Also Read: PM Modi nation speech highlights: ‘India’s response shook Pakistan’
Sibal suggested that recent developments warrant a more circumspect approach from India regarding its relationship with the current US administration under President Trump. He pointed specifically to President Trump’s statements that appeared to equate India and Pakistan, overlooking the context of terrorism originating from Pakistan which necessitated India’s actions.The former diplomat found President Trump’s offer to mediate on the Kashmir issue particularly problematic, deeming it “totally uncalled for” and highlighting that it ignores the long-standing Simla Agreement which mandates bilateral resolution. He cautioned that such offers disregard India’s consistent rejection of third-party mediation.
Meanwhile, Capt (Retd.) DK Sharma, former spokesperson for the Indian Navy, described Operation Sindoor as a success that sent a clear message to Pakistan. He emphasised the precision and maturity of India’s response, targeting specific terror infrastructure rather than military or civilian areas. Capt. Sharma also highlighted India’s technological capabilities, particularly in countering drone threats deployed by Pakistan during the conflict.
The comments come as relative calm returns to the border areas after four days of heavy firing. A ceasefire understanding is currently in place. High-level meetings chaired by Prime Minister Narendra Modi have been held in New Delhi to discuss the situation, and the Indian armed forces have confirmed their operational readiness while detailing the damage inflicted on Pakistani assets during the recent operations.
Below is the excerpt of the discussion.
Q: We, of course, commend our forces for a successful Operation Sindoor. But there seems to be some discomfort in the Indian establishment with the manner in which the United States has taken credit for this. Just to read out what Donald Trump said on Truth Social, he said this on the 10th May around four o’clock in the evening, he went on to say, “I thank the strong and unwavering, powerful leadership of India and Pakistan for having the strength to end and to know when to stop this aggression.” He literally equated Pakistan and India together. Why do you think the United States does this, and how does this leave India with its economic, military, and diplomatic campaign against Pakistan?
Sibal: It’s a big mistake that Donald Trump and the American establishment is making in suggesting that this ceasefire is the handiwork of the United States of America and giving no agency to India and Pakistan. In fact, the message that comes through is that India could not take any further independent decisions based on the ground situation about whether they should proceed with the confrontation or step back, and that America has intervened and persuaded both countries to step back.
In fact, if you notice, right from the start, we’ve not at all focused on American intervention, and we’ve made it appear that it is the Pakistani DGMO who took the initiative to contact our DGMO to talk about a ceasefire. It is the Americans who are saying that they intervened. The Indian side is not saying that. That’s one aspect.
The other is this equation that Trump is establishing between India and Pakistan, talking about the wisdom of both sides, and also that he’s going to increase trade with both countries, etc. I don’t know what the volume of trade is between the United States and Pakistan, but with India, it’s a very significant number, $200 billion with the aim of increasing it to $500 billion by 2030. So, there’s absolutely no parity.
The problem with this is that nowhere has Trump, in his statements, talked about Pakistan’s link with terrorism or its involvement in terrorism. Now, even if in this statement he had included a line that, while he commends the leadership of both countries for agreeing to a ceasefire, it is very necessary for Pakistan to address the terrorism issue… Because the terrorism issue in Pakistan is not only India-directed, it has also been US-directed, and it could be directed against US interests in the future too. It’s more than a regional issue; it’s more than an India-Pakistan issue.
So, Pakistan seems to have gotten away with this, and this will embolden them. This is not going to change their narrative. Already, they think that they forced India into a ceasefire and that India actually approached the United States for a ceasefire. And this “victory” kind of discourse that is coming from Pakistan suggests that there is not going to be any change in their policy. The United States should have addressed this issue, even now, they should.
Q: Do you feel that the kind of stand Donald Trump has taken now makes it difficult for India to proceed with the trade deal with the United States? Or at least India will now become more wary?
Sibal: No, I don’t think so. And that would not be very wise on our part. After all, this is not the first time that the Americans have supported Pakistan, we have lived with this over decades. In fact, since the time when the United States was openly supporting Pakistan on the Jammu and Kashmir issue, pressing us to make territorial concessions, arming Pakistan, and overlooking China’s support to Pakistan to develop its nuclear capability. America had a hand in that too.
From that time to today, there’s been a huge difference in our relationship with the United States. So even if these kinds of irritants continue, there is a wider picture. Therefore, we should not make our trade deal and negotiations on tariff issues contingent on the ceasefire issue or America’s effort to equate both India and Pakistan. That would not be a wise policy.
But of course, we should internalise that when push comes to shove, the United States is not that sensitive to India’s security interests. Our security interests here are really related to China, on which the Americans are more receptive, and to Pakistan, on which unfortunately the Americans don’t show the same receptivity.
Now, if one were to look at the total picture, the earlier messages that were coming from the United States were that “this is not our fight, we are not going to get involved,” and also a signal to India that we could retaliate against Pakistan for the Pahalgam attack but keep it within limits so that it does not escalate into a wider regional war.
I don’t know what happened subsequently for President Trump himself to take this approach, politically, morally, and militarily equating India and Pakistan, and not addressing why India had to act. If there was no Pahalgam, if there was no constant support by Pakistan to terrorism in India aimed at disrupting peace in Jammu and Kashmir, then we would not have acted.
