In the aftermath of the Pahalgam terror attack, Operation Sindoor was executed with admirable precision and purpose. The nation witnessed the readiness of our armed forces, the speed of response, and the confidence with which cross-border strikes were conducted. These are not small achievements. They reflect an India that no longer hesitates to act in defence of its people and territory.

Yet, amid the expressions of solidarity and triumph, a set of questions still lingers — questions that were not answered in Parliament, nor addressed in the official statements that followed. As someone who has served within the machinery of the Indian state, I believe these questions deserve not only to be asked, but to be sustained in the national memory. For, a nation’s strength is not merely defined by its ability to retaliate, but by its commitment to learning from what precedes the need for retaliation.

The first duty of the state is to prevent. That a group of terrorists could infiltrate and carry out a devastating attack in one of Kashmir’s most surveilled and strategically vital regions signals a breach not only of physical security, but of institutional coordination.

Where was the lapse? Was it a failure of intelligence collection, analysis, or dissemination? Were inter-agency protocols followed — or bypassed? What assessment has been made of the local support structures that enabled such movement? These are not peripheral queries. They go to the core of whether our deterrence posture is genuinely effective or primarily reactive.

The recent........

© Indian Express