Queries on Operation Sindoors Pointless, Kanwal Sibal’s Take on Opposition’s Stand

Queries on Operation Sindoors Pointless, Kanwal Sibal’s Take on Opposition’s Stand

Why in News?

Veteran diplomat and former Foreign Secretary of India, Kanwal Sibal, has strongly criticized the Opposition for raising questions about Operation Sindoors, an anti-terror military action conducted by India. In a detailed interview, Sibal argued that such political questioning gives Pakistan unnecessary leverage and weakens India’s strategic position. He also addressed India’s relations with Pakistan, China, the US, and the broader implications of political rhetoric on national security.

Introduction

Kanwal Sibal, a highly respected figure in Indian diplomacy, has served in critical positions including ambassadorships to Turkey, Egypt, France, and Russia, and as Foreign Secretary from July 2002 to November 2003. Awarded the Padma Shri in 2017, his expertise covers decades of engagement with global powers and India’s handling of sensitive foreign policy issues. In this interview, he addressed the political controversy surrounding Operation Sindoors and offered a strategic view on India’s approach to Pakistan, the role of the US in mediating regional disputes, and the importance of united political messaging on national security matters.

Key Issues and Background

1. Opposition’s Stand on Operation Sindoors
The Opposition has questioned the government’s handling of Operation Sindoors, suggesting it could have been avoided or approached differently. Sibal firmly rejects this view, arguing:

• There is no strategic or tactical benefit for the Opposition in publicly questioning the operation.

• Discussing such sensitive matters years after the event serves only to give Pakistan a propaganda advantage.

• Terror incidents in Pakistan are not directly India’s responsibility, but India is often blamed; questioning the operation fuels false narratives.

2. The Risk of Providing Leverage to Pakistan
Sibal believes that any suggestion of wrongdoing on India’s part:

• Helps Pakistan in international forums.

• Is seized upon by Pakistani media and diplomacy to attack India.

• Damages India’s credibility and unity on security matters.

3. On Pakistan’s Offer for Dialogue
Responding to Pakistan Deputy PM Ishaq Dar’s statement about engaging in dialogue with India, Sibal was clear:

• Dialogue is pointless without Pakistan first stopping terrorism.

• Offers to talk are often tactical moves to deflect pressure and gain legitimacy.

• There is no trust that Pakistan would genuinely change its behavior.

4. The China–Pakistan Axis
Referring to Rahul Gandhi’s remark that China and Pakistan are together against India, Sibal agreed that this has long been the case:

• China has consistently backed Pakistan militarily and politically since 1962.

• Both nations coordinate closely to counter Indian influence in the region.

• The BJP government’s alleged role in bringing them closer is a false political narrative.

5. US Role in India–Pakistan Relations
On the US attempting to mediate between India and Pakistan:

• Sibal sees former US President Donald Trump’s offers to broker peace as domestic political theatre for his audience, not genuine diplomacy.

• Trump’s unpredictability and self-centeredness made him unreliable in foreign policy matters.

• International relations involving India–Pakistan cannot be solved through casual mediation offers.

6. Should India Maintain Ties with Pakistan’s Supporters?
Sibal warns that cutting ties with nations that have backed Pakistan at times is not realistic:

• Even countries like the US, China, and Russia have, at various points, aided Pakistan.

• India must manage complex relationships based on strategic needs, not just emotional reactions.

7. Government’s Response to Pahalgam Attack
On whether the government responded adequately to Pakistan-backed terror after the Pahalgam incident:

• Sibal notes this was not the first time India retaliated militarily after a terror attack.

• This time, India’s response was stronger and more visible.

• Clear warnings were given to Pakistan that further provocations would lead to stronger action.

Specific Impacts or Effects

1. Political Impact

   • Opposition remarks on sensitive military operations can weaken the united national front that is critical in security matters.

   • Such political divisions are exploited by adversaries in diplomatic forums.

2. Diplomatic Repercussions

   • Statements questioning India’s actions give Pakistan talking points in UN debates and international media coverage.

   • These remarks can complicate India’s diplomatic positioning with allies who value stability and a clear anti-terror stance.

3. Security Messaging

   • Any ambiguity in political messaging reduces deterrence against future terror acts.

   • A strong, consistent national narrative is essential to counter cross-border threats.

Challenges and the Way Forward

Challenges

• Political Polarization: National security becoming a political point-scoring arena undermines strategic goals.

• China–Pakistan Coordination: Persistent collaboration between these two adversaries requires constant vigilance.

• International Mediation Pressures: Global powers may attempt to push India into talks that don’t serve its interests.

• Public Awareness: Understanding the stakes of military operations is low among the general population, making them susceptible to political spin.

Steps Forward

• Maintain bipartisan consensus on national security issues, avoiding divisive rhetoric.

• Continue a zero-tolerance policy towards terrorism before any dialogue with Pakistan.

• Strengthen regional alliances to counter the China–Pakistan axis.

• Develop strategic communication to ensure the public understands the necessity of operations like Sindoors.

Conclusion

Kanwal Sibal’s remarks serve as a reminder that in matters of national security, political posturing can have dangerous consequences. Operations like Sindoors are not mere tactical exercises but part of a broader strategic framework to protect India’s sovereignty. Questioning them without context or responsibility risks giving the enemy a propaganda victory. The path forward lies in unity, strategic patience, and a firm stance against terrorism — coupled with pragmatic diplomacy to navigate the complex realities of the India–Pakistan–China triangle.

5 Questions and Answers

Q1: Why does Kanwal Sibal believe questioning Operation Sindoors is harmful?
A: He argues it provides Pakistan with propaganda opportunities, weakens India’s diplomatic position, and undermines national unity on security matters.

Q2: What is his stance on Pakistan’s offer for dialogue?
A: Dialogue is meaningless without Pakistan stopping terrorism first. Offers to talk are seen as tactical moves, not genuine peace efforts.

Q3: How does Sibal view the China–Pakistan relationship?
A: He sees it as a long-standing strategic alliance against India, strengthened over decades regardless of which Indian party is in power.

Q4: What is his opinion on US mediation in India–Pakistan issues?
A: He believes such offers, especially from Donald Trump, are more about US domestic politics than genuine solutions, and India should not rely on them.

Q5: Was the government’s response to the Pahalgam attack adequate?
A: Yes, according to Sibal, it was a strong response with clear warnings to Pakistan, demonstrating India’s readiness to act against cross-border terrorism.