National security should not be captured

India has achieved great success in the initial phase of its initial operational phase against the Neurocenter of terrorist organizations, including LET (Lashkar-e-Taiba) and Jem (Jaish-e-Mohammed), Critical Airbases and their AD networks, again being overshadowed by the opposition’s statements.

Questioning statements questioned by the top political leaders or senior ministers of the Indian government for background and the trend of the success and credibility of the armed forces in carrying out operations is harmful to India’s national security. A key element of deterrence is not only the highest political leadership targeted to address emerging situations or events, but also the lack of support from the state in implementing its implementation. More importantly, when the operation/operation is still incomplete.

This is a summary of the events that led to the grand political grandeur of the opposition. The killing of tourists who killed Pakistani agents in Pahalgam on April 22 with the aim of creating community disharmony in the country, the government’s response was very powerful, utilizing all the tools of state power. It began to shelve the “Indian Water Treaty” while taking economic and diplomatic action. The Prime Minister provided the armed forces with a free hand to retribution. On the evenings of May 6 and 7, the armed forces responded with stalemate weapons, which destroyed the main terrorist infrastructure without crossing the international borders in the heart of Pakistan. Pakistan’s reaction and India’s effective reaction led to Pakistan’s DGMO asking India to travel on May 10, asking India to travel on India. The issue was a post published on May 17 on Rahul Gandhi’s Lok Sabha by opposition leaders on May 17. He publicly accused Minister of External Affairs S Jaishankar of “informing” Pakistan as a terrorist infrastructure as part of Sindoor’s operation as malicious because the EAM refers to the appeal to Pakistan’s DGMO. The MEA later clarified that the statement was a “serious statement” of facts. But the damage has caused damage to reduce the impact of India’s response to the state-sponsored terrorist bill.
We have witnessed the adverse effects of similar incidents, in which such political marginality of senior opposition leaders has caused avoidable controversy in the country and reduced the impact of Indian news to their opponents. It provides the Pakistani media and its ISPR with the opportunity to take advantage of this benefit. It provides the footsteps of false narratives of the Western media for Pakistan’s fuel, which is biased against India anyway. It gives India’s reaction, colored religious colors.

We saw this in 2016, when Delhi CM Kejriwal sought the government for surgical strikes about Army Special Forces, after URI terrorist attacks, and then again after “Balakot” in 2019. In both cases, we believe this is the influence of the Pakistani media deprived of Indian action and the garbage Indian claim. It must be appreciated that proof in the public sphere is like sharing the tactical exercises of the armed forces, which is what the opponent wants to know. Preventable safety errors.

A mature political system should not discuss national security issues in the public sphere. A firm leadership with a unified national security voice will increase the country’s deterrence against Pakistan’s proxy war. In a democratic system, parties will always take strong and firm actions in terms of power and the Prime Minister. We saw this in 1971, when Bangladesh was founded to Congress and Indira Gandhi. So let us unanimously support India’s policy transition from “strategic limitations” to “strategic independence”. PM Modi’s recent announcement will be carried out by state-sponsored terrorists on Indian lands, and will be appropriately deterred under PM Modi’s recent announcement.