This not only strengthens Pakistan’s foothold in Turkey’s strategic calculations but also aligns with Erdogan’s broader ambitions to lead the Muslim Ummah.

On August 15, 2019, a seemingly emotional piece appeared in a Turkish publication. Written by Ruwa Shah, the daughter of jailed Kashmiri separatist Altaf Ahmad Shah, the article lamented the “besieged” condition of Kashmir, portraying a picture of despair and victimhood. Shah, writing from Turkey, decried the “loss of childhood” among Kashmiri children—despite living thousands of miles away from the region.

While the article may appear at first glance to be a personal narrative, its deeper context and timing are far more consequential. The piece, and many others like it published in Turkish media, reflect an expanding ecosystem of information warfare aimed at maligning India’s global image, particularly in the Muslim world. The source and structure of this narrative appear increasingly tied to a broader project of political Islam, under the leadership of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

The Altaf Shah Connection: Terror and Propaganda

Ruwa Shah’s father, Altaf Ahmad Shah, was no ordinary man. He was a key operative in Kashmir’s separatist ecosystem and is currently facing charges in India related to terror financing. India’s National Investigation Agency (NIA) registered a case in 2017 implicating him in illegally raising funds, including through hawala channels, to fuel street violence, destroy schools, and provoke unrest in the Kashmir Valley. His actions, far from the realm of peaceful protest, allegedly contributed to organized violence and efforts to destabilize the region.

Thus, Ruwa Shah’s presence in Turkey and her article in its media cannot be viewed in isolation. It must be seen in conjunction with the growing pattern of Turkish platforms becoming hubs for Pakistani-backed and separatist-driven disinformation campaigns.

A New Axis: Ankara and Islamabad’s Media Alliance

Under President Erdogan’s rule, Turkey has undergone a dramatic transformation—from a relatively secular, pro-Western democracy to a country increasingly under the sway of Islamist populism. Central to this transformation has been Erdogan’s use of media as a strategic weapon—both domestically and internationally.

Analysts have raised concerns that Erdogan’s government has gone beyond domestic control of press freedom and has now adopted a deliberate strategy of international ideological export. Turkish state-run media outlets like Anadolu Agency and TRT, which once hired Western journalists, are now seeing an influx of Pakistani nationals with strong ideological leanings.

Currently, nearly half of the copy-editing staff in Anadolu Agency comprises Pakistani nationals. Many of these journalists have known affiliations with hardline ideologies, and some have shown clear sympathies with separatist movements in South Asia. Turkish media, particularly these two flagship outlets, are now actively providing platforms to voices that echo the narratives of Islamabad and anti-India actors.

ISI’s Invisible Hand?

Foreign policy observers argue that the placement of Pakistani journalists in Turkish media is not merely a reflection of Ankara-Islamabad camaraderie—it may very well be an orchestrated move by Pakistan’s intelligence agency, the ISI. The intent: to amplify Pakistani geopolitical interests, challenge Indian narratives, and use Turkish soft power as a megaphone for radical Islam.

This not only strengthens Pakistan’s foothold in Turkey’s strategic calculations but also aligns with Erdogan’s broader ambitions to lead the Muslim Ummah. It explains why separatists from Kashmir, like Ruwa Shah, are finding Turkish media an inviting space to propagate their agenda.

Erosion of Sufi Pluralism in Turkey

One of the most tragic consequences of this media radicalization is the cultural loss within Turkey itself. Historically rooted in Sufi traditions, Turkish Islam was celebrated for its pluralism and syncretism. However, with the increasing dominance of Pakistani-Deobandi interpretations of Islam—promoted by the new wave of Pakistani journalists and clerics—there is growing concern about an erosion of Turkey’s spiritual heritage.

This ideological shift is being fueled not only through newsrooms but also through Turkey’s expanding religious institutions. The Diyanet, Turkey’s powerful Directorate of Religious Affairs, has witnessed exponential growth in both influence and budget. It is actively promoting a curriculum increasingly aligned with political Islam.

One such example is Erdogan’s controversial move in 2020 to convert Heybeliada Sanatorium—originally a hospital on one of Istanbul’s Princes’ Islands—into a religious school under Diyanet’s control. This follows the pattern of converting key historical monuments like Hagia Sophia and Kariye Church into mosques, symbolic of Erdogan’s Islamization campaign.

