sea in the region. The availability of “situational awareness” on a 24×7 basis in all three dimensions enables the IN to keep track of the adversary’s moves and respond with alacrity to any suspicious activity. The PN lacks a similar facility.
“Naval compellence” has, historically, been a useful instrument of state policy to influence the behaviour of others and force an adversary to do something he does not want to do, or to stop him from doing something that he intends to do. This is achieved by the deployment of coercive sea-based forces, which may or may not involve actual violence.
During media briefings by the three armed forces, the Director General of Naval Operations announced that within hours of the Pahalgam terror attack, the IN had deployed a powerful task force composed of destroyers, frigates and submarines, led by the aircraft carrier, INS Vikrant, in the Arabian Sea, south of Karachi. Posing a serious challenge in numbers and capability to the Pakistani fleet, this force established a de facto blockade, confining PN units to their harbours. Units of the task force are understood to have conducted live missile firing drills to revalidate crew readiness and ensure operational preparedness of units.
From its location in international waters, where it could have remained poised for prolonged periods, the IN carrier group acted as a force for “compellence”. Through rapid deployment and strategic positioning of overwhelming maritime power, India confined Pakistan’s navy to harbour, disrupted its maritime operations and reinforced its dominance in the Arabian Sea.
The IN task force had ample firepower to target ships, harbours and shore facilities with missiles having a range up to 300-450 km at sea. But the Navy, true to its sobriquet of the “Silent Service”, has not said so.
Admiral Arun Prakash (retd) is former chief of naval staff.
Engage unemployed youths instead of ex-servicemen for guard duties: Mehbooba urges CM
Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) president Mehbooba Mufti on Monday urged the Jammu and Kashmir government to reconsider its decision to deploy 4,000 ex-servicemen, instead of fresh recruits, for static guard duties at vital installations. In a letter addressed to Chief…
Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) president Mehbooba Mufti on Monday urged the Jammu and Kashmir government to reconsider its decision to deploy 4,000 ex-servicemen, instead of fresh recruits, for static guard duties at vital installations.
In a letter addressed to Chief Minister Omar Abdullah, Mufti cited the alarming rise in unemployment across the Union Territory as the reason behind her appeal.
“I am writing to express my deep misgivings and concern regarding your government’s recent decision to deploy 4,000 ex-servicemen to guard critical infrastructure across Jammu and Kashmir. While we value the service and discipline of our veterans, this move raises serious questions, especially as lakhs of educated yet unemployed youth continue to struggle for opportunities in J&K,” she stated.
She emphasised the need to support local youth, saying, “We must come to their rescue by being more mindful of their future.”
The letter added that static guard duties do not require military expertise and could easily be performed by trained local youth. “For them, such employment could be a vital lifeline,” she said.
In a post on X, Mufti highlighted the gravity of the unemployment crisis in the region. “This soaring unemployment is not just an economic issue but a social emergency. With few opportunities and increasing despondency, many youngsters are falling prey to drug addiction, and tragically, some are even driven to suicide,” she wrote.
The former chief minister pointed out that ex-servicemen already receive pensions, and prioritising them over jobless youth could deepen the feeling of exclusion among the younger generation. She added that the government might also miss a crucial opportunity to build trust and engage meaningfully with the youth.
“Furthermore, this policy could be perceived as a short-term security solution that fails to address long-term social and economic stability. Engaging local youth in such roles would not only generate employment but also foster a sense of responsibility, inclusion, and participation in maintaining public safety—an essential pillar of peace-building in the region,” she said.
Mufti urged the Chief Minister’s Office to reconsider or clarify the rationale behind the policy and to explore more inclusive models that benefit the unemployed youth of the region.
Last week, the J&K government announced its approval of a proposal to deploy former military personnel to safeguard vital infrastructure across the Union Territory. Terming it a unique collaboration between veterans and civil authorities, the government stated that 4,000 ex-servicemen volunteers had been identified for the initiative. Their role, it clarified, would be non-combatant, focusing on static guard duties, presence-based deterrence, and local coordination.
All retired HC judges entitled to full equal pension: SC
All retired high court judges, including additional judges, were entitled to full equal pension and other retirement benefits, irrespective of their date of retirement, length of service and source of entry, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday. Applying the ‘One…
All retired high court judges, including additional judges, were entitled to full equal pension and other retirement benefits, irrespective of their date of retirement, length of service and source of entry, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday.
