Operation Sindoor, launched recently in response to the terrorist attack in the Pahalgam region of Jammu & Kashmir, is not merely a military reaction—it is a powerful symbol of India’s strategic vigilance and its unwavering commitment to national security. This action was directed against Pakistan-sponsored terrorists who executed a cowardly, but planned and lethal attack on Indian soil. In this short-term war, the Indian Army foiled every plan of Pakistan, demonstrating its technological superiority and combat proficiency to the world.
However, what is particularly concerning in this confrontation is Pakistan’s extensive use of Chinese-manufactured drones and military equipment. This clearly indicates that India’s challenge is not limited to cross-border terrorism alone—it now confronts a strategic Sino-Pak nexus, a partnership that includes economic, technological, and diplomatic dimensions.
Throughout this entire episode, China neither criticized Pakistan’s role in supporting terrorism nor endorsed India’s right to self-defense. On the contrary, it reiterated its commitment to stand with Pakistan. This reflects China’s notorious double standards—where, on the one hand, it strengthens its economic presence in India through trade, and on the other, provides strategic protection and resources to anti-India forces.
China’s stance is not new. For years, it has not only supplied weapons to Pakistan but has also shielded it at international forums—especially in the United Nations—using its veto power to prevent India from gaining a permanent seat in the Security Council or designating Pakistani terrorists as global threats.
China’s diplomatic balance has evidently been disturbed by India’s growing global stature and its success in repelling Pakistani aggression on the military front. As a result, China has now begun expressing its aggression through ideological and psychological warfare. Another clear expression of China’s frustration came on May 14, when China renamed several places in India’s Arunachal Pradesh, declaring them as part of “Southern Tibet”—a deliberate and direct affront to India’s sovereignty.
However, what is most worthy of introspection in this entire context is the fact that Indian citizens themselves are, often unknowingly, strengthening this enemy’s economic power. MG Motors (MG Windor, MG Hector) stands as a glaring example—a Chinese state-owned company that is freely and rapidly expanding its vehicle sales in India. In the last financial year alone, MG Motors sold over 50,000 vehicles, generating more than ₹7,000 crore in revenue. And this is not an exception. Chinese-made garments, electronics, toys, and decorative items are now omnipresent in Indian markets.
This brings us to an unavoidable question:
Are we not, through our own purchasing power, supplying resources to our enemy? Is it not a tragic irony that while our soldiers are making sacrifices on the borders, we, in the name of convenience, vanity, or comfort, are economically empowering the very enemy nations?
Governments may be bound by diplomatic responsibilities, international trade agreements, and strategic constraints. But what compulsions bind the general public? Are Indian consumers not free to prioritize national interest in their choices? To economically respond to China, there is no need to declare a war but what only needed is awareness, prudence, and responsibility.
“Vocal for Local” is not just a political slogan—it is the call of our times. Aatmanirbhar Bharat (Self-reliant India) will not be achieved by policy alone, but through active citizen participation. If our soldiers are defending our borders, then it is the moral duty of citizens to defend our economy. This is the moment when national consciousness must awaken.
