WEBDESK: In Washington D.C. on Wednesday, Indian External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar declared that Operation Sindoor had “conveyed to the world with great clarity” that India would act against terrorism.
The statement came during a press briefing and meetings with Quad partners, following joint calls from the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) and the Quad group for the perpetrators of the April 22 Pahalgam attack to be brought to justice.
Yet, for all the carefully chosen words and repeated claims of resolve, what Operation Sindoor actually revealed was something the world already knows all too well.
The Modi government often depends on drama and loud patriotic talk instead of taking real, responsible action.
India may claim it launched precision strikes in Pakistan and Azad Kashmir, but as ever, there is little independent evidence of the operation’s impact, and even less to suggest any meaningful shift in policy or outcomes.
This all, when Operation Sindoor itself was nothing more than an attempt to divert everyone from the Modi government’s lack of ability to catch the real perpetrators.
In response, Jaishankar told the press that Operation Sindoor aimed to act against the perpetrators, supporters, financiers and enablers of terrorism.
However, what India is truly conveying to the international community is that it remains trapped in a cycle of reaction, bluster and media spectacle, carefully timed for domestic consumption.
The joint statement issued by Quad foreign ministers, including Jaishankar, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Australia’s Penny Wong and Japan’s Takeshi Iwaya, strongly condemned the Pahalgam attack.
It urged all UN member states to cooperate with efforts to bring those responsible to justice. The UN Security Council reflected these views, focusing on international legal accountability rather than military retaliation.
This distinction is telling. While India speaks of retaliation, its global partners speak of law and justice. Operation Sindoor, in this context, appears less a decisive move against terrorism and more a routine performance for national television.
There is a growing sense that under the BJP, such operations serve more to uphold a political narrative than to achieve genuine security gains.
Jaishankar also met with key US officials to discuss trade, defence, energy and technology.
On the proposed US bill to impose a 500 per cent tariff on countries purchasing Russian oil, he admitted that the Indian embassy had raised concerns with Senator Lindsey Graham, but offered no clarity on whether any progress had been made.
This pattern of loud announcements followed by vague assurances and a lack of follow-through has become a defining trait of Modi’s foreign policy.
The BJP leadership speaks often of strength and sovereignty, yet routinely fails to back it up with coherent or consistent diplomacy.
Behind the front of tough talk lies a record of reactive, short-term measures and an unwillingness to deal with the structural realities of India’s security challenges.
What Operation Sindoor truly conveyed is not India’s strength, but the Modi regime’s weakness.
A government that trades in slogans and stunts, but retreats when faced with the complexities of international accountability or credible retaliation.
The world has heard these promises before. So have Indian citizens. And both are beginning to see through the noise.
What Operation Sindoor actually conveyed to the world
The only thing the world truly understood from India after Operation Sindoor is that the BJP-RSS regime specializes in hollow threats and theatrical hypernationalist chest-thumping, until Pakistan lands a few hard blows.
Then, like clockwork, these self-styled warriors scurry back into their ratholes, concocting excuses and peddling delusions to cover up their failure.
Jaishankar’s proclamations about clarity are just stale propaganda: the reality is that this government has perfected the art of shouting vengeance for prime-time audiences, only to fold under pressure and betray its own bluster the moment it faces real retaliation.