Observers worry that Turkey’s religious education sector is now being weaponized to raise generations of youth loyal to a singular, rigid ideological framework—one that is uncritical, conformist, and detached from Turkey’s once-rich theological diversity.

Radicalization of the Marginalized

Erdogan’s strategy doesn’t target the elite. Instead, his focus is on Turkey’s marginalized and underprivileged communities. For academically weaker students who are unable to get into mainstream education systems, religious schools are increasingly becoming the only option. Many of these schools promote a curriculum that serves political interests rather than religious or moral development.

In the long term, this has the potential to create an entire generation susceptible to radical ideologies and blind allegiance to Erdogan’s leadership. The role of imported media ideologues—especially Pakistani journalists—in this radicalization project cannot be underestimated.

A Caution for Turkish Society

Ruwa Shah’s article may have been a drop in the ocean, but it is emblematic of a larger, more dangerous tide. Turkish media, under Erdogan, is being transformed into a global hub for political Islam. It is actively collaborating with Pakistan’s ideological machinery, offering space to separatists and radicals, while undermining secular, moderate narratives.

The Turkish people—once custodians of a rich, pluralistic Islamic tradition—must now reckon with the possibility that their society is being reengineered. If unchecked, the radicalization of Turkish media and religious institutions could lead to long-term domestic instability and international isolation.

As for the rest of the world, particularly nations grappling with terrorism and separatism, the emerging Ankara-Islamabad axis of ideological influence poses a new frontier in the battle against extremism. What appears on the editorial page may just be a soft echo of a harder, strategic plan being executed in real time.

For India, it is a declaration that the era of passive absorption is over. For the world, it’s a test case in modern warfare doctrine.

In a rare public commentary from a senior U.S. military scholar, John Spencer—executive director of the Urban Warfare Institute and coauthor of Understanding Urban Warfare—has described India’s four-day military campaign, Operation Sindoor, as “a decisive victory in modern warfare.” Writing on Wednesday, Spencer called the operation “a model of limited war with clearly defined ends,” asserting that it could redefine how nations respond to state-sponsored terrorism in the nuclear age.

Operation Sindoor was launched by India on May 7, 2025, in response to a deadly terror attack in the tourist town of Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, on April 22. The massacre, which killed 26 Indian civilians, mostly Hindu pilgrims, was claimed by The Resistance Front (TRF), a group widely recognized as a proxy of Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and backed by Pakistan’s powerful Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI).

Unlike previous Indian responses, this time there was no diplomatic wait-and-see. India struck back with calibrated military action, marking a major departure from its historically cautious approach.

“This was not merely a symbolic gesture,” Spencer wrote. “It was decisive power, clearly applied.”

A New Doctrine Revealed

What makes Operation Sindoor unique, Spencer argued, is the strategic doctrine that underpinned it. While India has not formally declared the operation over, military activity has halted in what officials are calling a “stoppage of firing”—a careful semantic choice that avoids the term “ceasefire” and underscores India’s desire to retain initiative and control.

“The halt in operations is not the end,” Spencer emphasized. “It is a pause. India holds the initiative. If provoked again, it will strike again.”

According to Spencer’s analysis, India achieved four major strategic objectives:

Destroying Terror Infrastructure: Precision strikes targeted key terrorist hubs in Bahawalpur, Muzaffarabad, and Muridke—well beyond the Line of Control.

Demonstrating Military Superiority: India’s ability to launch and defend against retaliatory strikes—including a massive Pakistani drone swarm—highlighted the growing prowess of its domestically developed and internationally supported air defense systems.

Restoring Deterrence: By responding forcefully yet limiting escalation, India signaled to both adversaries and the international community that terror attacks would no longer go unanswered.

Asserting Strategic Independence: India acted without seeking Western mediation or U.N. intervention, a move that signaled its readiness to set and enforce its own red lines.

Four Days That Changed the Region

The timeline of Operation Sindoor was rapid and deliberate:

• May 7: Indian Air Force conducted nine high-precision strikes deep inside Pakistani territory.
• May 8: Pakistan retaliated with a massive swarm drone attack, largely intercepted by Indian air defenses.
• May 9: India escalated with attacks on six Pakistani military airbases and UAV coordination hubs.
• May 10: India declared a halt in operations, maintaining the ability to resume at any moment.

