Operation Sindoor: India’s New Doctrine of Retaliation
The Spark at Pahalgam — A Prelude to Fire
On the morning of April 22, 2025, the tranquil valley of Pahalgam, a tourist site nestled in the Kashmir region of Jammu & Kashmir, was turned into a theatre of horror. A planned terrorist assault led to the brutal massacre of 26 Hindu tourist in beautiful meadows of Baisaran Valley. The event triggered national mourning across India but also sowed seeds of strategic retaliation. The brazenness of the attack targeting tourists on religious lines made it evident that this was not an isolated incident but a deeply coordinated effort likely backed by Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and its long-standing terror proxies.
Between February and March 2025, twelve high-resolution satellite imagery requests were made through U.S.-based geospatial giant Maxar Technologies, focusing exclusively on Indian military regions and pilgrimage corridors. The pattern was too consistent to be coincidental. Investigators found that the recipient of these images was Business Systems International (BSI), a Pakistani geospatial firm headed by Obaidullah Syed, a convicted nuclear technology trafficker previously indicted in the United States. The firm’s sudden partnership with Maxar despite its founder’s criminal history triggered serious alarms within Indian intelligence.
At the heart of the problem was the broader issue of dual-use technology. Satellite-based geospatial intelligence, when provided for commercial or developmental uses, can be rerouted for military or terrorist applications with minimal effort. In this case, what India suspected was a covert chain in which U.S.-origin satellite ISR tools were leveraged directly or indirectly for mapping Indian civilian and military assets. If confirmed, this would be the most damning evidence yet of how Western commercial intelligence technologies can be co-opted to wage asymmetric war.
As India absorbed the magnitude of the Pahalgam tragedy, the political class quickly converged on a singular message: this was an act of war, and it demanded more than diplomatic protest or symbolic condemnation. In Delhi’s strategic corridors, a plan began to take shape. Codenamed “Operation Sindoor,” it was conceived not only as retaliation but as a show of overwhelming deterrent power an operation aimed at dismantling Pakistan’s terror infrastructure with speed, precision, and symbolic might. Pahalgam was no longer just a terror incident. It became the spark that reignited India’s resolve to decimate the ecosystem of jihadist extremism that had been allowed to grow under the Pakistani nuclear umbrella. In this act of barbarism, the Pakistani deep state's mask slipped, and India was ready to answer, not just militarily but on every geopolitical axis.
Ghazwa-e-Hind - The Pakistani Army’s Jihadist Doctrine
The deeper one digs into the architecture of Pakistan’s military establishment, the more one finds that its strategic doctrine is not just rooted in conventional geopolitics, but in an ideologically driven vision of religious war. At the centre of this doctrine is the notion of “Ghazwa-e-Hind” a prophecy from certain Islamic texts interpreted by radical clerics and Islamist generals alike as a divine mandate to conquer the Indian subcontinent. While often dismissed by Western analysts as fringe rhetoric, this concept has been increasingly mainstreamed into the operational thinking of Pakistan’s deep state, especially under the leadership of current Army Chief General Asim Munir. General Munir, unlike some of his predecessors who cloaked their jihadist sympathies behind diplomacy, has embraced a more unapologetically radical tone. His speeches in military academies and public forums have frequently invoked the need to “avenge Kashmir,” “liberate Indian Muslims,” and “fulfill the prophecy of Ghazwa-e-Hind.”
These pronouncements are not mere ideological flourishes; they shape the operational and recruitment strategies of Pakistan’s vast terror ecosystem. The Pahalgam attack, deliberately targeting Hindu tourists was a chilling echo of this mindset transforming religious ideology into militarized terror. At the operational level, Pakistan's military has, over decades, evolved into a state-sponsored terror-industrial complex, with its Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) acting as the logistical and financial arm for dozens of jihadist outfits. These include well-known entities such as Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), but also a sprawling web of regional and global jihadist organizations like:
Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP)
ISIS-Khorasan (ISIS-KP)
Al-Qaeda in the Indian Subcontinent (AQIS)
Hizbul Mujahideen
Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan
Lashkar-e-Jhangvi
Jamaat-ud-Dawa
Jundullah, and over a dozen other splinter groups
These groups are not just proxies; they are strategic assets. Many are housed in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) and southern Punjab, often within close proximity to military cantonments, with known ISI handlers directing operations, finances, and propaganda. India has repeatedly presented dossiers at international forums highlighting this symbiotic relationship, but global action has remained tepid, owing to geopolitical compulsions and Pakistan’s strategic location.