Applying the ‘One Rank One Pension’ principle to permanent and additional judges of high courts, a three-judge Bench led by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai said there couldn’t be any discrimination in the pension of high court judges based on when they entered the service and if they were appointed from judicial service or from the Bar.
“The principle of one rank one pension requires all retired judges of the high court to be paid a uniform pension. We find that once a judge assumes the office of the high court judge and enters into a constitutional class i.e., the class of a high court judge, no differential treatment would be permissible merely on the ground of date of appointment,” it said.
The Bench directed the Centre to pay full pension of Rs 15 lakh per year to retired chief justices of high courts and Rs 13.6 lakh per year to high court judges, including additional judges. Family pension would be payable to the spouses of retired judges of high courts, including additional judges, it said.
The Bench – which also included Justice AG Masih and Justice K Vinod Chandran – said, “…for ensuring independence of judiciary, it is necessary that like the salary to which a Judge is entitled to as a serving Judge, even after retirement he should get the same terminal benefits as that of a High Court Judge.”
“We hold that any discrimination among judges for terminal benefits after retirement will be violative of Article 14. Thus, we hold all high court judges, irrespective of when they entered (are) entitled to full pension. We also hold high court judges who retired as additional judges will also get full pension and any distinction between judges and additional judges will be doing to violence to…,” the CJI said, while pronouncing the verdict.
The order came in a suo motu proceeding initiated by the top court on the issue of discrimination in
The Bench directed the Centre that a retired high court judge, who has previously served as a district judge, shall be paid full pension, irrespective of any break in service, between the date of on which he retired as a judge of the district judiciary and the date on which he assumed charge as a high court judge.
In the case of a retired high court judge, who previously served as a district judge and joined the district judiciary after the coming into force of the contributory pension scheme or the new pension scheme, the Centre shall pay him/her the full pension, it ordered.
Regarding their contribution to the NPS, the Bench directed states to refund the entire amount contributed by them along with the dividend. “The Union of India shall pay gratuity to the widow or family members of a judge of the high court who dies in harness by adding 10 years period to the period of service undergone by the said judge irrespective of whether the minimum qualifying service as provided under clause (i) of sub-section (3) of Section 17A of HCJ Act had been completed or not,” the top court ordered.
Retreat ceremony at Attari-Wagah border to resume for public from May 21
Decision to scale down the ceremony last month came in the aftermath of the Pahalgam terror attack
Twelve days after the Border Security Force (BSF) halted the retreat ceremony at the Attari border on May 8 following Operation Sindoor, it is set to resume on Tuesday, BSF officials confirmed.
The ceremony will be held exclusively for media personnel on Tuesday at 6 pm, while the public will be allowed to attend starting from May 21.
The retreat ceremony will take place at all three Joint Check Posts (JCPs) of the Punjab Frontier.
The decision to scale down the ceremony last month came in the aftermath of the Pahalgam terror attack.
Notably, the BSF will not engage in handshakes with the Pakistan Rangers, and the gates will remain closed during the flag-lowering ceremony, as previously declared.
On May 8, the BSF had stopped public entry to the event at all three locations, citing concerns over “public safety.”The decision was made a day after the commencement of Operation Sindoor, under which India destroyed nine terrorist bases in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir.
Russia, Ukraine to begin truce talks immediately: Trump after Putin call
US President Donald Trump said on Monday that Russia and Ukraine “will immediately start negotiations” toward a ceasefire and an end to their three-year-old war, speaking after he held a call with Russia’s President Vladimir Putin.
Advertisement
“Negotiations between Russia and Ukraine will begin immediately,” Trump said in a Truth Social post following his call with Putin, which lasted two hours.
After the call, Putin said efforts to end the war were “generally on the right track” and that Moscow was ready to work with Ukraine on a potential peace deal.
“We have agreed with the president of the United States that Russia will propose and is ready to work with the Ukrainian side on a memorandum on a possible future peace accord,” Putin told reporters near the Black Sea resort of Sochi.
There was no immediate comment from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on the statement that talks would begin immediately. A source familiar with the matter earlier said Zelenskyy spoke “for a few minutes” with Trump before the US leader’s call with Putin.
Kyiv has said it is ready for a ceasefire now while Moscow has said conditions must be met first.
US Vice President JD Vance earlier repeated a warning that Washington could walk away from the peace process.
Putin said the memorandum would define “a number of positions, such as, for example, the principles of settlement, the timing of a possible peace agreement.”
