By M S Nazki
The strike was imminent and it was launched! But again the realistic background remains the same! It was all due to the aftermath of the Pahalgam attack which was planned in terrorist hideouts by the haggard terror amalgamation parked in Pakistan!
-To every action there is an exact and more appropriate action that is taken!
-It was a Pak based terror group who went in for a macabre action!
-On 22 April, Pakistan based terrorist group “The Resistance Front” (TRF) perpetrated a devastating attack in Pahalgam, India. In this attack 26 innocent tourists were killed in cold blood after segregating them based on their religion. TRF is an offshoot of the well known Pakistan backed terrorist organisation Lashkar-e-Taiba.
– Post the attack, TRF claimed responsibility for this attack not once but twice within a few hours. Pakistan’s subsequent refusal to acknowledge or curb these terrorist networks compelled India to take a responsible but resolute action.
-In response, on the night of 7–8 May 2025, the Government of India executed “Operation Sindoor,”. The response was non escalatory, precise and targeted terrorist training camps at nine different locations within Pakistan and Pakistan Occupied Kashmir.
– No military targets were engaged. However, in the early hours of 8 May, Pakistan, in an escalated response launched coordinated drone and missile strikes targeting over a dozen Indian military installations across the Northern and Western theatres, including Srinagar, Jammu, Pathankot, Amritsar, Ludhiana, Bathinda and Bhuj.
-Following these provocations, India conducted precision strikes against Pakistani Air Defence systems at a number of locations in Pakistan. These strikes were deliberately confined to the neutralization of systems that had facilitated the earlier Pakistani assault and were executed under the guiding principle of “equal intensity in the same domain.”
-By targeting only those installations directly involved in the aggression, India balanced the imperative of deterrence with its overarching commitment to de-escalation.
– Concurrently, along the Line of Control in Jammu & Kashmir, Pakistan escalated to unprovoked mortar and heavy-calibre artillery fire into civilian areas in which sixteen innocent lives were lost, including three women and five children.
-Here too, India was compelled to respond in equal proportion with mortar and artillery fire. Indian Armed forces reiterate their commitment to non-escalation, however, any attempts by Pakistan to escalate will be responded firmly.
-India’s strategic calculus in Operation Sindoor was informed by an unwavering objective: to uphold national sovereignty and protect civilian lives without precipitating a broader military conflagration.
– By confining military action to terrorist infrastructure, India underscored its non-escalatory posture and respect for established international norms.
-Pakistan’s reputation as the epicentre of global terrorism is rooted in a number of instances, there are several terrorist attacks around the world where Pakistani fingerprints have been found.
-Earlier in pursuit of justice for the victims of terrorist attack be it Mumbai in 2008, Pathankot in 2016, Pulwama in 2019 or many others, India provided forensic evidence and urged Pakistan to bring the perpetrators of these attacks to justice. India has also submitted an updated dossier to the UN 1267 Sanctions Committee, documenting Pakistan’s complicity in sheltering and abetting designated terrorist operatives.
-Meanwhile, Pakistan’s repeated stone-walling of joint investigative teams despite India’s full cooperation in forensic, call-data and on-site evidence sharing for Mumbai 2008 and Pathankot 2016 probes reveals that its calls for new “joint investigations” are nothing more than delaying tactics.
-Operation Sindoor is a principle-driven military response underpinned by strategic restraint. It was in response to a barbaric terrorist attack on innocent tourists which originated from Pakistan. India had a right to respond which it did, in a responsible, restrained, measured and a non-escalatory manner.
Once more unto the breach, India struck inside Pakistan in response to a terrorist attack. Once more, the two sides escalated — again to unprecedented levels — before agreeing to a ceasefire. It is tempting to consider this latest crisis as a somewhat larger replay of the last Indo-Pakistani crisis in 2019, but in fact it signifies a notable shift in India’s military strategy towards Pakistan, which has potentially grave implications for future crises.
-Tensions rose immediately, with consistent exchanges of small-arms fire across the Line of Control that separates Indian- and Pakistani-controlled parts of Kashmir. Then, soon after midnight on May 7, India launched its military response, dubbed Operation Sindoor. It used a mix of long-range stand-off weapons, including air-launched missiles and loitering munitions, to target nine sites belonging to terrorist groups Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Muhammad, groups that have frequently attacked India, including at Pahalgam.
-Pakistan made still-debated claims to have shot down Indian aircraft, and launched reprisal drone and missile attacks. The two sides traded tit-for-tat rounds of stand-off weapon attacks against each other’s military installations.
-The violence intensified on May 9 and 10, with effective Indian strikes against key Pakistan Air Force bases and Pakistan launching its own counter-offensive, Operation Bunyan Marsoos, which was largely thwarted. That uptick drew the concerned diplomatic intervention of the United States before the two belligerents agreed to a ceasefire on the afternoon of May 10.
– Despite some minor violations, the ceasefire seems to be holding, and the crisis seems now to have concluded. For India, this crisis represents an important evolution in its military strategy against Pakistan — shifting from the issuance of threats to change Pakistani behavior, to the direct imposition of costs to degrade terrorists’ capacity. This new cost-imposition strategy has a compelling logic, but will be difficult and risky to execute in future crises.
Over the past decade, India has progressively transformed its response to Pakistan’s campaign of terrorism. Its actions have grown in scale, using new technologies, triggering larger cycles of violence, and seeking more expansive effects.
For years, despite grave provocations such as the 2001 attack on the Indian parliament, the 26/11 attacks in Mumbai, and even multiple smaller attacks during Prime Minister Modi’s first term in office, India resisted responding militarily to terrorist attacks. That pattern of inaction began to change in 2016, when in response to an attack at Uri, Indian special forces raided terrorist camps just across the Line of Control. At the next crisis, India’s response was notably more aggressive. In 2019, in response to an attack at Pulwama, India launched an airstrike targeting a terrorist site at Balakot.
Operation Sindoor took that evolution further. India struck a larger set of initial targets, with more force, and more types of weapons, including cruise missiles and loitering munitions. Whereas in Balakot the use of air power was a radical departure, in Operation Sindoor, air- and ground-launched stand-off weapons had become India’s primary tool. India already boasted some such capabilities, for example, with its indigenously-produced BrahMos cruise missiles, and Israeli-made Spice bomb kits and Harop loitering munitions. But it made a concerted effort to grow these capabilities since Balakot, most prominently with the procurement of French-made Rafale fighters carrying Scalp air-launched cruise missiles. Its layered, integrated air defenses — including the S-400 surface-to-air missiles that it imported from Russia, to Washington’s great consternation — also proved to be exceptionally effective.
All of these capabilities gave India military options short of starting a war. Over the past decade, India has been able to attack Pakistan repeatedly without mobilizing its large ground formations.
India’s new military strategy against Pakistan is therefore no longer satisfied with the symbolism of an aggressive posture, as in Uri, or threatening future punishment, as in Balakot. Its new strategy centers on exacting a direct cost on the Pakistani military-terrorist complex. The central logic of this strategy — its theory of victory — is subtly but importantly different from India’s prior approach. India no longer expects that threatening a major punitive response can dissuade the Pakistani establishment from its campaign of terrorism. Instead, it accepts that Pakistani intent is practically immovable, and seeks to materially degrade the adversary, keep it on the defensive, and thereby thwart its offensive power against India.
This you can call as a beginning but do not forget to read, Those 100 Hours Tomorrow’!