One of the starkest indicators of this state-terror symbiosis was revealed post-Operation Sindoor, when multiple top commanders killed in Indian strikes were buried with full military honors, attended by serving generals, state governors, and even Pakistan’s Punjab Chief Minister Maryam Nawaz. Wreaths were laid, prayers were held, and speeches were given exalting these men as “martyrs.” These were not foot soldiers they were ideologues and logisticians, some of whom had orchestrated attacks like the IC-814 hijacking, Pulwama, and now, Pahalgam.
This behavior confirms that Pakistan’s military doctrine is no longer just about “strategic depth” in Afghanistan or countering India through asymmetry. It is now explicitly shaped by jihadist ambitions, masquerading under nuclear deterrence. The ISI no longer denies its affiliations; rather, it seeks to obscure them behind a layer of plausible deniability, using outfits like Jamaat-ul-Ahrar, Harakat-ul-Mujahideen, and Ansar-ul-Sharia Pakistan as interchangeable brands in the terror export market. Thus, for India, Operation Sindoor was not just about targeting infrastructure it was about challenging an ideology. And in doing so, it redefined the war not as one between two states, but between a modern nation and a jihadist regime in military uniform. The battlefield had been drawn not just in the terrain of Kashmir or Punjab, but in the ideological chasm between civilization and fanaticism.
Operation Sindoor Begins
The early hours of May 7, 2025, marked the ignition of a military campaign that would redefine the parameters of Indo-Pak conflict for a new era. Operation Sindoor was no longer a classified mobilization on paper it was unleashed into reality with a salvo of precision-guided airstrikes that thundered through the skies over Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) and deep into Pakistan’s interior. Indian Air Force squadrons were deployed from airbases in North India, flying in total radio silence under the cover of electronic jamming units. Their payload: a combination of cruise missiles, Israeli Rampage munitions, and smart glide bombs that had been meticulously programmed for maximum strategic disruption.
The targets of these strikes were not random they were high-value terrorist launchpads, ideological command centres, and weapon storage sites. India’s objective was to deliver a decapitating blow to the infrastructure that sustained groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed, with surgical accuracy and speed. Among the most critical targets hit were:
Shawai Nallah Camp and Markaz Syedna Bilal in Muzaffarabad
Markaz Aboobakr in Islamabad
Markaz Subhan Allah in Bahawalpur
Gulpur Camp in Kotli
Markaz Al-Dawa in Muridke
Terror training compounds in Sargodha, Barnala, and Jajja
India’s strategic planners were particularly keen to dismantle indoctrination centres ideological nurseries masquerading as religious schools but functioning as radicalization engines for youth. In these strikes, five high-ranking terrorist operatives were neutralized, including:
Mudassar Kadian alias Abu Jundal, LeT’s ideological head
Hafiz Mohammed Jameel, brother-in-law of Masood Azhar, JeM’s trainer and recruiter
Maulana Yusuf Takar, alias Ustad Ji, linked to the 1999 IC-814 hijacking
Khalid alias Abu Akasha, arms trafficker and commander operating from Faisalabad
Mohammad Hassan Khan, operational coordinator of JeM in PoK
The fallout of these strikes was immediately felt in Islamabad’s corridors of power. Pakistan’s media, after an initial blackout, began broadcasting conflicting reports some downplaying the damage, others unintentionally confirming the loss of key commanders. Leaked funeral footage from Muridke and Bahawalpur showed Pakistan Army officers laying wreaths, while Hafiz Abdul Rauf, a U.N.-designated terrorist, led prayers over the bodies of slain militants. This public embrace of terror operatives by state machinery only validated India’s long-standing accusation of state-terror collusion.