Putin said, “The main thing for us is to eliminate the root causes of this crisis”. He is likely referring to Crimea, the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics, and the regions of Kherson and Zaporozhye, which voted in favor of joining Russia in referendums in 2014 and 2022.
Putin was speaking from Russia’s Black Sea resort of Sochi while Trump was in Washington. Shortly before the call, Vance told reporters that Washington recognised there was “a bit of an impasse here”.
He said, “We’re going to try to end it, but if we can’t end it, we’re eventually going to say: ‘You know what? That was worth a try, but we’re not doing any more.’”
TWO developments in the last 10 days — first, the swift punishment to Pakistan in Operation Sindoor and India’s diplomatic measures earlier; second, the recall of high tariffs by the US on China — will affect global realignments.
India met the strategic objectives of the operation, which included the destruction of Pakistan’s terrorist infrastructure; setting up a new deterrence against terror attacks; inflicting considerable damage to Pakistan’s key airbases and establishing military superiority and ability to strike wherever it wanted.
Without crossing the LoC or the International Border, India launched missiles and drones on May 7 at Pakistan’s nine terror bases, some deep inside the country, in a calibrated, measured and responsible manner, hitting its targets with few civilian casualties.
Pakistan’s Air Defence (AD) system failed to intercept the missiles. More than 100 terrorists, including some top leaders of the Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Mohammed and Hizbul Mujahideen such as Abu Jundal, Hafiz Muhammed Jameel, Khalid and Mohammed Hassan Khan, were killed in the strikes. Their close links with the Pakistan army were visible as senior army officials attended their funeral.
When Pakistan tried to launch missile and drone attacks against Indian airbases on the night of May 7-8, the multi-layered Indian AD system comprising the indigenous Akashteer, Akash missiles, air defence guns, Russian S-400 and Israeli Barak 8 easily neutralised Pakistan’s Chinese, Turkish and indigenous missiles and drones.
As a result, the Indian airfields, logistic installations and military infrastructure remain largely unaffected by the enemy’s retaliation.
The ISRO’s 10 satellites working round the clock played a stellar role in informing the Indian armed forces about the enemy’s positions, military infrastructure and bombing attempts.
India’s Brahmos missiles were able to bomb the Sargodha airport near Rawalpindi by confusing its radars with pilotless aircraft. It sent shockwaves in the neighbouring Kirana hills that house Pakistan’s nukes and the Pakistan army headquarters in Rawalpindi.
The Indian satellites could see the blind spots in the Chinese and American AD systems, including radars, and Indian missiles struck those positions with pinpoint accuracy. That is when Pakistan got alarmed and contacted its American friends and the Chinese ‘iron brother’.
The Brahmos caused massive damage to a number of other Pakistani airbases, too, including those at Chaklala, Bholari and Jacobabad (near another nuke site in Chagai Hills), destroying a Pakistani AWACS parked at Bholari. Indian military officials have shown satellite images of these damages in public briefings.
Pakistan, China and American lobbies have made considerable efforts to portray the success of the Pakistani bombing efforts by alleging that Pakistan had hit five Indian fighter aircraft, including three Rafales, one Mirage and one Sukhoi, in its initial raids, but they have not been able to present any corroborating evidence.
India dominated the air space and maritime theatre, with aircraft carrier Vikrant and other accompanying ships positioned at a comfortable distance from the Karachi port.
After the ceasefire, PM Narendra Modi told Pakistan that Operation Sindoor had only been paused. Any further terror attack by Pakistan would be considered an act of war by India and India would retaliate at a time and place of its choosing. He added that India would not accept Pakistan’s nuclear blackmail and the Indus Waters Treaty would remain in abeyance till Pakistan ceased cross-border terrorism against India.
India can draw multiple lessons from this operation. First, that future wars will be more technology driven and India must stay ahead of its adversaries in the adoption of new technologies, training and networking of different platforms. Second, Pakistan’s nukes are no barrier to a conventional war. Three, India must send more satellites for full scanning of the military infrastructure of its adversaries and establish a robust GPS.
China plans to send 300 satellites by 2030 in low orbits for high-resolution images. India must become more atmanirbhar in every field by pursuing research, innovation and new technologies.
The West and China do not want Pakistan to go under. They will continue to play Pakistan against India and India against China to weaken both India and China. The Quad has limited relevance. Initially, the USA extended some support to India. But later, it became neutral, treating both India and Pakistan equally, notwithstanding that India was a victim of Pakistan’s terror attack.
