The recent parliamentary debate on Operation Sindoor highlighted how India handled the cross-border terrorism and national security. For the first time in decades, Parliament’s two houses were engaged in a high-stakes, 16-hour debate that not only brought India’s military action into the open but also analysed its diplomatic strategy, internal political realignment and regional geopolitical considerations. Three speeches stood out — External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar’s systematic diplomatic presentation, Defence Minister Rajnath Singh’s strategic presentation of military victory and Member of Parliament Asaduddin Owaisi’s incisive opposition questions. Together, they put together a strong picture of India’s changing doctrine: a transition from restraint to firm action.
The Strategic Diplomacy
Dr. S. Jaishankar’s detailed statement on the foreign policy dimension of Operation Sindoor was not merely a retrospective of India’s diplomatic engagements — it was a blueprint for India’s new security diplomacy. Following the gruesome Pahalgam terror attack on April 22, India wasted no time in calling an emergency Cabinet Committee on Security meeting, which led to significant and unprecedented foreign policy actions: from suspending the Indus Water Treaty to expelling Pakistani defence advisors and reducing diplomatic presence at the Pakistani High Commission.
What followed was a comprehensive diplomatic blitzkrieg. Jaishankar made it clear — India’s message was twofold: “zero tolerance for terrorism” and “the right to defend our people.” Despite not being a member of the UN Security Council, India managed to secure a UNSC statement on April 25 that called for bringing the perpetrators to justice. This, he emphasised, was no minor feat, especially considering Pakistan’s current UNSC membership.
By the time Operation Sindoor was launched on May 7, global sentiment had shifted. Out of 193 UN members, only three (besides Pakistan) objected to India’s right to act. The diplomatic victory was further cemented when the US designated The Resistance Front (TRF) as a Foreign Terrorist Organisation, despite Pakistan’s earlier attempts to shield it in UNSC debates.
Precision, Punishment and Strategic Clarity
Defence Minister Rajnath Singh brought emotional gravitas and operational clarity to the debate. While Jaishankar built the case globally, Singh made it clear domestically: the Pahalgam attack was the final provocation, and Operation Sindoor was the strategic retaliation. He underscored how Indian armed forces dismantled critical terrorist infrastructures in Bahawalpur, Muridke, and PoJK, with overwhelming force and tactical precision.
Rajnath Singh eloquently invoked the Indian ethos, referencing Goswami Tulsidas, reminding the House that India’s strength lies in measured but firm action. Notably, he confirmed the use of air defence systems, including the S-400, against incoming drone and missile threats. It highlights India’s commitment when it comes to National Security. Despite the US pressure, India went ahead and bought the S-400 air defence system from Russia, and it proved effective in a real battle with Pakistan.
The Defence Minister also asserted that the ceasefire was not a product of foreign influence but a direct result of Pakistan’s DGMO requesting de-escalation after suffering severe damage to airfields and military installations — a message, as Singh put it, that “went home loud and clear.”
Owaisi Shines Among Opposition
Among the opposition, it was AIMIM leader Asaduddin Owaisi who stood out for posing timely and critical questions. While many in the opposition fell back on rhetorical posturing, Owaisi tackled substance. He asked pointed questions on India’s fighter squadron deficiencies, the status of the third aircraft carrier, and submarine strength — all crucial in a time when air and naval superiority define modern warfare, as evidenced in the Russia-Ukraine and Iran-Israel conflicts.
He also took the bold step of reflecting public sentiment, questioning the symbolic contradictions — like playing cricket with Pakistan amidst heightened hostilities — and brought attention to strategic vulnerabilities in India’s maritime and aerospace domains.
Owaisi did not question the legitimacy of Operation Sindoor. Instead, he questioned preparedness, sustainability, and doctrinal clarity — all while playing the role of a responsible opposition member concerned with long-term national resilience.
The ‘New Normal’ in India’s Strategic Doctrine
In his closing remarks, Jaishankar introduced the concept of a “new normal.” No longer will terrorists be treated as proxies, and no longer will cross-border terrorism be met with diplomatic ambiguity. He outlined five core tenets:
- Terrorists will not be treated as proxies.
- Cross-border terrorism will invite a direct and proportionate military response.
- Terror and talks cannot coexist.
- India will not bow to nuclear blackmail.
- Blood and water cannot flow together.
This sends a direct message not only to Pakistan but to the international community: India is setting new strategic red lines. These are not rhetorical flourishes but policies backed by actionable force and diplomatic legitimacy.
The Broader Geopolitical Canvas
Jaishankar took on the critics who claim to be warning of a “two-front” challenge. Tracing the genesis of the China-Pakistan nexus from 1948 through agreements like the 1963 ceding of the Shaksgam Valley, the Karakoram Highway, and CPEC, he turned the tables on opposition voices. “You are not warning us,” he said, “you are reminding us of the consequences of your own negligence.”
He similarly debunked criticisms around IMF packages and FATF performance, stating that the longest FATF grey-listing of Pakistan —1576 days — happened under the Modi government. Moreover, he cited consistent global support — from QUAD and BRICS to Central Asia and Europe — reinforcing the idea that India’s diplomatic heft is not just growing, it is commanding.
Parliamentary Diplomacy
Perhaps the most heartening part of Jaishankar’s address was his acknowledgement of bipartisan parliamentary diplomacy. Seven parliamentary delegations, including members from opposition parties like Shashi Tharoor and Supriya Sule, visited 33 countries to build global understanding of India’s counter-terrorism posture. These delegations, Jaishankar said, “did the nation proud.”
Yet, he ended with a subtle warning: the same unity shown abroad must now be reflected within Parliament. India’s fight against terrorism, he argued, demands bipartisan conviction, not partisan opportunism.
Strategic Patience with Tactical Precision
Operation Sindoor may mark the end of a military operation, but it marks the beginning of a strategic era — one defined by India’s unapologetic right to self-defence, its proactive foreign policy, and its willingness to translate global goodwill into decisive national action.
The synergy between EAM Jaishankar’s diplomacy, Defence Minster Rajnath Singh’s military clarity, and Owaisi’s probing questions reflects the maturing of Indian parliamentary democracy. While security threats persist, one thing is certain — the political and strategic message from India is now calibrated, coherent, and commanding. For the first time in Indian Parliamentary history, the message was loud and clear to the regional and global powers that India’s 140 crore population is in safe hands and India first cares about its national security, Interests and well-being of their citizens.