India, for its part, maintained tight strategic messaging. The Ministry of External Affairs stated the action was a “non-military pre-emptive strike on active terror infrastructure”, carefully designed to avoid civilian casualties. The operation was backed by real-time intelligence gathered via satellite ISR, drone surveillance, and HUMINT assets deployed over several months. Simultaneously, Indian armed forces placed air defence units in Punjab, Jammu, and Rajasthan on high alert. Counter-missile batteries, including Akash systems, L-70 guns, and Schilka anti-aircraft platforms, were activated. The message was crystal clear: India had chosen deterrence through escalation. It had dropped the policy of proportionality and opted for strategic pre-emption, reshaping the post-Balakot doctrine into a new, high-stakes model of warfare. In a single night, Operation Sindoor transitioned from theory to history, shattering illusions of Pakistani invincibility and sending shockwaves through global diplomatic circles.
Pakistan’s Counterattack and Turkish Involvement
By the evening of May 7, 2025, the Pakistani military humiliated and stung by the depth of India's audacious strikes initiated a counteroffensive designed to reassert strategic parity. However, what began as a military response quickly took on an international dimension, revealing the presence of foreign military support from Pakistan’s closest ideological and strategic partner: Turkey. Over the course of the next 24 hours, South Asia became the battleground not just of a bilateral conflict, but of a broader axis of alliances woven through religious, geostrategic, and military threads.
The Pakistani Air Force, backed by the ISI’s Tactical Support Group, launched a barrage of missile and drone attacks on India’s northern and western frontiers. The strikes were targeted across Jammu & Kashmir, Punjab, Rajasthan, and parts of Gujarat. Drone swarms were particularly focused on civilian centres and military installations, with simultaneous sabotage attempts that were foiled accompanied with blackouts across Udhampur, Samba, Pathankot, Rajouri, and parts of Jalandhar. But it was the nature of these drones and their origin that drew immediate attention.
On May 8, India’s Ministry of Defence confirmed that the drones used in the Pakistani attack were Turkish-built “SONGAR” tactical drones, capable of autonomous weapon deployment. What raised alarms was the prior presence of Turkish C-130E Hercules aircraft, which had landed at Pakistan’s military airbases in the days following the Pahalgam attack. In addition, a Turkish naval warship TCG BÜYÜKADA docked at Karachi port just 72 hours before Operation Sindoor began. These movements suggested more than routine cooperation; they signalled pre-positioned logistical support, likely in anticipation of an Indian strike.
Turkey’s backing of Pakistan during this conflict phase was not purely military it was ideological. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, known for his pan-Islamist posturing and vocal support for Pakistan’s stand on Kashmir had long nurtured strategic ties with Islamabad. From joint drone development to military training exercises, Turkey had positioned itself as Pakistan’s alternative to dwindling U.S. support. The deployment of Turkish drones against India especially targeting Hindu and Sikh religious shrines marked the first time a NATO member’s military equipment was used in active operations against another democracy’s civilian areas.
The attacks were extensive:
36 Indian sites were targeted by drones in Jammu, Amritsar, Gurdaspur, Fazilka, and Samba etc.
Military Installations.
In Jammu, drones struck near a Shiva temple, causing panic and injuring several civilians.
India’s response was immediate. Counter-UAS systems, including mobile jammers, electro-optical radars, and LORROS (Long Range Reconnaissance and Observation Systems) were deployed across forward bases. Anti-air units intercepted and destroyed a number of drones mid-air, while electronic warfare teams disabled control frequencies guiding them. The escalation, however, had now shifted beyond conventional warfare. India was no longer responding to just Pakistan it was facing a transnational Islamist military alliance, cloaked in bilateral provocations. The conflict had become layered: military versus military, ideology versus ideology, and sovereignty versus subversion. The May 8 counterattack cemented the notion that India was now operating not in isolation but in a hostile, entangled geopolitical matrix, where every move would be watched not just from Islamabad, but also from Ankara and even Beijing.