This sequence, Spencer notes, was textbook execution of limited warfare—a campaign designed to achieve political and strategic goals without sliding into open-ended conflict.

“This wasn’t just tactical success,” he wrote. “It was doctrinal execution under live fire.”

Modi Doctrine: “No More Nuclear Blackmail”

The boldness of India’s response also lay in its public messaging. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s statements during the operation signaled a sharp turn from the past.

“India will not tolerate any nuclear blackmail,” Modi declared. “India will strike precisely and decisively at the terrorist hideouts developing under the cover of nuclear blackmail.”

Spencer interprets this as India laying down a new strategic doctrine—one that separates nuclear deterrence from proxy terrorism, and no longer allows the threat of nuclear escalation to paralyze its counter-terror responses.

Critics of the operation—both domestic and foreign—have raised concerns about potential escalation or destabilization. However, Spencer counters that these critiques overlook the deliberate restraint India displayed.

“India retaliated forcefully but stopped short of full war,” he wrote. “That’s not recklessness—that’s control. It’s the foundation of modern deterrence.”

A Model for Limited War?

Spencer’s praise is significant not just for its content but for its source. As a leading expert on urban warfare and military doctrine, his words will likely be studied in military academies worldwide.

“In an era defined by ‘forever wars’ and cycles of violence without strategic direction, Sindoor stands apart,” Spencer wrote. “It offers a model of limited war with clearly defined ends, matched ways and means, and a state that never relinquished the initiative.”

This could have broader implications for global counter-terrorism strategy. If the international community accepts India’s precedent—that terror attacks emanating from a neighboring state will be treated as acts of war—it could signal a seismic shift in the rules of engagement for statecraft under the nuclear umbrella.

The Next Phase

What happens next remains uncertain. India has not demobilized its forces and retains a high alert status across its western front. Pakistan’s public response has been muted, likely due to the scale of its internal damage and lack of international support. Both countries have avoided crossing nuclear red lines, but the threat of further conflict remains.

Spencer ends his essay with a stark warning—and a call to attention for other democracies facing state-sponsored terrorism:

“India didn’t just respond to an attack. It changed the strategic equation.”

Operation Sindoor, he argues, will not just shape India’s national security policy—it may well influence global strategic thinking about limited war, deterrence, and the role of conventional force in a nuclear world.

For India, it is a declaration that the era of passive absorption is over. For the world, it’s a test case in modern warfare doctrine. And for Pakistan, it’s a reminder that the old playbook may no longer offer protection.

This is not just India’s victory, Spencer concludes. “This is deterrence restored. This is a doctrine revealed. And it should be studied by all nations confronting the scourge of state-sponsored terrorism.”

The discussion, which focused on Pakistan’s role as a global hub for jihadist activities, shed light on the historical, geopolitical, and ideological factors enabling this menace and explored strategies to counter its spread.

Pakistan: The Epicenter of Global Terror

Dr. Chaulia opened the episode by framing Pakistan as “Terroristan,” a nation that has become a global menace due to its long-standing habit of nurturing terrorism. Highlighting India’s recent military operation, Operation Sindoor, which destroyed nine terrorist training camps in Pakistan using precision-guided munitions, he emphasized the operation’s dual role as a military strike and a global exposé of Pakistan’s terrorist infrastructure.

“The scale of destruction and the videos of funerals and smashed buildings showed the extent of the problem festering in that country,” Chaulia noted, setting the stage for a deep dive into why Pakistan has become the epicenter of global terror.

Zahack Tanvir, introduced as a peace activist and director of Milli Chronicle, a platform dedicated to monitoring jihadist propaganda, provided a comprehensive historical perspective. He traced Pakistan’s trajectory back to its founding in 1946 by Muhammad Ali Jinnah, noting that the country was established on religious bigotry rather than ethnicity or language.

“Pakistan was called the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, purely based on religious identity,” Tanvir explained. He pointed to key historical moments, including the 1979 Iranian Revolution, which emboldened Islamists globally, and the 1980s Afghan jihad against the Soviets, during which Pakistan became a hub for global mujahideen, supported by the United States and Gulf countries.

