With Operation Sindoor, India did not seek a war, but sought to set a new normal for Pakistan by imposing costs higher than what it could fathom, according to Lieutenant General (Retired) Vinod Bhatia, a former Director General of Military Operations (DGMO).read moreWith Operation Sindoor, India has told Pakistan that the cost for any misadventure would be higher than what it would be prepared to incur.The adoption of such an approach marks a doctrinal shift, according to Lieutenant General (Retired) Vinod Bhatia, a former Director General of Military Operations (DGMO).In four days of military campaign,
India struck nine terrorist sites
, at least eight airbases, and numerous air defence and radar sites. The sites struck extended from Pakistan Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (POJK) in the north and Karachi in the South. The brunt was, of course, borne by Punjab, the heart of the country, where India hammered some of the crown jewels of Pakistani military, such as the Chaklala and Sargodha airbases.STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS ADThe hammering was such that while Pakistan rebuffed Indian outreach on May 7, it initiated a request for a ceasefire on May 10 that India agreed to.More from India
India says it inflicted heavy losses on Pakistan military during three-day confrontation
‘From Kargil to Pahalgam, DGMO hotline has stood test of time’: Ex-DGMO Lt Gen Bhatia on Operation SindoorALSO READ:
Operation Sindoor: With battlefield edge, India cornered Pakistan to seek peace & that’s new normalWhile critics have said that India should have hammered Pakistan more, Bhatia said that the ceasefire was justified as India had achieved its objectives.“India did not start Operation Sindoor to seek a full-scale war. India had certain objectives in India and India achieved them. The main objective was to change the cost-effect game. For decades, Pakistan used terrorism as a low cost-high effect game. With Operation Sindoor, India turned it into a high cost-low effect game. India set a new normal. Now, Pakistan knows that any terrorist activity against India would invite higher-than-expected costs,” said Bhatia.The costs go much beyond than cratered runways, bombed-out hangars, and destroyed air defence systems. The suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty may have effects way more far-reaching than any airstrikes. For context, consider this: around four-fifths of Pakistan’s agriculture and one-third of its hydropower depend on the Indus river system and agriculture accounts for one-fourths of the country’s economy.‘India controlled escalation ladder, achieved all objectives’As for the criticism that India did not continue the military campaign for some more time, Bhatia said that a full-scale was never the objective and waging a war without any clear objective is a recipe for a disaster.ALSO READ:
‘From Kargil to Pahalgam, DGMO hotline has stood test of time’: Ex-DGMO Lt Gen Bhatia on Operation SindoorMore than the objectives, India had a clear end-state of the conflict and India steered the campaign such that India achieved its objectives and concluded the campaign at the end-state it had envisioned, said Bhatia.STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD“India controlled the escalation ladder, kept the initiative, and remained proactive throughout the campaign. If you don’t have an end-state in mind, you risk getting into an escalation spiral where you may lose control. Prolonging the conflict after the objectives were met would have risked slipping into an uncontrolled escalation spiral. India did not let that happen. India demonstrated the ability to strike deep by hitting more than a dozen sites, imposed high costs, set a new normal, and then forced Pakistan to seek a ceasefire. The entire campaign went as per the plan,” Bhatia.TagsIndiaPakistanTerrorismEnd of Article
View the original here –
‘India didn’t seek war, imposed high costs to set new normal’: Ex-DGMO on Operation Sindoor
