In an interview with Newswire, the High Commissioner of India to Sri Lanka, Santosh Jha, shared India’s official position on recent regional developments, including the Pahalgam terror attack and subsequent military response under Operation Sindoor.
He explained India’s rationale for the operation, the nature of threats posed by cross-border terrorism, and the diplomatic steps taken to prevent a full-scale conflict with Pakistan. The High Commissioner also addressed Sri Lanka’s concerns over regional stability and clarified India’s position on ongoing connectivity and cooperation with its neighbours.
1) Excellency, what was the main goal of ‘Operation Sindoor’? Was it solely in response to Pahalgam attack? There have been many terrorist attacks in India earlier. Could you explain why India responded the way it did?
On 22 April, Pakistani and Pakistan-trained terrorists belonging to the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) murdered 26 tourists, 25 Indians and one from Nepal, in Pahalgam, Jammu & Kashmir, India. The victims were innocent tourists. Men were targeted, profiled on communal lines and shot at close range in front of their wives and children in one of the most barbaric and brutal terrorist attacks in history.
This was the biggest terrorist attack on civilians in India since the 26th November 2008 attacks in Mumbai. It should not be seen as just another terrorist attack in Kashmir. It was an attack not only on innocent civilians, but on the very essence of our country, its secular fabric and its developmental trajectory. The attack was aimed at spreading communal discord and to disrupt the sense of normalcy that had returned to the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir as reflected in the fact that over 23 million tourists had visited this most beautiful part of India in 2024. We also had intelligence reports that many more such attacks were on anvil.
We responded initially through a set of diplomatic measures announced on 23 April including to hold the Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance, and suspending cross-border mobility and trade, amongst others.
As Pakistan took no demonstrable steps against the terrorist infrastructure it so proudly harbours, India launched “Operations Sindoor” on 7 May launching focused strikes on nine terror bases in Pakistan and Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (PoK). These included headquarters of globally proscribed terror organisations, including the Jaish e Mohammad (JeM) and the Lashkar e Taiba (LeT) in Bahwalpur and Muridke respectively. Altogether more than 100 terrorists were eliminated at these global universities of terror. Visuals of brazen participation of senior Pakistan military leaders in the funeral of slain internationally recognised terrorists, which were held with State honours, clearly indicates that these proscribed elements are openly courted and supported by Pakistan as part of its policy to use terrorism as an instrument of state policy against India.
2) Following the Pahalgam terrorist attack, India accused that Pakistan is backing the terrorists. How did you arrive at that conclusion? You vowed to deal with handlers and backers of the terrorist outfit. How far have you achieved your mission?
Right after the Pahalgam attack, a terrorist group named The Resistance Front (TRF), which is known to be a front for the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), claimed responsibility for the attack. Investigations after the attack, pointed to clear connections with Pakistani establishment. It clearly revealed that the communication nodes of terrorists were in and to Pakistan. Identification of the attackers, based on eyewitness accounts, ear-witnesses and electronic intercepts available to law enforcement agencies clearly indicate to connections leading to an army cantonment in Pakistan.
You may have seen the sitting Defence Minister of Pakistan Khwaja Asif’s interview to Sky News, where he admitted to having funded and supported terrorists for many decades. This statement was further corroborated by Pakistan’s former Foreign Minister, Bilawal Bhutto. Pakistani Army Chief Asim Munir and known terrorist organizations in Pakistan, too, indulged in blatant communal rhetoric calling for violent intervention in Kashmir just days prior to the Pahalagam attack. There are good reasons to believe that such deplorable exhortations were behind the attack carried out in Pahalagam. The nature of the attack, religious profiling, and location of the attack all align with Asim Munir’s call for violence in Kashmir. It is well known that terrorists nurtured and supported by Pakistan act on behalf of Pakistan and vice-versa.
After the Pahalagam terrorist attack, Prime Minister of India warned the terrorists and their handlers in Pakistan that a strong response will be the delivered to them. Prime Minister had vowed that that the terrorists and their handlers will be pursued to the ends of earth. Operation Sindoor is a planned, precise and forceful implementation of this promise.
In the early morning hours of 7th May, India targeted and successfully destroyed nine terrorist camps, in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (PoK) and in Pakistan. These attacks were executed with surgical precision, focused on dismantling the terrorist infrastructure and disabling terrorists likely to be sent across to India. These included Bahwalpur and Muridke, globally known headquarters of Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM), which are UN proscribed terrorist organisations.
The details of the precise buildings destroyed in this operation were conveyed during Press Briefings conducted by the Indian Foreign Secretary, shortly later. In this attack, about 100 known terrorists, many of which are internationally proscribed were killed.
India had targeted only the terrorist strongholds and carefully ensured that military and civilians were not targeted. Our response to Pakistan’s escalation through the terrorist attack at Pahalgam was non-escalatory, measured, and proportionate. The same was communicated to the Pakistani side, with the clear intention not to escalate the hostilities.
Instead of cooperating to wipe out terrorist hideouts, unfortunately Pakistan chose to side with the terrorists and attacked India the next evening – targeting Indian military facilities, schools, colleges, places of worship and homes. India was then forced to respond in equal measure but it was still proportionate and limited to Pakistani military facilities.
Our message has been loud and clear. We do not see any distinction between Pakistan’s establishment and Pak sponsored terrorists attacking India. Through our response, we have clearly conveyed that India will not be subjected to nuclear blackmail and would not allow terrorism to be perpetrated under this cover by the Pakistani establishment. Prime Minister has declared that in future any terrorist attack on India from Pakistan will be regarded as an act of war by Pakistan on India and will be responded to accordingly.
3) Pakistan had mentioned civilian causalities in the Indian attacks and accused India of escalating the tensions. What diplomatic actions did India take to prevent the escalation of war?
Our response to Pahalgam terrorist attacks were very measured, proportionate and directed solely at the terrorist infrastructure flourishing in Pakistan. We conspicuously did not target civilians and the military infrastructure in Pakistan. In fact, it is Pakistan that has attacked our civilian population and military facilities in response to our action against the terrorists. It was only after Pakistan too such action that we responded by targeting their military installations. All throughout our actions were targeted, precise, controlled and executed with caution to avoid collateral damage to the civilians. From the very beginning, we have acted responsibly and indicated our preferences not to escalate and informed Pakistan of these intentions repeatedly. Even when Pakistan chose to use civilian flights, including international ones, as a shield against their air attacks against India, we acted with restraint and ensured safety of the civilian passengers. However, it is Pakistan which chose to escalate by engaging a number of military targets in Northern and Western India using drones, long range weapons, loitering munitions and fighter aircrafts. It also indulged in unprovoked shelling across the line of control and the international border. In many cases, Pakistan even targeted civilian facilities, such as schools, places of worship, hospitals and homes leading to significant civilian casualties on our side.
Pakistan’s continued escalatory posture led India to respond on 10 May by targeting Pakistani military installations causing significant damage to 13 of their bases. This substantial and definitive damage to Pakistan’s military infrastructure by Indian precision weapons forced it to reach out to India. Pakistani Director General of Military Operations (DGMO) made a call to his Indian counterpart in the afternoon of 10 May. Both sides thereafter reached an understanding to cease all military activities on land, air and sea. As mentioned earlier, the Indian actions all along have been in response to Pakistan’s escalatory tactics and have been measured, calibrated and proportionate. We hope that Pakistan does not violate this understanding and takes irrevocable and definitive action against terrorist infrastructure and abjures its policy of state-sponsored terrorism against India.
4) US President Trump announced that India and Pakistan have declared a cease-fire and he thus indicated that the cease-fire was mediated by the U.S. Could you explain this cease-fire? Is the military action against Pakistan over? And more importantly, will the cease-fire hold?
Let me clarify that India and Pakistan have reached an understanding through direct bilateral contacts to stop hostilities on land, air and sea. This was through direct engagement between DGMOs of the two sides on 10 May. Operation Sindoor is not over. Prime Minister Modi has clearly stated that Operation Sindoor is now India’s established policy against terrorism. As long as Pakistan maintains tranquility and takes irrevocable steps to abjure terrorism against India, there will be no hostilities. The onus and responsibility for any hostility in the region lies squarely with Pakistan. Any act of terrorism will be seen as an act of war and befitting response will be delivered.
Let me draw your attention to the statement of our External Affairs Minister on 15 May that a large number of countries were in close contact with our leaders condemning the Pahalgam terrorist attacks and expressing solidarity with India its fight against terrorism. This includes H.E. President Anura Kumara Disanayaka, who had expressed such sentiments during his phone call to Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi on 25 April.
UN Security Council also came out with a strongly worded statement against terrorism in all its forms and manifestations in the wake of Pahalgam attacks. Pakistan’s deceitful attempts to draw a statement from OIC (Organisation of Islamic Cooperation) resident Ambassadors in New York failed, as the OIC leadership saw through the nefarious attempt to deny & deflect on the issue of terrorism.
5) During the conflict, both Indian and Pakistani governments were accused of spreading misinformation. How difficult was it to verify facts and keep the public properly informed?
As mentioned earlier, spreading misinformation is a part of Pakistan’s DNA since independence. It is globally recognised that it has been living in denial for decades. During Operation Sindoor, too, Pakistani efforts at spreading disinformation were on expected lines. We know that many of their assertions have not been found to be true. On the Indian side, however, our official briefings were held in a professional manner without recourse to bluster and demonstrated the professionalism that is the hallmark of Indian armed forces and its diplomatic corps. Information about actions were supported by authentic evidence at all times and have received widespread recognition.
6) There have been reports of civilian deaths on both sides. How is India addressing the humanitarian impact of the conflict, and how close did the region come to a nuclear crisis?