Tanvir highlighted how Pakistan redirected these militias toward Kashmir after the Soviet conflict, with groups like Jaish-e-Mohammed and Lashkar-e-Taiba wreaking havoc. “Pakistan has a history of nurturing militancy,” he asserted, citing its footprints in major terrorist attacks, including 9/11, the 2008 Mumbai attacks, and the recent Pulwama and Pahalgam attacks.

He also referenced the discovery of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan and admissions by Pakistan’s defense minister about funding terrorists on behalf of Western powers.

The Role of ISI and Radical Madrassas

Tanvir identified four key factors sustaining Pakistan’s terrorist ecosystem. First, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) has extensive experience training not only Kashmiri insurgents but also Chechen, Bosnian, and Taliban fighters, including the Haqqani network. “ISI sustains this whole ecosystem,” he said, noting Pakistan’s policy of “bleeding India with a thousand cuts” as revenge for the 1971 Bangladesh liberation war.

Second, he pointed to the role of radical madrassas in Pakistan, where impoverished and illiterate youth are recruited and given military training, unlike madrassas in India, which do not engage in such activities.

Tanvir shared an anecdote from his interactions with Pakistanis from Peshawar and Waziristan, describing their extreme illiteracy and vulnerability to exploitation by groups like Jaish-e-Mohammed, backed by the state and ISI.

Third, Pakistan’s strategic location, sharing borders with Afghanistan and the Line of Control, facilitates the smuggling of drugs and weapons into India. Tanvir recounted his 2023 visit to the Suchetgarh border, where India uncovered and sealed tunnels used by Pakistan for smuggling.

Finally, he addressed the role of foreign powers, particularly the United States, which historically financed and armed jihadist groups via Pakistan, and China, which has turned a blind eye to Pakistan’s jihadist activities to counter India.

“China vetoed UN sanctions against Jaish-e-Mohammed’s Masood Azhar until 2019,” Tanvir noted, highlighting China’s strategic support for Pakistan’s military capabilities, including supplying drones and bombs.

Complicity of Regional Powers

The discussion also explored the role of regional powers like Turkey, Azerbaijan, and Malaysia in enabling Pakistan’s jihadist agenda. Tanvir explained that Turkey’s support is driven by its ambition to revive an Ottoman-style caliphate, with initiatives like training Pakistan’s Dolphin police unit and promoting propaganda through dramas like Ertugrul, which was broadcast on Pakistan’s national television in 2020.

Azerbaijan’s support, though less pronounced, stems from Pakistan’s backing during the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict against Armenia, influenced by Turkey and Israel.

Dr. Chaulia emphasized the need to “name and shame” these countries for indirectly sponsoring terrorism by supporting Pakistan. He noted that 81% of Pakistan’s military imports over the past five years have come from China, with Turkey supplying offensive weapons, including drones used against India post-Operation Sindoor.

Countering the Jihadist Narrative

A significant portion of the discussion focused on countering the jihadist ideology propagated by Pakistan, which thrives on a victimhood narrative claiming that Muslims are persecuted and must fight to defend Islam.

Tanvir debunked this narrative, contrasting the treatment of minorities in Pakistan and India. “In 1946, Hindus made up 30% of Pakistan’s population; now they have vanished,” he said, noting the dwindling Christian minority as well. In contrast, India’s Muslim population has grown from 9% to 15-18%, with diverse Muslim sects enjoying freedom to practice their faith.

Tanvir, a proud Muslim, emphasized that Indian Muslims are safe and thriving, with the ability to travel freely from Kashmir to Kanyakumari. He contrasted this with Pakistan, where ethnic groups like Pashtuns and Punjabis face restrictions, and celebratory gunfire with AK-47s during events like Eid or cricket matches often leads to civilian casualties.

“Indian Muslims are educated and respected globally as engineers, doctors, and AI experts,” he said, lamenting the lack of such recognition for Pakistani Muslims.

To counter Pakistan’s propaganda, Tanvir advocated amplifying the voices of Indian Muslims who refute claims of persecution. He cited instances where Indian Muslims, including himself, used social media to challenge false narratives propagated by figures like UK-based Islamist Mohammed Hijab, who urged Indian Muslims to support Pakistan.

“Indian Muslims came forward and said, ‘We are safe, and your narrative is not true,’” Tanvir recounted.