Regarding the other important development that happened during this period — the US recalled the high tariff of 145 per cent on Chinese imports and reduced the tariff to 30 per cent and China reduced the 125 per cent tariff on imports of American goods to 10 per cent.
The Trump administration reduced the tariff as the American GDP declined by 0.3 per cent in the first quarter of 2025. Plus, Goldman Sachs predicted last week that the US inflation could double to 4 per cent by the year-end. China was also concerned as it witnessed a steep drop in its exports of goods to the US. Also, its manufacturing sector started contracting at its fastest pace in April 2025.
But the US blinked first, without getting any concessions from China on its “unfair economic practices”, making many wonder about what Trump had achieved from imposing high tariffs except global ridicule.
The US’ global leadership has considerably weakened with a transactional, isolationist and mercantile President. Russia has rebuffed Trump’s attempts at mediation, except on its own terms.
Israel is going ahead with the elimination of security threat from Hamas. The experiences of China, Canada and others indicate that a tougher approach works better with the Trump administration.
Meanwhile, India’s hi-tech military operation against Pakistan will boost its military preparedness against China as most of the equipment used by Pakistan in the recent standoff was of Chinese origin.
India will be hedging more by establishing closer ties with its traditional partners rather than any special relationship with the US.
Many countries of Asia, Europe and the Global South will now partner with India for joint research and innovation, learning from its military experiences and buying more defence equipment.
Yogesh Gupta is former Ambassador to Denmark and ex-High Commissioner to Zambia.
Why the world ignored role of Turkiye in Indo-Pak conflict
THE four-day intense standoff between India and Pakistan during Operation Sindoor was marked by violations and aerial assaults along the International Border, redefining red lines and pushing the two countries to the brink of war. Amid the fog of mounting tensions, an unexpected actor emerged to strengthen the Pakistani hand — Turkiye. Pakistan and Turkiye have long had close relations, with Ankara regularly supporting Islamabad on Kashmir. But this time, the proximity was far more specific, and, more importantly, hostile to India.
With drone warfare becoming a defining feature of the conflict, Ankara’s fingerprint on Islamabad’s Operation Bunyan Ul Marsoos became harder to ignore. Indian military briefings confirmed that Pakistan had launched nearly 400-500 drones into the Indian airspace. As many as 350 of them were reportedly of Turkish origins. They reportedly include Bayraktar TB2, a medium-altitude long-endurance tactical UAV, Byker YIHA III kamikaze drones, and Asisguard Songar-armed drones.
What makes the Turkish role more concerning is the inclusion of the Songar-armed drones in Pakistan’s aerial toolkit. Unlike the Bayraktar TB2 or YIHA kamikaze drones, which were recorded in Pakistan’s arsenal in 2022 and 2023, respectively, there is no public record of the Songar being transferred to Pakistan. Songar is Turkiye’s first indigenously made armed drone system and it has been with the country’s military since 2020. Media reports of 2022 suggest the drones were sold to three unnamed countries in the Asia-Pacific and Africa regions.
However, publicly available data about Pakistan’s UAV inventory does not specifically mention the Songar, suggesting that this sale was likely fast-tracked in the brief window between the April 22 Pahalgam attacks and the May 7 Operation Sindoor launch.
During this period, several interactions between Turkiye and Pakistan were recorded. Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif was in Turkiye on the day of the terrorist attack in Pahalgam. On April 27, as tensions began escalating along the Indo-Pak border, a Turkish C-130 Hercules jet reportedly landed in Karachi. While Turkiye has dismissed it as a routine refuelling stop and categorically denied the use of the plane for sending arms, the timing and parallel Turkish support for Pakistan through this conflict have raised significant doubts. This was followed by the visit of a high-level delegation led by Turkish intelligence chief to the Pakistan air force headquarters on April 30. Finally, the TCG BUYUKADA, a Turkish naval warship, arrived at the Karachi port on May 5 and remained docked till May 7.
These developments suggest that the Turkish support went beyond the symbolic messaging of solidarity from the leadership and was a deliberate effort to bolster Pakistan’s military capability and deterrence against India.
However, a report by India Today published after the ceasefire has added a concerning layer to the Turkish involvement. The report, quoting unidentified sources, suggests that two Turkish military operators, who helped Pakistan coordinate drone attacks on India after May 7, were reportedly killed
While neither Turkiye nor Pakistan have confirmed this, the embedding of Turkish military advisers in a combat operation reveals an alarming edge of their military partnership and compels New Delhi to review Ankara’s role in the recent standoff and recalibrate its approach.