India Breaks Through Rawalpindi’s Shield
By the dawn of May 9, 2025, it had become evident that Pakistan’s retaliatory barrage was aimed not just at military parity, but at altering the conflict’s character through psychological and religious provocation. After enduring Turkish-backed drone attacks and attempted hits on Hindu temples in Jammu, India no longer viewed the conflict through the lens of measured escalation. That morning, the Indian government cleared the next phase of Operation Sindoor a deep strike into Pakistan’s military nerve center, Rawalpindi.
Unlike the earlier precision strikes on terror camps, the targets on May 9 were overtly military. India’s Hyrop kamikaze drones, supplied by Israel, were deployed in waves, each programmed to strike with high precision and near-zero visibility. By the afternoon, key installations in Rawalpindi, Lahore, Gujranwala, Sialkot, and Karachi were struck with deadly accuracy. Among the most shocking hits was the Rawalpindi Cricket Stadium, located within distance of the General Headquarters (GHQ) of the Pakistan Army. This was not a symbolic target chosen for media theatrics it was a real-time demonstration that India could pierce the sanctum of Pakistan’s military command with impunity.
Equally significant was the destruction of Chinese-supplied HQ-9 air batteries stationed at Walton Base in Lahore. This strike not only killed several Pakistani personnel but also showcased the vulnerability of Sino-Pak defence systems against Indian air and drone warfare capabilities. Reports later confirmed that Indian drones had also penetrated deep into Rawalpindi cantonment, with explosions near logistics hubs and communications towers locations considered impenetrable in previous Indo-Pak encounters.
While India was striking military installations, Pakistan again chose to escalate asymmetrically. On the night of May 9, it launched another wave of missile and drone attacks, this time targeting civilian centres, religious sites, and border airbases across Jammu & Kashmir, Punjab, Rajasthan, and Gujarat. The most provocative act was the direct drone strike on a Shiva temple in Jammu, seen as a calculated attempt to provoke a communal backlash within India. There were also reports of drone activity near the Golden Temple in Amritsar, Vaishno Devi, and Mata Chintpurni in Himachal Pradesh. Although these were intercepted, the message was unmistakable: Pakistan was now using religious targets to instigate chaos in India. Additionally, a Fatah-II missile launched by Pakistan targeted New Delhi, but was successfully intercepted by Indian missile defence systems over Sirsa, Haryana. This attempted strike on the national capital escalated the war to a new threshold one that brought the spectre of nuclear conflict into sharp focus.
In terms of air defence, India’s response was swift and organized. Military units activated layered air defence protocols, using Schilka systems, ZU-23mm guns, L-70s, and cutting-edge Counter-UAS technology to neutralize incoming drones and missiles. The success rate was high, but the sheer volume of incoming attacks confirmed Indian intelligence suspicions: Pakistan had prepared for a long-duration drone war, likely in coordination with Turkish and Chinese advisors. By the end of May 9, two facts had crystallized: India had demonstrated its ability to cripple Pakistan’s military command infrastructure, while Pakistan, cornered and desperate, was veering toward religious warfare and nuclear posturing. The global community watched with alarm as two nuclear-armed nations edged closer to a confrontation with no defined limits.
The Decapitation of Pakistan’s Airpower
By the early hours of May 10, 2025, India had reached the apex of its strategic escalation under Operation Sindoor. The previous three days had successfully dismantled terror infrastructure, exposed Pakistani military vulnerabilities, and pushed Islamabad into erratic and ideologically charged retaliation. But on the fourth day, India took its boldest step yet launching a coordinated, multi-axis assault on Pakistan’s core air defense and air power assets. This was not about deterrence anymore it was about crippling Pakistan’s capacity to wage war.
Indian Air Force squadrons flying SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses) missions began targeting eleven key Pakistani airbases, each vital to the Pakistan Air Force's wartime command and response strategy. These bases were not limited to forward zones; many were deep inside Punjab and Sindh provinces, previously thought untouchable. The most significant among them was Sargodha Airbase, now renamed Mushaf Airbase, which served as the headquarters of the Pakistan Air Force and housed F-16s, JF-17s, and Mirage-5 squadrons.
Sargodha was struck by precision-guided munitions, rendering its radar arrays, runways, and command bunkers inoperative. Simultaneously, Indian missiles hit:
Rafiqui Airbase (Shorkot) – housing Mirage fighters and acting as a critical diversion base.
Murid Airbase – previously used for UAV operations and drone launches against Indian targets.
Chaklala Airbase (Nur Khan Base) – located just outside Islamabad, this logistics hub suffered severe damage.
Rahim Yar Khan Airbase – near the Indian border, crucial for troop and drone deployment.
Sukkur and Chunian Airbases – significant for Karachi’s coastal air defence and strategic movement.
Jacobabad, Bholari, and Skardu Bases – targeted to deny Pakistan any forward airstrike capabilities in both eastern and northern theatres.
The strikes were executed using a combination of long-range standoff weapons, anti-radiation missiles, and autonomous loitering munitions. Indian electronic warfare units jammed communication frequencies to disrupt Pakistani response coordination. Reports confirmed the destruction of key radar installations, SAM launchers, air traffic control towers, fuel storage depots, and underground command rooms. The decapitation was swift and effective. Pakistan’s air force had been blinded, its launch capabilities neutralized, and its nuclear second-strike air posture severely compromised. In multiple locations, satellite imagery showed secondary explosions proof that Indian missiles had hit ammunition and fuel dumps, further amplifying the strategic impact.
This crippling of air assets sent a psychological shockwave through Pakistan’s military ranks. There were panic communications between GHQ in Rawalpindi and forward commands in Sindh and Punjab. For the first time since the Kargil War, Pakistan was facing the real possibility of air dominance loss over its own territory. India’s operational success on May 10 marked a turning point not just in Operation Sindoor, but in South Asian military doctrine. It had done what many had thought impossible it had broken the back of a nuclear-armed adversary’s air power, all while maintaining escalation control. But as this victory unfolded, a darker question loomed: would Pakistan now activate its nuclear threshold, and was the next target not a base, but a bunker housing its most dangerous arsenal?
Targeting the Nuclear Core -The Shadow of Doomsday
The next phase of Operation Sindoor brought the world closer to a catastrophic threshold than at any point in the post-Kargil era. With Pakistan’s terror infrastructure dismantled, and its airbases devastated, the last bastion of its coercive power its nuclear command structure stood exposed. On May 10, 2025, India launched a series of precision missile strikes aimed at Rawalpindi’s Kirna Hills, a heavily fortified region believed to host elements of Pakistan’s Strategic Plans Division (SPD) the elite paramilitary unit tasked with guarding the country’s nuclear arsenal. This move was no longer about military parity it was about neutralizing Pakistan’s capacity for nuclear blackmail.
Kirna Hills, located in proximity to Mushaf Airbase (Sargodha), has long been rumoured to house nuclear storage facilities, mobile launch vehicles, and command bunkers. Though never acknowledged publicly by Islamabad, satellite imagery and intelligence intercepts from multiple nations have long indicated that Kirna is central to Pakistan’s second-strike capability. The Indian strikes, launched using supersonic missiles like Brahmos, landed with devastating precision. These strikes sent Pakistan’s security establishment into a state of nuclear alert. Intelligence sources in Washington confirmed that Pakistan began strategic mobilization procedures, including the movement of tactical nuclear weapons and the activation of nuclear signaling protocols, a term used to denote heightened alert status intended to deter further escalation.
What followed was a flurry of global diplomatic activity. U.S. Vice President JD Vance placed an urgent, direct call to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, urging a cessation of strikes and offering Pakistan what was termed a “structured diplomatic off-ramp”. According to reports in the New York Times the U.S. proposed a back-channel mechanism wherein India would halt further deep strikes, and in return, Washington would coordinate with IMF and G7 nations to block Pakistani military aid and curb terror financing. However, Prime Minister Modi was non-committal. He reportedly informed Vice President Vance that India would not scale back any punitive operations and would continue holding all options open, including the suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty and withdrawal of MFN trade privileges.
The most important revelation from this exchange was India's posture: it was not seeking war, but it was no longer afraid of one. By striking a site as sensitive as Kirna Hills, India had communicated that nuclear deterrence was no longer a shield behind which Pakistan could sponsor jihad. This single act dismantled the myth that India's conventional military strategy was forever boxed in by Pakistan’s nuclear doctrine. Instead, it signaled the birth of a calculated, limited, yet fearless doctrine of deterrence-through-dominance. Pakistan’s response was equally revealing. Despite nuclear signalling, it did not cross the ultimate threshold.
This restraint forced by international isolation, internal chaos, and India’s credible threat to destroy further nuclear infrastructure marked a decisive psychological victory for India. The targeting of Pakistan’s nuclear core marked not the beginning of nuclear war, but the end of nuclear blackmail. The world stood still, but India had stared into the abyss and fired first. And in doing so, it rewrote the unwritten laws of South Asian escalation.
Ceasefire and Strategic Fallout
As the sun set on May 10, 2025, the air across South Asia was thick with tension, smoke, and the weight of the unthinkable. With 11 Pakistani airbases incapacitated, terrorist command structures decimated, and even nuclear command facilities struck, the spectre of a full-scale war possibly even a nuclear confrontation looked on horizon. Against this backdrop of unprecedented escalation, diplomatic channels scrambled into overdrive. It was in this moment of extraordinary pressure that a ceasefire understanding was brokered not signed, not codified, but orchestrated under backchannel duress, primarily from the United States and Gulf intermediaries.
On May 10, 2025 evening, Pakistan’s DGMO messaged India's Directorate of Military Operations (DGMO) on the DGMO Hotline seeking cessation of hostilities. India thereupon agreed to halt active hostilities along the Line of Control (LoC) and International Border (IB), effective immediately. However, even as the ink on this verbal accord metaphorically dried, reports of Pakistani shelling and drone sightings in Fazilka, Samba, and Amritsar surfaced within two hours a stark reminder of the fragility of any peace involving Pakistan’s fractured chain of command. For India, this ceasefire was a strategic pause, not a retreat. Unlike previous engagements such as the LoC agreement 2003 or the 2021 reaffirmation of ceasefire protocols, New Delhi made it abundantly clear that this time, the rules had changed. Senior officials in the New Delhi informed the press that there was “no obligation to resume status quo ante,” and India retained the right to launch counterforce or pre-emptive strikes should cross-border provocations resume.
One of the most significant outcomes of this four-day conflict was the suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty, a cornerstone of South Asian water-sharing frameworks since 1960. India had already hinted at this during earlier standoffs, but following the Pahalgam massacre, Prime Minister Modi’s government formally suspended its commitments under the treaty. Construction of dam projects on the Chenab and Jhelum rivers has been expedited, and diplomatic correspondence with the World Bank, the treaty’s guarantor, was publicly released to state Pakistan as a terror-sponsoring violator of international norms.
Strategically, the conflict resulted in a redefinition of escalation ladders. Pakistan’s past strategy leveraging nuclear deterrence to wage unlimited asymmetric warfare was now neutralized by India’s doctrine of deep conventional retaliation below the nuclear threshold. India demonstrated that it could disable command structures, strike nuclear installations, and yet retain escalation control through precision, messaging, and real-time diplomacy.
Domestically, the Indian political and public response was overwhelmingly supportive. Operation Sindoor was seen as a restoration of national honour and a long-overdue reckoning with Pakistan’s impunity. For Pakistan, the fallout was existential. Not only had it suffered military degradation, but it also faced severe diplomatic isolation, with even traditional allies like Saudi Arabia and the UAE offering only muted statements. Thus, the ceasefire may have stopped the missiles, but it could not reverse the strategic damage done. Pakistan’s bluff had been called, and India had proven that it was no longer bound by the inertia of strategic restraint. The subcontinent now stood at the edge of a new, volatile normal, where conflict could erupt again, anytime, under new rules set not in Washington or Beijing, but in New Delhi’s war rooms.
A New Order of Escalation
Operation Sindoor was not just a military campaign it was the culmination of decades of strategic frustration, bottled rage, and tectonic geopolitical shifts. It marked a departure from India’s traditional doctrine of restraint and introduced a new paradigm: retaliation with precision, resolve, and symbolic finality. In four days, India dismantled more than terror camps it destroyed the very scaffolding upon which Pakistan’s asymmetric warfare doctrine had stood since the 1990s. The consequences of this operation were not merely tactical but civilizational, as India redefined its red lines in both fire and fury.
