NEW DELHI: The Indian Army has publicly contradicted one of its top generals, igniting fresh controversy over the alleged deployment of air defence guns at the Golden Temple in Amritsar during the recent military flare-up with Pakistan.
The embarrassing reversal, unfolding in full public view, has drawn attention to serious inconsistencies in India’s wartime communication and operational integrity.
The contradiction centers on comments made by Lieutenant General Sumer Ivan D’Cunha, Director General of Indian Army Air Defence, who in a televised interview on Monday boldly claimed that aerial defence systems had been positioned at the Golden Temple “to neutralise aerial threats from Pakistan.” His statement sparked immediate backlash, not least from the Sikh religious leadership responsible for the sacred site.
The Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC), the top religious body managing Sikh gurdwaras in Punjab, strongly refuted D’Cunha’s assertions. The SGPC, in an official statement, categorically denied that any such military deployment had taken place within the precincts of Sri Harmandir Sahib, also known as the Golden Temple.
“It is incorrect to say that the army was given permission to deploy air defence guns at Sri Harmandir Sahib. No such permission was granted, and no such deployment occurred,” said Giani Amarjeet Singh, the SGPC’s additional head granthi. He stressed the sanctity of the site and denounced any attempt to militarise it or use it for political posturing.
Under mounting pressure and faced with clear opposition from the SGPC, the Indian Army was forced into a public about-face by Tuesday evening. In a brief but telling clarification, the military contradicted its own general’s remarks, stating plainly that no such deployment of air defence systems had occurred at the Golden Temple during the recent India-Pakistan standoff.
The fallout from this contradiction has only intensified scrutiny of India’s handling of Operation Sindoor — its wide-scale military posture and narrative-building following last week’s ceasefire with Pakistan.
Observers have noted the embarrassing gap between the army’s official statement and the senior general’s claims, calling it a sign of either internal miscommunication or deliberate misinformation.
The incident is particularly sensitive given the history of the Golden Temple and past military incursions there — most infamously during Operation Blue Star in 1984 — which left lasting scars on the Sikh community.
Any claim of renewed military presence near the holy site is guaranteed to raise tensions and public alarm.
More broadly, the Indian Army’s climbdown also comes in the wake of Pakistan’s successful countermeasures under Operation Bunyanum Marsoos, which appears to have rattled Indian military confidence. Analysts suggest that India’s attempt to escalate through aggressive posturing is now being undermined by its own credibility gaps.
While General D’Cunha has yet to issue a personal retraction or clarification, the damage from his remarks has already been done — casting doubt on India’s broader narrative and reopening wounds in a community that remains highly sensitive to military overreach.
The episode has become a symbol of growing internal disarray in India’s wartime communication strategy. As opposition parties and Sikh organisations demand accountability, the Indian military faces increased pressure to maintain clarity, consistency, and sensitivity — especially when it involves sacred spaces and historical traumas.