Turkiye’s ability to bolster Pakistan’s military posture without direct accountability reflects a broader involvement in their global engagements. Both countries have managed to straddle competing power blocs for their own interests. Nowhere is this more visible than in the two countries’simultaneous engagements with the US, China and Russia.
Islamabad and Ankara have long leveraged their geographical positioning in South Asia and West Asia to become indispensable assets in varying engagements of these superpower rivals.
Pakistan became a key player for the US in 2001 with its operations in Afghanistan. Since then, the US has provided Pakistan with military equipment, including tanks, surveillance radars, fighter jets, missiles and drones. When the US halted defence sales to Pakistan, China emerged to fill the vacuum. As Islamabad’s all-weather ally, Beijing has expanded Pakistan’s arsenal with a steady supply of weapons, many of which were used in the recent standoff against India.
Turkiye, a NATO member, is a major American partner in the region, housing strategic American military bases and receiving key military equipment, including fighter jets, tanks, ships and other hardware. At the same time, Turkiye has managed to diversify its military partnerships by getting its hands on the Russian S-400, a sophisticated surface-to-air missile system. Finally, Turkiye is also a member of the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative and a part of the “Silk Road Economic Belt” route that travels through Central Asia, Iran and Europe.
Due to these parallel engagements, many argue that the US-Turkiye partnership had hit an all-time low, but with Donald Trump back at the White House, this partnership has received a new impetus.
Despite Turkiye’s overt role in the Indo-Pak standoff, Washington has reaffirmed its defence ties with Ankara by announcing a $350-million missile sale just days after the ceasefire between India and Pakistan. This should definitely be a cause of concern for New Delhi, especially in light of the growing military cooperation between Turkiye and Pakistan.
Operation Sindoor has not only bared the depth of the Turkiye-Pakistan military partnership but also shown that global powers, even while backing India diplomatically, may turn a blind eye to this partnership to suit their own strategic calculi.
Aishwarya Airy is a researcher at Centre for Land Warfare Studies.
Col Sofiya Qureshi and her husband are proud #IndianArmy Officers. Military tradition comes to Sofiya naturally as her father fought in Bangladesh Liberation War.
Her grandfather also served in Indian Army and
her great grandmother fought alongside Rani Jhansi in 1857. 🇮🇳
Via Brig Hardeep Singh Sohi (R) on X
State Stalwarts
DEFENCES FORCES RANKS
ARMY, NAVY, AIRFORCE RANKS
FORMATION SIGNS
FORMATION SIGNS
ALL HUMANS ARE ONE CREATED BY GOD
HINDUS,MUSLIMS,SIKHS.ISAI SAB HAI BHAI BHAI
CHIEF PATRON ALL INDIA SANJHA MORCHA
LT GEN JASBIR SINGH DHALIWAL, DOGRA
SENIOR PATRON ALL INDIA SANJHA MORCHA
MAJOR GEN HARVIJAY SINGH, SENA MEDAL ,corps of signals
.
.
PATRON ALL INDIA SANJHA MORCHA
MAJ GEN RAMINDER GORAYA , CORPS OF
sanjhamorcha303@gmail.com
PRESIDENT HARAYANA STATE CUM COORDINATOR ESM
BRIG DALJIT THUKRAL ,BENGAL SAPPERS
PRESIDENT TRICITY
COL B S BRAR (BHUPI BRAR)
PRESIDENT CHANDIGARH ZONE
COL SHANJIT SINGH BHULLAR
.
.
PRESIDENT PANCHKULA ZONE AND ZIRAKPUR
COL SWARAN SINGH
PRESIDENT SAS NAGAR (MOHALI)
COL BALBIR SINGH , ARTY
INDIAN DEFENCE FORCES
DEFENCE FORCES INTEGRATED LOGO
FORCES FLAGS
15 Th PRESIDENT OF INDIA SUPREME COMMANDER ARMED FORCES
Droupadi Murmu
DEFENCE MINISTER
Minister Rajnath Singh
CHIEF OF DEFENCE STAFF (2nd)
General Anil Chauhan PVSM UYSM AVSM SM VSM
INDIAN FORCES CHIEFS
CHIEF OF ARMY STAFF(29th)
General Upendra Dwivedi, PVSM, AVSM (30 Jun 2024 to Till Date)