A Call for Global Action

Dr. Chaulia concluded the episode by underscoring that Pakistan’s use of religion for geopolitical gain, driven by its military and clerical establishment, is the root of its “Terroristan” status. He praised India’s military response but stressed the need for a broader ideological struggle to win the hearts and minds of young people, particularly moderate Muslims.

“The voices of moderate Muslims from India must show that faith and nationalism can coexist,” he said, rejecting Pakistan’s “fake nationalism” based on hatred and violence.

Tanvir’s appearance on Doordarshan was hailed as a significant moment for raising global awareness about Pakistan’s role in terrorism. “His courageous work with Milli Chronicle, often at personal risk”, was lauded by Dr. Chaulia, who thanked him for his insights and activism.

As the episode wrapped up, Chaulia called for concerted action by like-minded countries and social movements to wage a “long counter-jihad” in the ideological sphere.

“This is not a clash of civilizations but a challenge to show that Muslims and non-Muslims can coexist,” he said, urging a generational transformation to dismantle Pakistan’s jihadist mentality.

The discussion, broadcast on India’s national television, underscored the urgency of addressing Pakistan’s role as a global terror hub and highlighted the pivotal role of informed voices like Zahack Tanvir in shaping a counternarrative to foster peace and coexistence.

The classified assessment, first reported by The New Indian in an exclusive by Emaad Makhdoomi, reveals that this nexus was formalized during a high-level rally held in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) on February 5, 2025.

The rally, provocatively titled the “Kashmir Solidarity and Hamas Operation Al-Aqsa Flood Conference”, took place at Shaheed Sabir Stadium in PoK. Sources confirm that operatives involved in planning the Pahalgam attack were present at the event.

In a declaration that shocked security circles, a Jaish operative reportedly thundered from the stage: “The fighters of Palestine and Kashmir now march as one. Blood will be spilled in Delhi, and Kashmir shall be torn from India.”

Among those in attendance were top-ranking commanders: Talha Saif, brother of JeM chief Masood Azhar; senior field commanders Asghar Khan Kashmiri and Masood Ilyas; and key Lashkar-e-Taiba figures.

Most notably, Hamas made its first known formal appearance in PoK, represented by Dr. Khalid Al-Qadoumi, its Iran-based envoy. Several Palestinian figures were also seen aligning ideologically and logistically with Pakistani terror outfits.

According to intelligence analysts, this summit marked more than just rhetoric—it established a collaborative framework for future joint operations, modeled on Hamas’s asymmetric warfare tactics in Gaza.

“Pakistan-backed terrorist outfits are now consciously emulating Hamas’s blueprint,” a senior Indian intelligence official told The New Indian. “These groups are manipulating religious ideologies to provoke violence and foster deep-seated communal discord within Jammu and Kashmir.”

A Multimedia Propaganda Surge

Days ahead of the February summit, a provocative eight-minute propaganda video was circulated by the Pakistan Markazi Muslim League, glorifying Islamist separatists such as Syed Ali Shah Geelani, Yasin Malik, and Masrat Alam Bhat. The video lauded slain terrorists including Burhan Wani and Manan Wani, showing funeral footage while drawing incendiary parallels between Gaza and Kashmir.

“Pak ki Azadi, Kashmir ki Azadi” blared throughout the production, openly inciting Kashmiri youth to rebel against Indian sovereignty.

Security experts warn that this blend of emotional imagery and militant messaging represents a dangerous evolution in hybrid propaganda, designed to radicalize young minds and fuel communal tensions.

“The aim is to internationalize the Kashmir issue by tying it to the globally resonant Palestine-Israel conflict,” said a counterterrorism analyst. “It’s a strategic pivot designed to rally global sympathy while accelerating internal destabilization.”

Pahalgam Attack: Pre-Meditated and Communally Driven

On March 24, the idyllic town of Pahalgam—a hub for tourists and Hindu pilgrims—was shattered by a brutal terrorist ambush. Sources have confirmed the attack was orchestrated from across the Line of Control (LoC) by banned outfits including Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JuD), Lashkar-e-Taiba, and Jammu and Kashmir United Mujahideen (JKUM). The strike bore the hallmarks of meticulous premeditation, with execution carried out by highly trained Pakistani terrorists.

