In the early hours of 7th May 2025, the Indian armed forces carried out a carefully planned and powerful military operation targeting terrorist bases across the border. Using 24 precision-guided missile strikes, India hit nine specific locations inside Pakistan and Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir (PoK). Among the key areas targeted were Muridke and Bahawalpur, known to be major strongholds of two notorious terror groups—Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), respectively.
According to official sources, the strikes resulted in the deaths of more than 70 terrorists, while over 60 others were injured. These losses significantly weakened the operational strength of the terrorist groups involved. The action was especially impactful for JeM, as its chief Maulana Masood Azhar reportedly lost 10 members of his own family and four of his close associates in the strikes. This marked a major blow to the leadership and command structure of the group.
A Response to the April 22 Terror Attack in Pahalgam
These missile strikes were India's direct response to the horrific terrorist attack that took place on April 22 in Pahalgam, located in Jammu & Kashmir’s Anantnag district. That attack led to the death of 26 innocent people, including 25 Indian citizens and one Nepali national. In its official statement, the Ministry of Defence stated that the military targeted locations that were being used to plan and direct terrorist attacks against India.
Nationwide Security Drill and Government's Tough Message
The military action happened just hours before India was set to begin a countrywide security drill. This exercise was planned across 259 districts to prepare civil defense forces for any future hostile attacks. The timing sent a strong message: India is ready both to defend itself and to act decisively when provoked.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi, reacting to the April 22 attack, had earlier promised that those responsible would not be spared. He declared that India would chase the attackers and their planners "to the ends of the earth" and ensure they receive a punishment "beyond their imagination." This military action fulfilled that vow and demonstrated the government’s determination to protect its citizens and uphold national security.
India’s missile strikes were not only a military success but also a powerful statement of resolve. By targeting terror camps in Pakistan and PoK, the country showed that it would no longer tolerate violence against its people. The destruction of terrorist infrastructure, especially in areas known for breeding militants has sent a clear message that India will act swiftly and strongly in the face of terror.
From Mourning to Symbolism: The Story of Himanshi Narwal
Himanshi Narwal's life took a heartbreaking turn that soon made her a powerful symbol in a national tragedy. First, she was recognised as a grieving widow. Then, she became a central figure in India’s emotional response to terrorism. Her sorrow was thrust into the spotlight when an image of her sitting beside the body of her husband, one of 26 people killed in a brutal terrorist attack in Kashmir, was widely circulated online.
A Viral Image that Captured a Nation’s Grief
The photograph of Ms. Narwal, silently mourning her husband, had touched many across India. The attack that killed her husband took place on April 22 and specifically targeted Hindus in the region. Though many women lost their spouses that day, it was this one picture that came to represent the depth of pain suffered by the victims' families. As the image spread on social media, public outrage and sorrow grew, with Ms. Narwal becoming the face of the loss experienced by many widows.
Why "Operation Sindoor"? A Deep Cultural Symbol
On the morning of retaliation, India launched a military operation against Pakistan by naming it "Operation Sindoor." This name carried a deep cultural meaning. Sindoor, a bright red powder, is worn by Hindu married women in their hair parting or on their foreheads. It is not just a cosmetic item—it symbolizes that a woman is married. If her husband dies, she traditionally wipes the sindoor away, marking her change in status as a widow.
The choice of this name for the military operation was not accidental. It was a deliberate message from the Indian government—an expression of solidarity with the women who had lost their husbands in the attack, especially those like Ms. Narwal, whose heartbreak had been seen by millions. The operation was framed as an act of justice for them.
A Visual Message of Vengeance and Sorrow
To further strengthen this message, the Indian Army shared a powerful image online to announce the operation. It showed a container of sindoor spilled across a surface, the red powder resembling blood. This striking visual made the point clear that the attack had not just spilled blood—it had shattered families, taken away husbands, and turned married women into widows. "Operation Sindoor" was India’s symbolic and military response to that pain.
Himanshi Narwal’s image, born of personal tragedy, had become a visual representation of national loss and determination. Her story reminded the country of the human cost of terrorism and inspired a response rooted in cultural symbolism. In a time of mourning, the use of sindoor, once a mark of marriage, had then become a mark of remembrance and resistance.
A Global Perspective on India's Action
When India conducted those strikes across the border targeting what it said were terrorist training grounds, the world's media was quick to report. Each major news organization, while covering the same event, put its own focus on different aspects. Let's break it down:
The New York Times: Focusing on Escalation and Diplomacy
The New York Times, a leading American newspaper, chose a headline that immediately signalled the seriousness of the situation: "India Launches Missile Strikes Inside Pakistan After Kashmir Attack". Their reporting highlighted that this was a "major escalation" in the long-standing tension between India and Pakistan. What's interesting is their emphasis on the fact that India had already told the United States about the planned strike. This suggests that India was trying to keep things from blowing up into a bigger international problem. The Times seemed to be looking at the event through the lens of international relations and the potential for conflict.
CNN: Highlighting Military Might and India's Intent
CNN, another major American news channel, went with a more dramatic headline: "India and Pakistan on brink of wider conflict". Their coverage zoomed in on the advanced weapons India used, specifically mentioning Rafale fighter jets and SCALP cruise missiles. This paints a picture of India flexing its military strength. However, CNN also made sure to point out that India said its targets were the terror camps, not Pakistani military bases. This reinforced India's message that the action was targeted and not an act of war against Pakistan itself. CNN's angle seemed to be on the military aspect and the immediate danger of a larger conflict.
The Washington Post: Emphasizing Restraint Amidst Tension
The Washington Post, another prominent American newspaper, headlined its report: "Tensions Soar as India Strikes Pakistan, Islamabad Vows Response". Their report described India's action as a "measured show of force". This suggests they saw India's move as deliberate and not excessive. Importantly, they highlighted India's careful approach in avoiding military targets and minimizing harm to civilians. This part of their reporting seems to focus on the idea that India was trying to be firm but also responsible in its actions. The Post's coverage seemed to balance the tension with an assessment of India's calculated approach.
. . .
References: