Op Sindoor Debate: A New Normal in India's Terror Response or Political Grandstanding?

As Parliament reconvened after a week of disruptions, the long-awaited debate on the Pahalgam terror attack and India’s military-diplomatic response—Operation Sindoor—took centre stage in both houses. What unfolded was more than just policy discourse. It was a sharp political duel, with the ruling BJP leveraging the operation as a cornerstone of its muscular national security narrative, while the Opposition demanded accountability, transparency, and a long-term vision.

At the heart of the discussion was External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar, who laid out a robust defence of India’s strategy post-Pahalgam. He described Operation Sindoor as a “new normal” in how India responds to terrorism—a blend of precision military response and aggressive diplomacy. He revealed that only three nations, apart from Pakistan, opposed the operation at the United Nations, with support coming from 33 countries and 35–40 official letters backing India's position.

In a particularly stinging moment, Jaishankar drew contrasts with past regimes: “Those who believed ‘inaction’ was the best response after 26/11 are now questioning Operation Sindoor.” He further lambasted the Opposition for “lecturing on China” after having allowed the influx of Chinese 2G and 3G technologies, while highlighting the Modi government’s delivery of indigenous 5G.

Diplomatic Wins or Strategic Noise?

Jaishankar also credited Indian diplomacy for the international designation of The Resistance Front (TRF)—the group behind the Pahalgam attack—as a global terrorist organisation, with U.S. backing. He argued that India’s stance had resonated globally, citing a strong UNSC statement condemning the attack and calling for accountability.

However, the Opposition remained unconvinced. Congress MP Manish Tewari emphasized that while the nation is united against terrorism, a real conversation is needed about whether such strikes are effective in deterring future attacks. Tewari asked a pressing question: “What impact did the military action from May 7–10 have in stopping Pakistan-sponsored terrorism?”

Independent MP Pappu Yadav went further, lambasting the government’s failure to apprehend the actual attackers a month after the ambush. “Where are the terrorists?” he asked. His remarks struck a nerve, raising concerns that despite surgical operations, Kashmir remains unsafe.

The Ceasefire Conundrum

TMC MP Kalyan Banerjee questioned the sudden ceasefire after Operation Sindoor, likening it to a batsman walking off at 99 runs. He cited U.S. President Donald Trump’s claim of mediating the ceasefire and questioned why Prime Minister Modi did not publicly deny such assertions if they were untrue. “Why did we declare a ceasefire under pressure from the American President?” he asked, exposing anxieties over India’s independent foreign policy credentials.

Jaishankar dismissed any such notion, stating there was no Modi-Trump phone call during the April 22–June 17 period and asserted that no trade-offs were made between counterterror efforts and trade negotiations with the U.S.

Red Lines and Escalation: Indus Waters Treaty Suspended

In one of the most striking revelations, Jaishankar announced that India had suspended the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty—a significant diplomatic escalation—until Pakistan “credibly and irrevocably” stops supporting terrorism. The move, approved by the Cabinet Committee on Security, was part of a slew of retaliatory actions that also included expelling Pakistani defence attachés, cutting down embassy staff, suspending visa exemptions, and closing the Attari Integrated Check Post.

“Red lines were crossed,” Jaishankar said. “It was time to send a clear, strong and resolute message.”

Operation Mahadev and the War at Home

While the government highlighted the success of Operation Sindoor abroad, BJP MP Baijayant Panda revealed that Operation Mahadev, a domestic counter-terror operation in Jammu and Kashmir, had resulted in the elimination of at least one terrorist involved in the Pahalgam attack. This marked a significant parallel between India’s external projection of strength and internal security priorities.

Political Barbs and the Shadow of 26/11

The debate wasn’t without its share of political fireworks. Union Home Minister Amit Shah, never one to mince words, accused the Opposition of having more faith in foreign powers than India’s own foreign minister. “This is why they are in Opposition and will stay there for the next 20 years,” he declared.

Defence Minister Rajnath Singh countered criticism of the operation’s scale and efficacy by stating, “In any exam, results matter, not whether the pencil was broken.” He defended the operation’s success—no Indian soldier was harmed and the objectives were achieved. Recalling Lahore’s peace and Balakot’s response, he drew a stark contrast between dialogue and deterrence.

Congress MP Gaurav Gogoi and others were accused by BJP ministers of failing to even praise Indian soldiers during their speeches—fueling a narrative that the Opposition lacks nationalism. Lalan Singh asked pointedly, “Do you have no value for our soldiers?”

At the same time, Shiv Sena (UBT) MP Arvind Sawant demanded answers about the security lapse in Pahalgam, asking why no forces were deployed at a known sensitive spot. The Opposition, while divided in tone, seemed united in calling for greater accountability, transparency, and strategic clarity.

What Next?

Despite the political mudslinging, Jaishankar emphasized that India’s response would not stop at Operation Sindoor. He signaled that further diplomatic actions were expected and reiterated India’s unwavering stand—zero tolerance for terrorism and the right to self-defence.

The BJP, through this debate, has sought to consolidate its image as a party of national strength, decisive action, and diplomatic prowess. However, the Opposition’s pushback has raised important questions: Is Operation Sindoor a long-term strategic doctrine or a reactive military-diplomatic maneuver? Does India's evolving foreign policy balance deterrence with accountability?

The answers lie not just in what happens next on the border, but in how honestly the nation debates its victories, losses, and unresolved questions in Parliament. For now, the government may claim a diplomatic and military win—but as the Opposition rightly argues, true success lies in lasting peace and security, not temporary triumphs.

Also Read: ‘Who Did You Surrender To?’: Gaurav Gogoi Rips Into Centre on Op Sindoor

Also Read: LS, RS Adjourned Amid Row Over Bihar Voter Roll Revision, Sindoor