Three key individuals have been identified as the architects of the attack:

• Saifullah Kasuri (aka Saifullah Khalid), a senior LeT commander with close ties to LeT founder Hafiz Saeed. Designated by the U.S. Treasury Department, Kasuri has served as LeT’s Peshawar operations head and was instrumental in mobilizing the political front Milli Muslim League (MML), widely seen as a civilian mask for LeT’s agenda.
• Abu Musa (aka Musa Kashmiri), formerly affiliated with ISIS, is known for plotting attacks against foreign nationals in India. He was found with jihadist literature and reportedly attempted lone-wolf attacks before realigning with LeT to target non-locals and Indian security personnel.
• Rizwan Hanif, a senior JKUM operative based in Rawalakot, PoK. Intelligence sources say Hanif oversaw the logistics of the Pahalgam strike, including infiltration routes and arms procurement.

Perhaps most disturbing was the revelation that the attackers reportedly interrogated victims about their religion before executing them—pointing to a targeted communal intent. “This wasn’t just a terror attack—it was a message,” said a senior Indian intelligence official. “It signals a dangerous shift from generalized violence to targeted, faith-based executions.”

ISI and Military Involvement

The role of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and its military in coordinating this growing alliance is under sharp scrutiny. According to multiple sources, the ISI is driving efforts to reposition Kashmir on the global stage by deliberately echoing the Palestine narrative, hoping to energize pan-Islamist sentiments and draw international scrutiny toward India’s internal affairs.

“The ISI is effectively weaponizing the Palestinian cause to export jihad to South Asia,” said a former Indian military officer. “Their goal is twofold: to globalize the Kashmir issue and to create a new generation of radicalized youth who see themselves not just as Kashmiris, but as soldiers in a broader global jihad.”

A Cross-Continental Threat Matrix

This emerging Hamas-LeT nexus signals a dangerous cross-continental collaboration that may reshape the operational dynamics of Islamist terrorism in the region. Indian officials believe this could mark the beginning of a new era of hybrid warfare—fusing militant Islamist ideology with advanced propaganda and asymmetric guerrilla tactics.

As India grapples with the fallout of the Pahalgam massacre, and as global attention continues to focus on the Middle East, security experts are calling for a recalibration of counterterrorism strategies. “We’re witnessing the globalization of local conflicts,” said an Indian intelligence official. “And that’s a warning the world can’t afford to ignore.”

Agarwal – employed at BrahMos Aerospace – was arrested on the charges of espionage and leaking the highly-classified defence information to Pakistan’s Interservices Intelligence.

“His interrogation has revealed that he was promised better job prospects by the handlers who posed as women and honey-trapped him. These accounts have been traced to Pakistan,” said an official.

The sleuths have started investigating his bank accounts and those of his relatives to see if any money was sent by the Pak handlers.

“While the money wouldn’t have followed an official channel, but still his bank accounts will be probed to ascertain if there are unexplained funds deposits or transfers,” the official said.

Agarwal would often flaunt about his job profile and his achivements on social media, which led the Pak handlers to easily trap him.

“Though he was working on a sensitive project that involved national security, he had put out his professional details, including his rank, profile, the nature of the job he handled on social media and professional networking website. This could have been picked up by those trying to look for potential contacts in the Indian defence establishment to get data on country technology,” said an official.

Aggarwal was tasked to supervise the new projects at BrahMos’ Nagpur and Pilani facilities and was exposed to a lot of classified data, said officials.

ISI seems to be interested in getting information on the new missle technology being developed by India and Russia jointly.

ATS team from UP has arrived in Hyderabad to investigate about Agarwal’s previous employers.

According to ANI agency and reports of Indian Defence News, Nishant Agarwal – former student of NIT Kurukshetra and ‘youngest’ scientist of BrahMos Aerospace Nagpur, was arrested by a unit of Uttar Pradesh ATS and Maharashtra Police on the charges of espionage and leaking the highly-classified defence information to Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI).

According to reports, the accused completed his internship from IIT – Roorkee and Indian Oil Corporation Limited. Later, he was employed as a scientist by BrahMos Aerospace.

The investigations are under way.

BrahMos is India’s most advanced missile system developed in collaboration with Russia.

BrahMos is a medium-range ramjet supersonic cruise missile that can be launched from submarine, ships, aircraft, or land. It is the fastest cruise missile in the world.