Op Sindoor debate: Rajnath Singh reiterates objective of strikes on Pak amid Opposition's claims of security lapses, delay in arrests

Coming out strongly against Pakistan, Defence Minister Rajnath Singh, in a first exposition of the government on the floor of the house, said that Pakistan had conceded defeat on May 10 when the Indian Air Force struck heavy blows on multiple Pakistani airfields.

India's stand that Pakistan not only conceded defeat but offered to cease hostilities is a strong rebuttal to Pakistan's claim that it caused sufficient damage to Indian assets, besides contradicting US President Donald Trump's claim of brokering a "ceasefire" between the two South Asian rivals. Defence Minister Rajnath Singh said, “The offer (by Pakistan) was accepted with the caveat that the operation was only paused, and it would resume if there was any future misadventure.” 

Operation Sindoor and its outcomes have been a matter of intense public discourse in the last few months and the Monsoon session of Parliament not only reflected this sentiment but saw the government and the Opposition indulge in a gripping debate on India's response to the brutal Pahalgam terror attack on April 22. 

While Rajnath Singh focused on the success of the military operation to dismantle the terror infrastructure in Pakistan during his nearly hour-long speech in Lok Sabha, the Opposition targeted the government on its “failure” to prevent the Pahalgam attack.

Singh asserted that the retaliation by the Indian Air Force and Army along the LoC and the fear of Naval attacks forced Pakistan to surrender. “And this defeat of Pakistan was not simply a failure, but a defeat of its military strength and morale.” Strongly presenting the government side, the defence minister said the overall politico-military objective of Operation Sindoor was to punish Pakistan for fighting a proxy war.

Without naming the Pakistan army chief Asif Munir’s statements against India, the Defence Ministry framed India’s response as an answer to the 'fundamental rage'. “Those who dream to give India a thousand cuts must never forget that this is the New India led by PM Modi, which can go to any extent against terrorism.”

The defence minister stressed that India’s conflict with Pakistan is not a border conflict but one of “civilisation versus barbarism.” 

Opposition questions the government

The Opposition, meanwhile, came down heavily on the government, alleging a security failure that led to the terror attack and questioning the government on the ongoing investigations.  “It's been 100 days since the attack, and no one has been arrested. How did the attack take place?” Deputy Leader of Opposition Gaurav Gogoi said. He sought to lay blame on Home Minister Amit Shah and the NSA for the attack.

The debate had taken place after the Opposition had been questioning the government to brief the nation on successes and outcomes of the operation.

Operation Sindoor, carried out in retaliation for the deadly terror strike in Pahalgam, was described by Singh as a "precise, non-escalatory" response that destroyed nine terror sites, including seven fully dismantled camps across the Line of Control. He said the operation was completed in just 22 minutes and that India had gathered proof of the damage inflicted inside Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK).

“The operation was based on strategic planning to inflict maximum damage on terrorists while ensuring no civilian casualties,” Singh said, adding that India always extends the hand of friendship first, but knows how to "twist the wrist" when betrayed.

 The defence minister, in his detailed speech, laced with praise for the Tri-services, while even questioning the Opposition’s intent in talking about India’s capabilities.

Singh addressed a key argument of the Opposition that the operation was stopped under pressure, terming it “baseless and incorrect”. 

Operation Sindoor objective was to eliminate terror nurseries

The objective of Operation Sindoor was not to cross the border or capture the territory; it was to eliminate terror nurseries which Pakistan had nurtured for years, and provide justice to the innocent families who lost their loved ones in cross-border attacks, Singh said.

“There were a number of options on the table, but we chose the option in which the terrorists and their hideouts suffered maximum damage and the common citizens of Pakistan did not suffer any harm.” 

Singh said, according to an estimate, over 100 terrorists, their trainers, handlers and associates were killed in the strikes in Pakistan and PoK. Most of the terrorists belonged to organisations like Jaish-e-Mohammed, Lashkar-e-Taiba and Hizbul Mujahideen. 

Giving further details, the defence minister said on May 10, Pakistan used missiles, drones, rockets and other long-range weapons on India, in addition to technologies related to electronic warfare, on a large scale, targeting Indian Air Force bases, Indian Army ammunition depots, airports and military cantonments. He informed the House that India’s air defence system, counter-drone system and electronic equipment completely foiled the attack, highlighting the effectiveness of S400, Akash Missile System and air defence guns.

Opposition challenges government’s narrative

Congress MP Gaurav Gogoi launched a scathing critique, accusing the Centre of evading accountability for the security lapses that led to the Pahalgam attack. He demanded clarity on how many Indian fighter jets had been lost during the operation and accused the government of misleading both the public and soldiers. “The country has the right to know how many aircraft were downed. If even one Rafale was hit, it’s a massive loss,” he said, questioning the silence of the defence minister on such critical issues.

He also held Union Home Minister Amit Shah accountable, arguing that the buck stops with him. “You cannot hide behind the LG of Jammu and Kashmir,” he said, slamming the government for blaming tour operators instead of accepting responsibility. Gogoi further criticised the Prime Minister for not visiting Pahalgam after returning from a foreign trip, contrasting it with Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s outreach to victims.

Congress MP Deependra Hooda also referred to repeated claims by former US President Donald Trump, who said he used trade pressure to engineer a ceasefire between India and Pakistan.

Adding to the criticism, Samajwadi Party MP Ramashankar Rajbhar said the country had expected swift and forceful action after the Pahalgam attack, not what he termed a delayed Operation Sindoor. “The people wanted Operation Tandoor, not Sindoor,” he said, using the metaphor to convey public anger and a desire for decisive retaliation. He questioned whether the actual perpetrators were among those killed in the operation and why action was delayed by 17 days.

The debate highlighted a sharp divide between the government’s assertion of strength and success and the Opposition’s demand for transparency, accountability, and urgency in national security matters.