The Chief of Defence Staff (General Anil Chauhan), speaking to the media, clarified many aspects of Operation Sindoor. To comprehend its entirety, the sequencing and strategic intent need to be elaborated. The initial political aim was to strike only terrorist camps and inform Pakistan that India destroyed terrorist camps responsible for Pahalgam and seeks no further escalation, as also its enemy was terrorists and not the Pakistan armed forces. The initial nine targets selected were a mix of terrorist camps close to the Line of Control (LoC) as also in depth. The ones in depth, Muridke and Bahawalpur, were the Headquarters of the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT) and Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM).
Those in proximity to the LoC were engaged by artillery employing US-procured Excalibur ammunition with the ULH M777, which India had imported from them, alongside Kamikaze drones. The Excalibur ammunition is precision-guided with a high degree of accuracy. India also conveyed to the world, which had avoided blaming Pakistan for Pahalgam, that there are terrorist camps in the country, many destroyed, with no collateral damage or loss of civilian lives. India's actions were described as "focused, measured, and non-escalatory in nature."
India did not engage military targets initially, as it would have been termed as the initiator. It also sent the message on not seeking further escalation, however aware that Pakistan would respond out of face-saving, if nothing else. It was to avoid military targets that Pakistan's air defences were not engaged.
Airpower was employed from within Indian territory to engage terrorist camps in depth. In the midst of the air battle, on the first night, aircraft on both sides were hit. The nature of hits (mobility or kill), numbers and type of aircraft involved have neither been specified by the CDS nor Air Marshal (AK) Bharati in their media interactions. Pakistani aircraft casualties would have also taken place, but details are unconfirmed.
However, no Indian pilots were injured or killed, nor were there any ejected pilots located by local villagers. Neither were there reports of hospitalisation of any of them. The story of Rafale being brought down was a narrative of Pakistan, exploiting vast resources of its DGISPR, which many Indians digested as nothing else came to the fore. The CDS mentioned that 15% of the conflict was spent countering narratives, largely driven by Pakistan and China, a major lesson for future conflicts.
Pakistan refused the Indian offer of peace and retaliated as was expected. The result was a failure. All its drones and missiles, including those provided by China and Turkey, failed and were brought down by Indian air defence systems. There was no worthwhile damage to Indian military and civil assets. India was prepared for multiple levels of escalation, had precisely located Pakistan’s air defence systems, which displayed their signature on the first night, identified them as the next set of targets, intending to push Pakistan on the back foot.
The IAF, on the next night, employed its killer drones to render most Pakistani air defence systems defunct (Destruction of Enemy Air Defences) by specific targeting, thus exposing Pakistan to aerial assaults. Pakistan attempted to call for a ceasefire, aware that it is now vulnerable, on which Indian refused to respond. This was the intervening night when airpower was not employed, which is the two-day gap (the night when Pakistan counter-attacked and the employment of drones and UAVs by us) referred to by the CDS in his media interaction.
Finally, on the night of 10th May, a fully exposed Pakistan faced the wrath of Indian airpower. Pakistan’s AWACs were hit in the air and ground, exposing its airspace for further assaults. India also conveyed that it possesses the ability to target their nuclear storage facilities, possibly hitting close, thereby sending the message.
It was at this stage that Pakistan knew it had lost, and if it did not obtain a ceasefire immediately, it would pay a heavy price. Thus, the call from Asim Munir, their army chief, to the US Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, requesting for an intervention. The response received was to engage directly with New Delhi. Then came the call to the Indian Director General Military Operations (DGMO) requesting for a ceasefire, which India accepted.
India was not seeking to humiliate Pakistan but convey a message that unless it detests from supporting terrorism, costs can be high. Pakistan assumed its possession of Chinese and Turkish weapon systems would provide it with an advantage. It was let down. Most Indian equipment, air defence and missiles were developed locally and performed as expected. This displays the importance of India's deep trials, objected to by some arm-chair defence experts, who have claimed Indian armed forces favour foreign equipment.
No nation can enter a conflict and be unscathed. No nation is invincible. Neither is India. Losses are part and parcel of a conflict and must be expected. In the entire conflict, there were five Indian soldiers and 13 civilians who lost their lives. In comparison, hundreds of terrorists were eliminated, in addition to fairly high military casualties on the Pakistani side. Sixty Pakistani soldiers were killed by the Indian artillery on Pakistan posts, while many others in their airbases and radar sites. Pakistan never honours its casualties.
What the CDS and DGMOs stated in their briefing must be understood. India entered the conflict with an intent to convey its determination to strike every time a terrorist attack takes place. It wanted to send an initial message that no terrorist camp is safe from an Indian counterstrike. When Pakistan responded with its own offensive strikes, the next message conveyed was that no part of the country, no storage facility, no strategic asset is out of our reach. The message was sent and received. Entire operations were non-kinetic and networked.
To achieve its aims, there would be some losses, which must be acceptable. Where India failed was in the game of narratives and social media. However, narratives and social media do not determine victory or defeat, nor is the medium to convey intent. They may influence the minds of the uninitiated for a short while. The message from India was to the Pakistan hierarchy, and it was conveyed firmly.
Pakistan, a military autocracy with a puppet government, fears losing Rawalpindi’s grip on its polity and population; hence can never admit defeat and declare losses. The drama of six Indian aircraft lost, including four Rafale, with proof only on ‘social media’ promoting Asim Munir to Field Marshal, are examples of desperation to convert defeat into victory. The truth is well known to their military leadership, which saved themselves by the skin of their teeth.
The future will be different. The Prime Minister (Narendra Modi) has conveyed India’s future intent when he mentioned, "India will not differentiate between the government sponsoring terrorism and the masterminds of terrorism."
(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the writer. The facts and opinions expressed here do not reflect the views of ETV Bharat)