So that issue has to come to the forefront. It’s not the military dimension. The military dimension is there because of the terrorist attack. Therefore, the focus should be on the terrorism issue, and public pressure should be put on Pakistan to address it. Unfortunately, this is not forthcoming from the United States.
Q: Do you think that India, going forward, has to be careful in its dealings with US President Donald Trump? It clearly shows that this is a person, and an administration, which cannot possibly be trusted. Here you have Pakistan, which has so many terror camps, terrorists like Ajmal Kasab, David Headley, they were behind the 26/11 Mumbai attacks, where US citizens were also killed. Yet here is Trump saying both India and Pakistan have great leaders and he would love to mediate on Kashmir. Do you think India will now have to treat Trump more cautiously?
Sibal: Certainly. This whole business about finding a solution to the Kashmir issue, why is he trying to reopen the Kashmir issue? If there’s any issue left, as we have stated very clearly, it is that Pakistan must vacate its illegal occupation of parts of Jammu and Kashmir which legally belong to India.
Now, this could encourage other countries to offer mediation or reopen the Kashmir issue. And of course, he is ignoring the Simla Agreement, which is the bedrock of India-Pakistan bilateral relations, including on Jammu and Kashmir. This is an agreement registered with the United Nations, and both India and Pakistan are bound by it.
So why is Trump sidelining the Simla Agreement and offering mediation, knowing, or at least his advisers should know, that India has never accepted third-party mediation.
Now, as in the case of Kargil, Clinton at that time felt that if India attacked Pakistan on the western front, Pakistan could collapse as a country, then he summoned the Pakistani Prime Minister and read the Riot Act to him. That was up to the Americans, but that was not mediation.
For Trump to talk about mediation is totally uncalled for. However, having said that, Trump talks pretty loosely about these matters. Some of his facts are not right, he’s talking about a 1,000-year war between India and Pakistan when Pakistan only came into existence in 1947. So, the point is: how seriously should one take him?
We should ignore much of what he says and see if we can steer him away from some of these statements, swallow them diplomatically, and at the same time, through diplomacy and his aides (and we have good equations with the people around him), steer him away from this loose talk and make him understand that he is alienating sections of Indian public opinion and making things difficult.
Q: While we have come out successful from Operation Sindoor, where does this leave India in terms of its diplomatic toolkit? The US, by praising Pakistan’s leadership and equating both countries, has shown they may not come to India’s assistance in a time of crisis. China and Pakistan are extremely close, Chinese fighter jets and missiles were used against India, Turkish drones too. Yet the US has gone ahead and signed a trade deal with China before India. What’s the learning here?
Sibal: The learning here is that Trump cannot be fully relied upon. He is obviously focused on making America great again, even at the cost of friendly relationships, as we’ve seen with Europe.
In that sense, one has to be careful when dealing with Trump and not get overly impressed by personal gestures and talk of personal chemistry. While such things have their place and should be capitalised on, we must also be very careful. There’s a lesson in this, not just in regard to the trade deal with China, but also strategically, regarding how much we should become a part of the Quad and the Indo-Pacific framework.
All this raises doubts. But even if the US has signed a trade deal with China, the larger challenge posed by China remains. The public and political mood in the United States is anti-China. So, to the extent this benefits us, shifting of supply chains, etc., we should capitalise on it.
These are complex matters. There are no neat solutions, nothing is black and white. We have to look at the positives and negatives, reduce the impact of the negatives, and make the most of the positives. At the end of the day, we cannot rely on the United States. We have to rely on ourselves. But to the extent there are common interests, we should benefit from the relationship with the US.
Q: If you had to define the success of Operation Sindoor, what is the kind of message we’ve sent out to Pakistan and to the world?
Sharma: The message is very clear: don’t mess with us. We are a peace-loving nation. We don’t interfere in the matters of other countries. But what Pakistan did, killing innocents, had to be avenged. And it has been avenged very effectively.
Look at how maturely the country, the armed forces, and the leadership behaved. We didn’t target military installations or civilian populations. We targeted terror hotbeds. The nine targets were selected with great caution and backed by intelligence. That’s why it took time. The nation was getting restless, wanting swift revenge, but there was no knee-jerk reaction.
The forces were given leeway, freedom, and flexibility. The attacks were coordinated, saturated, and executed within 15 minutes. All nine targets were hit. That’s the message: don’t mess with a country working to bring peace and order to the Indo-Pacific region.
Q: We saw Turkish armed drones and Chinese fighter jets, missiles, and air defence systems being used by Pakistan. Could you give us a sense of what percentage of Turkish and Chinese equipment Pakistan used against India?
Sharma: We know Pakistan doesn’t manufacture much, they import everything, whether from China, Turkey, or other countries. But we’ve now proven that our counter-UAS systems, our response to unmanned aerial systems, are very effective.
Turkish drones and reverse-engineered Chinese fighters may have been used, but we trusted our R&D, our technology, and our journey toward Aatmanirbharta.
We must credit the young innovators and disruptors who helped produce and deliver these systems. Bringing down hundreds of swarm drones at night is no joke. These small drones fly low to evade radar, but we had jamming and countermeasures in place. They were falling like ninepins. It was an electromagnetic battlefield dominated by us.
Watch the accompanying video for more.
