Sushant Singh’s article in The Caravan, “ The Balakot Misdirection: How the Modi government drew political mileage out of a military failure”, is a textbook example of how agenda-driven journalism distorts facts to fit a pre-decided narrative. By calling the Balakot airstrike a “failure” and downplaying India’s military success, the article does what certain sections of the Indian media do best—discrediting their own country while giving Pakistan a free pass.
Let’s break down this piece of propaganda and expose it for what it really is: a desperate attempt to rewrite history, question India’s armed forces, and push an anti-government narrative at the cost of national security.
Balakot: A Bold Military Success, Not a “Misdirection”
On February 26, 2019, the Indian Air Force (IAF) conducted a precision strike on a Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) terror camp in Balakot, deep inside Pakistani territory. This wasn’t just a routine military operation—it was a historic moment, marking the first time India crossed the Line of Control (LoC) for an airstrike since the 1971 war. It sent a clear message: India will no longer tolerate terrorism emanating from Pakistan.
Yet, Singh chooses to ignore the significance of this operation and instead focuses on manufactured doubts about its effectiveness. He argues that there is no “proof” of terrorist casualties and that the strike was merely a political stunt by the Modi government.
But here’s the reality:
Strategic success: The Balakot airstrike wasn’t about a body count; it was about dismantling terror infrastructure and sending a message. The camp was operational for years, training terrorists for attacks against India. Targeting it struck at the very core of Pakistan’s terror network.
Pakistani deception: Pakistan’s initial response was to claim that India had bombed an “empty hilltop.” Yet, within hours, they sealed off the area, blocked journalists, and refused independent verification. If there was nothing to hide, why the secrecy?
International credibility: The Indian military stood by its operation, while Pakistan kept changing its story—first denying any strikes, then admitting intrusion, then claiming no damage. The world knows who has a track record of lying, and it’s certainly not India.
Singh conveniently ignores the simple fact that one would trust the Indian Army’s figures and intelligence over a state like Pakistan, whose very foundation rests on deception.
The Aerial Engagement: Exposing Pakistan’s Lies
Singh highlights the loss of an Indian MiG-21 and the capture of Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman, using it to paint a picture of India’s failure. However, this is another deliberate misrepresentation.
Wing Commander Abhinandan’s bravery: Far from being a setback, Abhinandan’s actions in the dogfight turned him into a national hero. His composure and courage even in Pakistani custody embarrassed Islamabad on the global stage.
Pakistan’s F-16 loss: While Singh parrots Pakistan’s denial, independent reports confirm that an IAF pilot shot down a Pakistani F-16. The U.S. later conducted a count of Pakistan’s F-16 fleet and found one missing, contradicting Islamabad’s claims. Yet, Singh conveniently chooses to ignore this fact.
Diplomatic win for India: Within 48 hours, Pakistan was forced to return Abhinandan under international pressure. Modi’s government turned a battlefield moment into a diplomatic victory, further isolating Pakistan.
What Singh and The Caravan fail to acknowledge is that Pakistan, despite all its bluster, was caught off guard and had to scramble to save face. Instead of celebrating India’s military success, they’d rather focus on selective details to undermine it.
Mumbai Attacks: When Congress Chose Inaction Over Retaliation
Singh conveniently ignores a crucial fact—Balakot was a strong response to Pakistan-sponsored terrorism, unlike what happened under the Congress government during the 26/11 Mumbai attacks.
In 2008, when Pakistani terrorists stormed Mumbai and killed over 170 people, India had a clear opportunity to strike back. The UPA government, however, chose restraint over retaliation, refusing to take decisive military action despite overwhelming evidence that the attack was planned and executed from Pakistani soil.
No surgical strikes, no retaliation: Instead of striking Pakistan’s terror camps, the Congress government merely issued diplomatic statements and relied on the international community for justice—justice that never came.
Contrast with Modi’s approach: After the Uri attack in 2016, the Modi government responded with surgical strikes on terror launch pads inside Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. In 2019, after Pulwama, India escalated further with the Balakot airstrikes. The difference? Modi acted, while Congress hesitated.
If Singh thinks Balakot was a “misdirection,” what does he call Congress’s complete inaction after Mumbai? A strategic masterpiece?
Undermining National Security for Political Gain
One of the most absurd claims in the article is that the Modi government “used” Balakot for political mileage. The underlying argument is that national security decisions should be measured through an electoral lens rather than a strategic one. This is an insult to the armed forces and to the intelligence agencies that planned and executed the operation.
Public support wasn’t manufactured; it was organic. The Indian people saw Balakot as a moment of national pride. The government didn’t have to “sell” it—Pakistan’s reaction and the global response made it clear who came out stronger.
This wasn’t the first cross-border strike. Even in 2016, after the Uri attack, India carried out surgical strikes on terror launch pads inside Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. The Modi government’s approach to terrorism has been consistent—direct, swift, and effective.
Singh’s argument implies that any strong action against terrorism is just electioneering. By that logic, should the government have simply ignored Pulwama? Should it have let JeM continue training terrorists without consequence? This kind of thinking is not just flawed—it’s dangerous.
Who’s Really Peddling Misinformation?
Sushant Singh and The Caravan accuse the Modi government of “misdirection.” But in reality, it’s their article that’s trying to mislead readers.
The Balakot airstrike was not a failure. It was a necessary and successful counter-terrorism operation that signaled a new doctrine in India’s fight against cross-border terrorism. It boosted the morale of the armed forces, put Pakistan on the defensive, and earned India global recognition as a nation that takes decisive action.
Yet, Singh chooses to downplay all of this, instead spinning a narrative that aligns more with Pakistan’s denials than with India’s official stance. His article is not just biased—it’s dishonest.
The truth is simple: India’s armed forces delivered, Pakistan scrambled to cover up, and some in the Indian media chose to side with our enemies rather than their own country.
Disclaimer: The figures and data mentioned in this article are sourced from various publicly available reports, government releases, and independent research.
Author : Sandeep Gandotra, is a serial entrepreneur, startup founder, social media influencer and political analyst with 25 years of overall experience. Tweets at Sandeep Gandotra