The operation also underscored a crucial evolution in modern warfare. No longer limited to tanks crossing borders or fighter jets dueling in dogfights, this conflict saw the fusion of ISR (Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance), drone warfare, cyber manipulation, and real-time battlefield data integration. India’s ability to deploy Israeli kamikaze drones, jam communications, and paralyze airbases while keeping civilian casualties minimal revealed its maturing military-industrial capability. More significantly, the targeting of Kirna Hills and other strategic command facilities showed India’s willingness to challenge Pakistan’s nuclear deterrence doctrine head-on, using precision over panic, and strategy over symbolism.
Equally revealing was the international dimension. The suspected misuse of Maxar’s satellite intelligence, the presence of Turkish drones and arms on Pakistani soil, and the muted response of the global West raised fundamental questions about the nature of alliances in a multipolar world. The United States, while eventually calling for restraint, was itself entangled in a shadow of geospatial dual-use hypocrisy one in which private defence contractors like Maxar simultaneously empowered both state militaries and, through loopholes, terror-linked entities. This placed India in a uniquely precarious position: fighting an enemy supported not just by ideology or proxy networks, but by overlapping interests in the global arms and intelligence economy.
Internally, Operation Sindoor has cemented Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s strategic credentials. In refraining from knee-jerk, symbolic retaliation and instead opting for a multi-phase, escalation-controlled offensive, PM Modi and his national security team not only avoided a wider regional war but rebalanced the strategic scale in India's favour. Pakistan’s attempts to internationalize Kashmir, trigger religious violence, or leverage the IMF for post-crisis funding were nullified by India’s rapid domination of both military and narrative space. For Pakistan, however, the post-Sindoor reality is grim. Militarily degraded, diplomatically cornered, and economically desperate, it must now reckon with the collapse of its “terror shield” the assumption that nuclear weapons would forever allow it to bleed India without consequence. That shield was shattered not by global pressure but by direct Indian missiles, launched with surgical clarity and political boldness.
Looking forward, the Indo-Pak border has not entered peace it has entered a state of cold conflict with open-ended hostilities likely to persist. Ceasefires may exist on paper, but the new status quo is one of permanent strategic preparedness, where any act of terror will no longer be seen as an isolated incident, but as an invitation for retribution on a scale never before imagined. Operation Sindoor, therefore, will be remembered not as a battle, but as a doctrinal pivot. It signalled the end of India’s patience and the beginning of proactive deterrence. In the lexicon of 21st-century military strategy, it has inscribed a lesson: restraint is not weakness, and when the line is crossed, response will be total, targeted, and unapologetic.
Pakistan - The Agent of Chaos, Kept Alive by Washington and Armed by Beijing
As the dust settles on Operation Sindoor, it becomes increasingly clear that Pakistan was not the true protagonist in this four-day conflict. It was the battleground, the cannon fodder, and the expendable front in a much larger geopolitical contest a contest shaped and orchestrated not just by Islamabad’s generals or clerics, but by the very powers that claim to police global order. Behind the scenes, it was Washington that kept Pakistan on life support, while Beijing stood as its arms merchant and strategic insurance policy.
China’s stake in Pakistan is visible and well-documented. From the $60 billion CPEC (China-Pakistan Economic Corridor) to the delivery of JF-17 fighter jets, HQ-9 missile systems, and armored UAVs, Beijing has militarized Pakistan not out of ideological sympathy, but to contain India’s rise in South Asia. For China, Pakistan is a strategic asset a tethered vassal state used to box India in from the west, ensuring New Delhi remains distracted, encircled, and hemmed into a two-front dilemma. Yet even as China arms Pakistan, it rarely intervenes when the fire burns too hot. During Operation Sindoor, Beijing quietly distanced itself, and President Xi Jinping left for Moscow, signalling that while Pakistan is a pawn worth arming, it is not worth protecting at war’s edge.
