The controversy surrounding External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar’s statement on Operation Sindoor centers on claims that India warned Pakistan before launching the operation, which targeted terror infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) on May 7, 2025, in retaliation for the April 22, 2025, Pahalgam terror attack.
Here’s a concise overview based on available information:
Congress leader Rahul Gandhi alleged that Jaishankar admitted India informed Pakistan in advance about Operation Sindoor, calling it a “crime” and questioning who authorized it and how many Indian Air Force aircraft were lost as a result. He shared a video clip purportedly showing Jaishankar’s statement, sparking a political storm.
The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) and the Press Information Bureau (PIB) swiftly rejected these claims as an “utter misrepresentation.
” They clarified that Jaishankar’s remarks referred to a warning issued to Pakistan after Operation Sindoor had begun, not before, to emphasize that the strikes targeted terrorist infrastructure, not the Pakistani military.
The MEA stated, “Jaishankar had stated that we had warned Pakistan at the start, which is clearly the early phase after Operation Sindoor’s commencement.”
The controversy over External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar’s statement regarding Operation Sindoor and the alleged warning to Pakistan has escalated into a significant political and diplomatic issue.
Below is a deeper dive into the details, context, and developments based on available information, while addressing the core elements of the controversy:
● Background of Operation Sindoor: Operation Sindoor was a covert military operation conducted by India on May 7, 2025, targeting terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK). It was a response to the April 22, 2025, terror attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, which killed 26 A Indian soldier and civilians.
● The operation involved precise strikes by the Indian Air Force, reportedly neutralizing key terrorist camps linked to groups like Jaish-e-Mohammed and Lashkar-e-Taiba. It was framed as a preemptive measure to thwart further attacks, with India claiming the targets were non-state actors, not Pakistan’s military.
● The operation received international attention, with the UN Security Council passing a resolution condemning terrorism and implicitly supporting India’s right to self-defense, though Pakistan protested the violation of its sovereignty.
SP Leader Ram Gopal Yadav Controversial Comments On Wing Commander Vedika Singh On May 15
The Controversy:
The controversy erupted when Congress leader Rahul Gandhi alleged that Jaishankar, in a public statement, admitted India had warned Pakistan before Operation Sindoor, potentially compromising the mission’s secrecy and endangering Indian forces. Gandhi’s claims, amplified through social media and a selectively edited video clip, raised three key questions:
● Did India warn Pakistan in advance? Gandhi suggested this gave Pakistan time to prepare defenses, undermining the operation.
● Who authorized the warning? He implied a high-level decision, possibly by Prime Minister Narendra Modi or Jaishankar, betrayed national security.
● Were Indian aircraft lost? Gandhi claimed the warning led to losses of Indian Air Force assets, though he provided no evidence.
Jaishankar’s Statement and Clarification:
The contentious statement came from Jaishankar’s remarks during a press briefing or public event (exact context varies in sources). He reportedly said India “warned Pakistan at the start” of Operation Sindoor to clarify that the strikes targeted terrorists, not Pakistan’s military, to avoid escalation.
● The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) and Press Information Bureau (PIB) issued clarifications on May 8, 2025, stating that Jaishankar’s reference to a “warning” was about communications after the operation began, not before.
The MEA emphasized:
● The warning was part of diplomatic protocol to prevent miscalculation by Pakistan, ensuring they understood the limited scope of the strikes.
● No advance notice was given that would compromise the operation’s secrecy or execution.
● The PIB Fact Check Unit labeled social media posts, including Gandhi’s, as “fake and misleading,” accusing them of distorting Jaishankar’s words through edited clips.
Political Fallout
● Congress’s Allegations: Rahul Gandhi and the Congress party doubled down, framing the alleged warning as a “crime against India’s sovereignty” and demanding accountability. They accused the Modi government of mishandling national security and questioned the operation’s success, citing unverified reports of Indian aircraft losses.
● BJP’s Counterattack: The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and MEA accused Gandhi of “peddling lies” and undermining India’s armed forces. They highlighted the operation’s success, including the elimination of 40–50 terrorists (per intelligence reports) and international support from the US, UK, and France.
Key Points of Contention
Advance Warning or Post-Operation Communication?
● No primary source, including Jaishankar’s full statement, confirms an advance warning. The MEA’s clarification aligns with standard military practice: post-strike communication to de-escalate tensions with a nuclear-armed neighbor.
● Pakistan’s response to the operation—initial denial followed by condemnation—suggests they were caught off-guard, undermining claims of prior warning.
Indian Aircraft Losses:
● Gandhi’s claim about lost aircraft lacks substantiation. Official statements and defense sources report no losses, with the Indian Air Force using advanced stealth technology and precision-guided munitions.
● Pakistan claimed to have downed an Indian drone, but this was unverified and unrelated to manned aircraft. Indian defense analysts dismissed these as propaganda.
Political Motives:
● The controversy aligns with India’s polarized political climate ahead of state elections. Congress leveraged the issue to portray the BJP as weak on security, while the BJP accused Congress of demoralizing the military and aligning with “anti-India forces.
● ”The selective editing of Jaishankar’s video, widely shared on Social Media, fueled misinformation, prompting calls for stricter social media regulations.
Pakistan’s Reaction
● Pakistan condemned Operation Sindoor as an “act of aggression” and lodged a complaint with the UN. However, its response was muted compared to past incidents like the 2019 Balakot airstrike, possibly due to international pressure and the UNSC resolution.
● Pakistani media and officials claimed their air defenses were on high alert, but no evidence suggests they anticipated the strikes. This weakens the narrative of an advance warning.
Current Status (as of May 17, 2025)
● The MEA and BJP continue to reject Gandhi’s allegations, with Jaishankar reiterating India’s commitment to combating terrorism without compromising security protocols.
● Congress has demanded a parliamentary probe into Operation Sindoor’s execution, but this is unlikely given the BJP’s majority and public support for the operation.
● No independent investigation has confirmed aircraft losses or an advance warning. Defense experts on X and web platforms like The Wire and India Today emphasize the operation’s tactical success, citing satellite imagery of destroyed terror camps.
● The controversy has shifted focus from the operation’s outcomes to political point-scoring, with both sides accusing each other of distorting facts.
The controversy hinges on misinterpretation (deliberate or otherwise) of Jaishankar’s statement. Diplomatic warnings during or after military operations are standard to prevent escalation, especially between India and Pakistan, both nuclear powers.
Gandhi’s claims about aircraft losses and authorization lack evidence and appear designed to capitalize on public sensitivity to national security issues.The operation itself, per available data, achieved its objectives with minimal collateral damage, bolstering India’s anti-terror stance globally. However, the domestic political slugfest risks overshadowing these gains.