India Had To Face Three Adversaries During Operation Sindoor Reveals Lt Gen Rahul R Singh

India recently revealed significant details about the four-day military confrontation with Pakistan that took place from May 7 to 10 under the codename Operation Sindoor.

In a major development, a top-ranking Indian Army officer disclosed that India was not merely dealing with Pakistan during the conflict, but effectively contending with three adversaries:

Pakistan, China, and Turkey. This revelation has brought to light the broader strategic dynamics that shaped the conflict and the critical support extended to Pakistan by its allies.

Speaking at a conference on New Age Military Technologies organized by the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI), Lieutenant General Rahul R Singh, who serves as the Deputy Chief of Army Staff (Capability Development and Sustenance), elaborated on the roles played by Beijing and Ankara during the confrontation.

He underscored that while Pakistan was the visible face of the aggression, much of the operational and strategic support was being directed from behind the scenes by China and, to a lesser degree, Turkey.

General Singh pointed out that China viewed the conflict as a real-time testing ground or a “live laboratory” to evaluate the efficacy of its military hardware supplied to Pakistan.

From fighter jets and missiles to radar systems and air defence weapons, much of the military inventory used by Pakistan during the conflict had Chinese origins.

“It was an opportunity for China to see how their equipment performs in a real combat scenario, especially when pitted against advanced Indian systems,” he said.

One of the most alarming revelations made by Singh was that China provided real-time intelligence to Pakistan during the conflict. This included highly sensitive information on the positioning and movement of Indian weapons systems.

According to Singh, such intelligence allowed Pakistan to precisely identify and monitor certain Indian strategic assets. “During the DGMO-level talks, Pakistan even referred to specific vectors of our defence system, requesting India to pull them back.

This indicates that they were being fed live inputs from Chinese sources,” he explained.

The conflict began as a direct response to the terror attack in Pahalgam on May 6, where 26 civilians were killed by armed terrorists.

In retaliation, India launched Operation Sindoor in the early hours of May 7, targeting nine key terror and military installations across Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK).

These included command centres, training camps, launch pads, and radar bases. The Indian armed forces used a combination of fighter jets, missiles, drones, long-range artillery, and precision-guided munitions during the operation.

The escalation soon evolved into a high-intensity military confrontation between two nuclear-armed neighbors, lasting for four days. It witnessed fierce aerial and artillery exchanges, while the threat of further escalation loomed.

By May 10, a mutual understanding to cease hostilities was reached, reportedly after Pakistan requested a ceasefire — a request that, according to General Singh, came in response to the looming threat of a much larger Indian strike.

Pakistan realized that there was a hidden punch, a strong counterstrike, that was ready to be launched by India. Had that been executed, it would have left Pakistan in an extremely vulnerable and devastating position,” Singh said.

This is seen as the first official acknowledgment of what had long been suspected — that India was prepared for a significantly broader military response, possibly involving the Indian Navy as well, had the situation escalated further.

Singh’s remarks also shed light on the strategic intent of China, which he said was consistent with the ancient military strategy of “killing with a borrowed knife” — meaning, using another entity (in this case, Pakistan) to carry out its objectives without becoming directly involved.

He stated that 81% of Pakistan’s military imports over the past five years have come from China, cementing Beijing’s role as Islamabad’s primary military supplier and strategic backer.

He also noted the presence of Chinese-origin platforms such as the JF-17 and J-10 fighter jets, PL-15 beyond-visual-range air-to-air missiles, and the HQ-9 long-range air defence systems during the conflict.

These systems were reportedly used in combat for the first time during Operation Sindoor. The Indian side used the opportunity to gather critical intelligence on the capabilities and limitations of these platforms, using its advanced air defence radars and surveillance infrastructure.

Further, Singh confirmed that Turkey, although not directly involved in combat, played an important supportive role. The nature of Ankara’s assistance has not been officially detailed, but it is believed to have included tactical support, technical consultancy, and possibly logistical help in terms of surveillance and drone technology.

Singh concluded his remarks by outlining several key lessons that emerged from Operation Sindoor. Chief among them was the realization that India’s future military engagements may no longer be limited to a single-front confrontation, especially when adversaries operate through strategic collusion and proxy tactics.

He emphasized the need for India to remain vigilant and enhance its preparedness on all fronts — from technology to intelligence, and from rapid deployment to strategic deterrence.

This briefing by a senior military official marks the first in-depth and official account of the roles played by China and Turkey during the May conflict, and it underlines the growing complexity of India’s security environment, where indirect warfare, multi-domain operations, and foreign collusion are becoming increasingly prevalent.