In a high-stakes post-midnight operation on May 7, India launched precision strikes against the "terrorist infrastructure" in Pakistan, following the brutal killing of 26 tourists in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, on April 22. The operation, code-named 'Operation Sindoor', represents India's largest aerial incursion since the 1971 war.
The strikes followed two weeks of mounting pressure on the Indian government to avenge the massacre in Baisaran Valley, where attackers specifically targeted civilians based on their religion. Indian intelligence linked the attack to terrorist groups operating from Pakistani soil.
The Ministry of Defence, in a statement, said, "those responsible for this attack will be held accountable." After the strike, the Government announced that the action was "focused, measured, and non-escalatory." Nine targets were hit across Pakistan and Pakistan Occupied Jammu & Kashmir(POJK), including Muridke, a town associated with LeT, and Bahawalpur, known to house JeM's headquarters.
According to NDTV and ANI, the Indian Air Force employed SCALP cruise missiles and Hammer smart bombs delivered from Rafale fighter jets, all while staying within Indian airspace. This exhibits an operational shift from the 2019 Balakot strike. This tactical evolution, avoiding territorial incursion, appears intended to reduce the risk of escalation while maximising strategic impact.
Islamabad reacted sharply. Pakistan's government called the strikes an "act of war" and claimed civilian areas, including a mosque in Bahawalpur, were hit. At least eight people, including a child, were reported dead and 35 injured. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif vowed retaliation, warning that the "Pakistan armed forces know very well how to deal with the enemy."
Pakistan's Defence Minister Khawaja Asif rejected India's claims of hitting terror camps, alleging that six civilian localities were attacked instead. He asserted, "You will see Pakistan's response," suggesting that a counter-strike was underway. Artillery exchanges along the LoC began within hours. Pakistan also claimed that five Indian fighter jets were shot down. India has denied any such loss. If the Indian fighter aircrafts have not crossed the Line of Control, such a claim of Pakistan seems more to placate their citizens rather than a fact.
India swiftly briefed Marco Rubio, the U.S. Secretary of State. While previous crises had seen robust American intervention, this time the U.S. response was muted.
The United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres issued a statement expressing "deep concern" and called for "maximum military restraint." Several international airlines suspended flights over Pakistan and parts of northern India due to security risks.
India's choice to name the strikes Operation Sindoor after the vermilion powder symbolising marital commitment in Hindu tradition was symbolic. One of the victims in the Pahalgam massacre was a newlywed naval officer, whose widow's image became symbolic of the national grief and rage that followed. The name was a pointed message that terror strikes on Indian civilians will be met with decisive military retribution.
Precision, Geography, and Doctrine
India’s decision to strike not only in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir but also in undisputed territory in Punjab marks a significant departure from earlier strike doctrines. Muridke and Bahawalpur, long believed to be ideological and operational hubs for LeT and JeM respectively, were targeted. The targeting of such deeply embedded infrastructure signals a doctrinal evolution: India is now willing to cross previous red lines to dismantle transnational terrorism at source.
Why De-escalation is Strategically Vital
Despite the assertiveness of its response, India has tried to limit the scope and escalation of the conflict. The strikes avoided Pakistani military or economic assets, focused on pre-verified terror launchpads, and were carried out without breaching Pakistani airspace. The message was clear: adequate deterrence without provocation of war.
This response of India’s restraint is rooted not in weakness but in strategic foresight. Escalation management becomes crucial when dealing with a nuclear-armed, ideology-driven adversary.
While India’s strikes sent a strong message of deterrence, the real test of strategic leadership lies not in launching attacks but in managing the escalation ladder. In a region where one misstep can lead to uncontrollable conflict, the ability to punish without provoking full-scale war is a mark of mature statecraft. A true strategic leader must know when to act, but more importantly, must know when to hold back. India’s choice to limit the scope of Operation Sindoor, avoiding civilian and military escalation, reflects precisely that wisdom.
Pakistan's Ideological Mindset: The Risk Multiplier
Unlike India, where policy is largely guided by pragmatism, Pakistan’s strategic posture is deeply informed by ideological compulsions. Since its inception, Pakistan has defined itself in religious opposition to India. Pakistan’s geopolitical behaviour is irrational, more emotive, and mostly dominated by zero-sum logic. This ideological rigidity creates a dangerous dynamic. To preserve national myths and maintain internal coherence, Pakistan’s military and political leadership may take actions that defy rational cost-benefit analyses. As scholar Hussein Haqqani notes in ‘Pakistan: Between Mosque and Military’ (2005), “Pakistan’s self-image is that of a fortress of Islam in a hostile neighbourhood. This self-image drives policies that often seek ideological validation over strategic coherence."
The Pahalgam attack, targeting civilians based on religion, and the subsequent rhetoric from Islamabad glorifying retaliatory intent without acknowledging its domestic extremist incubators reflect this mindset.
Implications for India’s Security and Regional Stability
While India's limited but potent strikes have demonstrated a new calibrated playbook, Pakistan may respond with proxy attacks, cyber intrusions, or symbolic missile launches. India must now focus on:
- Hardening internal security and civilian targets
- Enhancing surveillance and HUMINT across the LoC, and
- Maintaining high-level diplomatic engagement with major powers to prevent escalation.
India’s challenge is not only tactical but strategic and narrative-driven. It must continually expose Pakistan’s duplicity in international forums while demonstrating credible military resolve that stays below the escalation threshold. In doing so, India preserves strategic stability while denying Pakistan the ideological victory it seeks through provocation.
Conclusion: From Punishment to Prudence
Operation Sindoor marks a turning point in India’s counter-terrorism doctrine. A precise, restrained, and proportionate use of force aimed at dismantling the ecosystem of cross-border terror. While the operation restored deterrence, it also raised the stakes. The onus now lies on India to manage escalation smartly. Against an adversary where ideology often trumps logic, caution is not weakness. It is wisdom. In the shadow of nuclear weapons and populist nationalism on both sides, restraint is not just strategic, it is existential.
(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)