The Indian side as stated above has been extremely restrained and measured in our response to Pakistani’s escalation attempts. Our retaliation was contained to terror infrastructure in the first stage, and later to military installations, responding only to Pakistan’s attacks on Indian installations, avoiding any collateral civilian damage. Unfortunately, Pakistan did not demonstrate a similar calibrated and restrained approach and mounted attacks on civilian infrastructure, including indulging in a despicable and irresponsible act of using civilian passenger aircrafts as a shield for its belligerent actions against India.
On the part of your question regarding possible nuclear crises, it has been Pakistan’s policy to raise the nuclear spectre as a cover for its terrorist actions against India. I think one of the major takeaways of Operation Sindoor has been to call the bluff of Pakistan’s nuclear blackmail. Before and during Operation Sindoor, India has acted with great restraint. As a responsible nuclear weapons state, India has limited its actions to conventional military domain only.
7) Indian Prime Minister Modi in an address recently declared that Operation Sindoor is now India’s established policy against terrorism. What are the implications of this strategy? Should Sri Lanka be worried that tensions will flare up again?
Prime Minister Modi during his address to the nation on 12 May has declared that Operation Sindoor is now India’s established policy in the fight against terrorism. Prime Minister has also stated that Operation Sindoor has established a new benchmark and a new normal in our fight against terrorism. Broadly, there three key elements of this approach. Firstly, any terrorist attack on India will be met with a befitting response; there will be decisive retaliation on India’s terms. Second, any attempt to use nuclear blackmail as a shield for terrorism will not be accepted by India. India will strike precisely and decisively at the terrorist hideouts developing under the cover of nuclear blackmail. And thirdly, there will be no distinction between terrorists and the government sponsoring terrorism. This new doctrine marks a significant shift in India’s approach to national security and lays the ground for a firm and resolute stance aimed at zero tolerance for terrorism.
There will be no talks with Pakistan except regarding it vacating from its illegal occupation of Kashmir.
8) Excellency, Sri Lanka was worried that a full-scale war would hurt its economy and regional stability. How did India take into consideration concerns of its neighbours like Sri Lanka?
Pakistan’s posture, coupled with its internal dynamics and proclivity to use terrorism as a state policy, should be the principal concern for the international community, not India’s counter-terrorism response.
The underlying principle of ‘Operation Sindoor’ is zero tolerance for terrorism. Sri Lanka has itself been a victim of terrorism and shares the principle of zero tolerance. Let me in fact take this opportunity to thank the government of Sri Lanka for their expression of solidarity with India.
India militarily intervened to destroy terror camps, of course with the objective of delivering justice to the victims of Pahalgam, but also to deter and prevent more such cross-border attacks. The region’s economic stability, especially for countries like Sri Lanka with its mainstay being tourism, is contingent on security after all. India’s firm and strong counter-terrorism posture is aimed at building long-term peace and stability in the region and serves the larger interest of building peace and prosperity in the entire South Asian region in the long term.
09) India has held in abeyance the Indus Water Treaty that provides for water sharing with Pakistan. This has raised concerns in some quarters here since Sri Lanka is seeking connectivity with India in the energy sector. How do you allay such concerns?
The two issues are clearly not comparable. Our relations with Pakistan and Sri Lanka are built on different premises. Sri Lanka is a centrepiece of India’s Neighbourhood First policy. Our relations today is marked by unprecedented trust and goodwill at all levels. Not just with Sri Lanka but we have energy connectivity projects with our other neighbours such as Bhutan, Nepal and Bangladesh.
Pakistan on the other hand is a country that has consistently maintained a hostile posture towards India not least through the implementation of terrorism as state policy.
Pakistan is globally recognised as an epicentre of terrorism. There has hardly been a terrorist incident in the world in the last three decades without Pakistan’s fingerprint or direct involvement in these incidents. The largest number of UN proscribed terrorists are either in Pakistan or have received their training in Pakistan – whether we talk about Osama Bin Laden, Masood Azhar or Hafiz Saeed, to name a few. When a country is sending terrorists to bleed and kill your citizens, there cannot be normal trade relationship or good-will projects between them. This is why Prime Minister Modi has announced that blood and water cannot flow together and that terror and trade cannot go together.
As far as the Indus Water Treaty is concerned, it was signed with a view to promote goodwill, friendship and cooperation between India and Pakistan. Decades of terrorism perpetrated by Pakistan on India demonstrates that this good faith has been outrageously violated by Pakistan. Further, ever since the signing of the treaty, Pakistan has continued to wilfully obstruct every effort by India to exercise its legitimate rights under the treaty, including by actively promoting terrorism in Jammu & Kashmir. In addition, the Indus water Treaty was signed in the 1960s. Since then, fundamental changes to the topology, hydrography, demography etc. of the region warrant changes to the Treaty. Further climate-change and availability of new technologies as well as the imperative of renewable energy underscore the need for a review of the Treaty. For these reasons, India has earlier proposed such a review. However, for the past two years, Pakistan has been stone-walling India’s long-standing request for negotiations. Clearly, Pakistan has demonstrated bad faith with regard to this Treaty.
As my Prime Minister stated, this is not an era for war, but also not an era for terror.