But it is not Beijing that has kept Pakistan from collapse. It is Washington. For decades, the U.S. has played a duplicitous role arming India with one hand and funding its enemies with the other. Even after the exposure of Pakistan’s terror-industrial complex, America has continued to channel military aid, provide financial backing via the IMF, and lobby institutions like the World Bank to bail Islamabad out. The most recent example came on May 9, 2025 in the middle of active conflict when the IMF approved a critical tranche of aid to Pakistan, despite India’s formal objections and compelling evidence that Pakistan was using funds to stabilize military budgets in the face of Indian strikes.
This is not accidental. It is part of a deliberate, decades-old doctrine: Pakistan is America’s preferred agent of chaos in South Asia. While China’s interests lie in commercial militarization and containment, America’s playbook is built around controlled destabilization. A weak, unpredictable Pakistan keeps India on alert, discourages strategic autonomy, and ensures that South Asia never becomes an integrated counterweight to Western-led industrial resurgence. In short, while China seeks to stunt India’s growth through encirclement, the U.S. stunts it through disorder by ensuring that every few years, Pakistan is resuscitated just enough to bleed again.
India’s strikes on Bahawalpur, Muridke, and Kirna Hills weren’t just counterterror operations they were a message to both Beijing and Washington: India will no longer accept being the passive node in someone else’s regional disorder. And when Pakistan’s gambit failed when its jihadist narrative collapsed under the weight of Indian missiles it did not turn to Beijing. It turned to DC, begging for de-escalation, because only Washington has the power to pause the conflict it had quietly enabled. Operation Sindoor therefore becomes more than a military retaliation it becomes a revelation. It exposes the geopolitical lie that Pakistan is merely a Chinese proxy. The truth is more uncomfortable: Pakistan survives because America ensures it does as a factory of jihad, a vessel of chaos, and a perfect foil to sabotage the Eastern world’s rise. This time, India didn’t play along. It struck back. Not just with missiles, but with clarity.
Epilogue: The War That Was Never Declared, But Decisively Won
Operation Sindoor was not merely India’s retaliation it was India’s redefinition. In four days, it shattered Pakistan’s terror infrastructure, defanged its airpower, challenged its nuclear bluff, and exposed the global duplicity that had long kept Islamabad's war machine alive. It proved that terror can no longer hide behind treaties, nukes, or western diplomacy. More importantly, it ripped off the mask from the global order itself, revealing that while China arms Pakistan to contain India, it is Washington that sustains Pakistan to disrupt India. Yet in striking back boldly, precisely, and unapologetically India didn’t just avenge Pahalgam. It dismantled the ecosystem of impunity and forced the world to acknowledge a new doctrine: India will not be provoked into war, but it will never again absorb terror without retribution. The message is now etched across Rawalpindi’s shattered bunkers and Bahawalpur’s smouldering camps India has changed the rules. Forever.
Notes:
Orders for Pahalgam satellite images from US firm peaked two months before attack - The Print - https://theprint.in/defence/pahalgam-satellite-image-us-space-tech-firm-maxar-technologies/2620666/
Controversial Pakistani firm BSI removed as partner from US satellite company’s website - https://theprint.in/defence/pahalgam-satellite-images-bsi-pakistan-maxar-technologies/2621452/
BrahMos Strike And Mayhem In Pakistan: The Inside Story Behind Ceasefire - https://www.news18.com/india/brahmos-strike-and-mayhem-in-pakistan-the-inside-story-behind-ceasefire-ws-l-9332168.html
Ceasefire After 4 Days: Inside Story Of How India-Pakistan Reached Agreement -Shiv Aroor - NDTV - https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/india-pakistan-operation-sindoor-ceasefire-after-4-days-inside-story-of-how-india-pakistan-reached-agreement-8384442
Terror group supporters posted on TikTok, YouTube and Google from site targeted in Indian airstrikes - Sky News - https://news.sky.com/story/terror-group-supporters-posted-on-tiktok-youtube-and-google-from-site-targeted-in-indian-airstrikes-13363716
Reluctant at First, Trump Officials Intervened in South Asia as Nuclear Fears Grew - The New York Times - https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/10/us/politics/trump-india-pakistan-nuclear.html