General

Operation Insaaf: Owaisi Challenges Modi to Bring Back Hafiz Saeed & Masood Azhar Like U.S. Arrested Maduro.

By WaveINO Newsroom Feb 12, 2026
Operation Insaaf: Owaisi Challenges Modi to Bring Back Hafiz Saeed & Masood Azhar Like U.S. Arrested Maduro.

In a dramatic statement in the Indian Parliament during the Budget Session on February 11, 2026, All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) chief Asaduddin Owaisi sparked a political firestorm with a call for what he termed “Operation Insaaf.” He urged the Government of India to undertake a mission similar to recent U.S. operations in Venezuela — entering another country to apprehend and bring back individuals designated as terrorists to stand trial in India.

What Did Owaisi Propose?

Owaisi referenced the U.S. military’s action in Venezuela, where President Donald Trump’s forces reportedly captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and brought him to the United States. He used this as a precedent to challenge Prime Minister Narendra Modi:

“Operation Insaaf — go there and bring back Hafiz Saeed, Masood Azhar, and Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi to India to face justice.”

He argued that if another superpower can conduct such cross-border action for security reasons, India should aggressively pursue those responsible for deadly terror attacks against its citizens.

Who Are the Individuals He Mentioned?

  • Hafiz Saeed – Founder of Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), linked to attacks such as the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks. India has long sought his extradition, but Pakistan has refused citing the absence of a bilateral treaty.

  • Masood Azhar – Founder of Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), implicated in numerous terror strikes inside India including Pulwama. India formally seeks his arrest and trial, which Pakistan has not complied with.

  • Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi – A senior LeT operative accused of planning the 26/11 Mumbai attacks.

These figures have been the subject of international counter-terrorism pressure for decades, and India repeatedly calls for them to be made available for prosecution.

Context: U.S. Action in Venezuela

Owaisi’s comparison stems from recent U.S. military and law enforcement actions in Venezuela, where agents reportedly captured President Maduro. He used that example rhetorically, asking why India couldn’t undertake its own decisive operation to bring terror suspects to justice.

This provocative framing — comparing India’s counter-terror responsibilities with U.S. foreign operations — was meant to underscore his broader criticism of Indian foreign policy and national security strategy.

Political Reaction and Debate

Owaisi’s remarks drew attention across political lines:

  • Some commentators see his stance as an expression of frustration with the slow pace of international justice and extradition mechanisms.

  • Critics argue the comparison is sensationalist and impractical, given the difference between India’s diplomatic approach and U.S. global military reach.

  • BJP and government sources have countered that India must work responsibly within international law and through diplomatic channels.

Challenges and Realities

While the idea of cross-border operations makes for a dramatic headline, achieving such an operation involves substantial legal, ethical, and geopolitical challenges:

  1. Sovereignty and International Law: Entering another state without consent is widely viewed as a violation of international law — unless in self-defense under specific circumstances recognized by the UN charter.

  2. Diplomacy vs. Military Action: India traditionally prioritizes diplomatic pressure and multilateral forums for counter-terror demands.

  3. Risk of Escalation: Any unilateral military action in Pakistan could risk major escalation between two nuclear-armed neighbors.

Conclusion: A Provocative Call in a Complex World

Asaduddin Owaisi’s call for “Operation Insaaf” is emblematic of a wider impatience among many in India who feel that justice for victims of terrorism remains elusive. By invoking the Venezuela precedent, he has injected fresh energy into a conversation that blends national security, international law, and political strategy.