India’s Parliament saw intense debates on Tuesday, July 29, 2025, as discussions on Operation Sindoor took centre stage. The operation was launched after a brutal terror attack in Pahalgam, where innocent civilians were killed by terrorists after being asked about their religion. The government’s actions and international diplomacy following the attack were major points of discussion in both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha.
Union Home Minister Amit Shah and External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar addressed the Lok Sabha and provided detailed updates on the operation and its aftermath. Meanwhile, Defence Minister Rajnath Singh opened the discussion in the Rajya Sabha. The Lok Sabha proceedings were extended until midnight to accommodate the comprehensive debate, though the timing of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s address remained uncertain.
Amit Shah: Terrorists behind Pahalgam attack eliminated
Union Home Minister Amit Shah confirmed that all three terrorists responsible for the Pahalgam attack had been killed in a joint operation called "Operation Mahadev." Shah said, "Innocent civilians were killed in front of their families by asking their religion in Baisaran Valley... In a joint operation, the Army, CRPF, and J&K Police have neutralised the three terrorists who were involved in the attack."
He emphasized the swift and effective response of Indian security forces, asserting that India would not tolerate such acts of terror.
BJP MP Baijayant Jay Panda took a dig at the Congress during the debate, claiming the party was not allowing its own senior member, Shashi Tharoor, to speak. He also accused previous Congress governments of surrendering India’s interests in the past.
Jaishankar: India took strong diplomatic steps after the attack
External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar outlined India’s diplomatic efforts at the United Nations following the Pahalgam attack. He stated, "Our goals in the Security Council were two: 1- to get an endorsement from the Security Council of the need for accountability, and 2- to bring to justice those who perpetrated this attack."
Jaishankar said India managed to get strong backing from the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), even though Pakistan was a member at the time and India was not. "If you look at the Security Council statement of April 25, the members of the Security Council condemned in the strongest terms the terrorist attack," he said.
He further explained, "They affirmed that terrorism in all its forms and manifestations constitutes one of the most serious threats to international peace and security. And most importantly, the Council underlined the need to hold the perpetrators, organisers, financiers, and sponsors of this reprehensible act of terrorism accountable and bring them to justice."
He added that India’s goal was to expose Pakistan’s long-standing support for cross-border terrorism. "Our task, from a diplomatic perspective, from a foreign policy approach, was to shape global understanding of the Pahalgam attack. What we tried to do was to bring to the international community Pakistan's long-standing use of cross-border terrorism," he said.
Jaishankar also listed several tough decisions India took against Pakistan after the attack. "The Cabinet Committee of Security took place on 23rd April. That meeting decided that the Indus Waters Treaty of 1960 will be held in abeyance with immediate effect until Pakistan credibly and irrevocably abjures its support for cross-border terrorism," he said.
Other measures included closing the Integrated Check Post at Attari and revoking travel privileges under the SAARC visa exemption scheme for Pakistani nationals. Additionally, India declared the defence, naval, and air advisors of the Pakistani High Commission as persona non grata and reduced the overall strength of the Pakistani High Commission from 55 to 30 officials.
Jaishankar concluded his remarks by saying, "It was important to send a clear, strong, and resolute message after the Pahalgam terror attack. Our red lines were crossed, and we had to make it very apparent that there would be serious consequences."