The brutal terror attack in Pahalgam was not just another tragic entry in the long history of violence in Kashmir. India’s response under Operation Sindoor was a loud, calculated signal — a move on the psychological chessboard of a very different kind of war. This wasn’t a typical conflict, and it wasn’t supposed to be. Rather, it served as a stark warning that the very essence of conflict has been completely transformed, and along with it, our concept of the notion of victory. While India and its brave defence forces won a momentous operational victory, at the strategic level many other issues of cognitive dimension come into play, which can blur a positive narrative.
In this era of hybrid warfare, the notion of victory is being redefined – capturing land, destroying forces, signing agreements – no longer creates the final narrative. The battlefield has expanded beyond geography into cyberspace, mass perception, social media timelines, and the fragile emotional landscape of our citizenry. The real targets are often invisible: unity, morale, and the global narrative.
What Pakistan Tried to Achieve at Pahalgam
The Pahalgam terror attack was not just an act of bloodshed — it was a psychological operation. Its timing, messaging and aftermath were all crafted to serve strategic objectives far beyond the immediate radius. It was designed to rupture the growing calm in Kashmir, provoke communal disharmony, and threaten the upcoming Amarnath Yatra. It sought to embarrass India on the global stage at a politically sensitive moment, while simultaneously deflecting attention from Pakistan’s internal turmoil, including escalating unrest in Baluchistan.
In short, the strike was not only a tactical incursion but a broadcast — meant to reach not only Delhi, but Washington, Beijing, and New York. And, like every message in a hybrid war, it aimed to shake perception more than position.
Victory is No Longer a Moment — It’s a Mindset
For India, this demands a fundamental shift. The country cannot afford to measure success in hybrid conflict by outdated standards of battlefield dominance. Victory in this new era is a dynamic, continuous state — not a climactic end.
India adopted diplomatic and economic methods, downgrading ties, revoking transit permissions, and signalling a new red line by freezing provisions of the Indus Waters Treaty. The response was not just about bombs, it was a message: India will retaliate on multiple fronts, with long memory and layered intent
It’s about psychological ascendancy: demonstrating resilience, unity, and capability. It’s about denying the enemy the dividends they seek — whether those are in provoking chaos, eroding morale, or capturing the international narrative. It’s about imposing sustained costs on their proxy war apparatus until the very logic of their strategy collapses.
Crucially, the objective isn’t to ‘defeat’ Pakistan in a full-scale war; that prospect isn’t even on the table. Instead, the aim is to dismantle the credibility and sustainability of their strategy — making the pursuit of terror more dangerous and less rewarding than ever before.
Operation Sindoor: Calibrated, Not Just Reactive
India’s post-Pahalgam response under Operation Sindoor was layered and deliberate. Yes, there was military retaliation. But equally significant was the restraint shown in preventing internal communal strife — one of the attack’s primary objectives. Through clear strategic communication from the top and coordinated intelligence work on the ground, India blocked this avenue of psychological victory for the enemy.
Simultaneously, New Delhi enacted diplomatic and economic coercion — downgrading ties, revoking transit permissions, and signalling a new red line by freezing provisions of the Indus Waters Treaty. The response was not just about bombs — it was about a strategic message: India will retaliate on multiple fronts, with long memory and layered intent.
Pakistan’s predictable response was nuclear posturing. But this familiar sabre-rattling increasingly resembles a bluff — less a threat, more a mask for insecurity. India’s approach must continue to rely on deliberate ambiguity: clarity that any nuclear adventurism will trigger total retaliation, but without drawing definitive thresholds. Such ambiguity, when backed by capability, is deterrence in its sharpest form.
The War of the Mind: Where We Still Struggle
If Pahalgam revealed one glaring vulnerability, it was in the information domain. Within minutes, Pakistani influencers and media were pushing videos, false narratives, and manipulative hashtags. India’s response, while eventually assertive, missed the crucial golden hour where narratives are born, not reclaimed.
In hybrid warfare, perception is not a side effect — it is the battlefield. And every delay in controlling the narrative becomes an advantage for the adversary. India needs a robust national information warfare architecture: real-time surveillance, rapid content generation, counter-disinformation capabilities, and aligned digital diplomacy. It must be agile, autonomous, and integrated with national security decision-making.
We are not losing territory in Kashmir — but we are ceding perception. That’s a space we can no longer afford to vacate.
If Pahalgam revealed one glaring vulnerability, it was in the information domain. Within minutes, Pakistani influencers and media were pushing videos, false narratives, and manipulative hashtags. India’s response, while eventually assertive, missed the crucial golden hour where narratives are born, not reclaimed
Technology Isn’t Supportive — It’s Decisive
Modern warfare doesn’t wait for approval; it acts through swarms of drones, invisible cyber operations, and algorithmically curated chaos. India’s military edge must evolve beyond kinetic might to digital dominance.
Key priorities must include AI-driven surveillance systems, offensive cyber tools, swarming drone capabilities, and deep fake detection units. Our ability to anticipate, disrupt, and punish must be tech-powered. Victory is now measured by how fast you can pre-empt, how precisely you can strike, and how effectively you can shape global understanding in your favour.
Indian forces won on the ground but in the airwaves and timelines, the battle was harder fought. That balance needs recalibration.
A Warfighting Model That Blends Firepower and Foresight
The fight against proxy terror cannot be reduced to airstrikes or border raids. It requires a fusion of military, diplomatic, legal, economic, and cognitive responses. India needs to evolve what might be called a whole-of-nation deterrence model — where every domain of statecraft becomes a tool of coercion or denial. It’s about denying sanctuary, starving finances, exposing sponsors, and countering narratives — simultaneously and sustainably.
This doctrine must be operationalised across multiple verticals: cognitive surveillance, special operations, precision-strike capabilities, civil-military communication, and legal offensives. Civil society and private tech firms must also be partners in this new ecosystem of defence.
India must retaliate not once, but persistently — with strikes, statements, sanctions, and dominating narrative warfare. It must erode the cost-benefit logic of Pakistan’s hybrid war playbook. And it must ensure that every act of aggression is met with a larger, smarter, and more multidimensional response
The Real Win: Denying Strategic Dividends
The most important takeaway from Pahalgam is this: neutralising terrorists is necessary, but it is not sufficient. True victory lies in denying Pakistan the broader strategic outcomes it seeks — be it igniting communal fires, inviting global scrutiny on Kashmir, or showcasing Indian vulnerability.
India must retaliate not once, but persistently — with strikes, statements, sanctions, and dominating narrative warfare. It must erode the cost-benefit logic of Pakistan’s hybrid war playbook. And it must ensure that every act of aggression is met with a larger, smarter, and more multidimensional response.
Towards a Doctrine for the Age of Ambiguity
Pahalgam wasn’t just an attack — it was a case study of the demands of modern war. It shows us that we can no longer afford to be reactive. We need a National Security Strategy, which is integrated, anticipatory, and doctrine-driven.
In this war of ambiguity, the first battlefield is the mind. And in that contested space, clarity, speed, and resolve will determine who emerges victorious. India must now choose to lead not just with strength, but with strategy — because in the era of hybrid war, denial is the new declaration of victory.
The author, a PVSM, AVSM, VSM has had an illustrious career spanning nearly four decades. A distinguished Armoured Corps officer, he has served in various prestigious staff and command appointments including Commander Independent Armoured Brigade, ADG PP, GOC Armoured Division and GOC Strike 1. The officer retired as DG Mechanised Forces in December 2017 during which he was the architect to initiate process for reintroduction of Light Tank and Chairman on the study on C5ISR for Indian Army. Subsequently he was Consultant MoD/OFB from 2018 to 2020. He is also a reputed defence analyst, a motivational speaker and prolific writer on matters of military, defence technology and national security. The views expressed are personal and do not necessarily carry the views of Raksha Anirveda
