Operation Sindoor marks a watershed moment in India’s history and military responses to terrorism. Not since the Balakot airstrikes of 2019 or the ground Surgical Strikes of 2016 has the nation mounted such a precise, lethal, and clinically executed response to cross-border terrorism. But Sindoor was not a mere continuation of that trajectory — it was a transformational leap, an inflection point. It showcased India’s emergence as a mature power capable of waging a Just War against terror with clarity of purpose, clinical planning and execution, responsibility in target selection, political will, and technology-enabled future-ready force.
The Context: Enough Was Enough
The seeds of Operation Sindoor were sown through years of accumulated provocations — continued cross-border infiltration, targeted killings, proxy terror attacks on Indian civilians and soldiers, and the persistent use of Pakistani territory by globally proscribed terror groups like Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), Hizbul Mujahideen (HM) and Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT). These were not just irritants; they were wounds inflicted on India’s sovereignty and dignity.
The final provocation of the cowardly killing of innocent tourists and the intelligence-confirmed involvement of Pakistan-backed terror leadership in orchestrating attacks on Indian soil was the trigger. There was no need for dossiers on Pakistan; it was time to respond with impunity and with unimaginable retribution. However, unlike in the past, India did not react impulsively or symbolically. It responded with a new template: decisive, measured, multi-domain, and message-oriented. Thus, Operation Sindoor was born — not just as retaliation, but as a sovereign assertion of a new counter-terrorism doctrine.
The seeds of Operation Sindoor were sown through years of accumulated provocations — continued cross-border infiltration, targeted killings, proxy terror attacks on Indian civilians and soldiers, and the persistent use of Pakistani territory by globally proscribed terror groups. These were not just irritants; they were wounds inflicted on India’s sovereignty and dignity
Why Operation Sindoor Stands Apart
1. Political Will: No More Strategic Restraint
The defining difference of Operation Sindoor was the unambiguous political will to hit hard, hit deep where it hurts, and hurt where it lasts. No longer confined by fear of escalation or external mediation, India asserted its sovereign right to self-defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter. The operation was calibrated to punish not only terror camps, but also the institutional ecosystem that enables terrorism in Pakistan — its leadership, infrastructure, and protectors within the terror breading complex.
This was a war on terrorism — not a border skirmish, not a gesture, but a strategic war rooted in India’s legitimate national interest.
2. Tri-Service Synergy and Technological Warfare
For the first time since 1971, India executed a trans-International Border (IB) operation with full-spectrum jointness. The Army, Air Force, and Navy operated in seamless coordination, empowered by precision-guided munitions, air-to-surface missiles, kamikaze drones, and loitering munitions. The use of standoff weapons ensured maximum impact with minimum risk, demonstrating India’s evolving capability to wage technologically advanced warfare.
This was a display of the Armed Forces’ professionalism — clinical planning, flawless execution, and optimal surprise achieved within a 25-minute window across multiple and diverse geographical targets.
3. Strategic Target Selection: Beyond LoC, Beyond Camps
The choice of targets reflected a bold shift in doctrine. Strikes were not limited to the LoC—they penetrated deep into Pakistan’s Punjab heartland, including Bahawalpur, the ideological and logistical nerve centre of JeM and terrorist leader Masood Azhar. Critical infrastructure linked to terrorist Hafiz Saeed’s LeT at Muridke and terror locations known to host high-level ISI coordination meetings were hit. These were not symbolic targets; these were the sanctuaries of Pakistan’s state-sponsored terrorism apparatus. They were the epicentres of terrorism in Pakistan.
For the first time since 1971, India struck across the IB, a red line that carried strategic weight and demonstrated resolve to call Pakistan’s nuclear bluff. A strategic message that counter-terrorism has no borders.
Coordinated National Power: Beyond the Military
Operation Sindoor wasn’t just a military endeavour — it was a holistic application of all elements of national power – a whole of the nation approach. India’s diplomatic corps was primed to brief global capitals of India’s resolve, with envoys creating global conditions favourable to India with moral and legal justifications. Even the UNSC was favourably inclined to India’s fight against terror and the need to bring to justice the terrorists. The economic front was activated with signals about the holding in abeyance of the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) — a lifeline for Pakistan’s agrarian economy which dislocated them physically and psychologically. The message was clear: Pakistan will be dislocated diplomatically, economically and militarily dismembered if it persists on the terror path.
The choice of targets reflected a bold shift in doctrine. Strikes were not limited to the LoC — they penetrated deep into the ideological and logistical nerve centre of JeM and terrorist leader Masood Azhar. Critical infrastructure linked to terrorist Hafiz Saeed’s LeT at Muridke was hit. These were the epicentres of terrorism in Pakistan
There were no civilian or military casualties in the strike zones — a testament to India’s precision warfare and moral clarity. The operation carried a strategic message: India fights terrorism, not the people of Pakistan.
Time, Place, Intensity: Warfare by Chanakya Niti
India chose the time and place of its response, adhering to the classic tenet of Chanakya Niti: delay to create a dilemma, disperse to drain and dilute their will cum resources, dominate to ensure our physical, moral and psychological ascendancy to create superiority at points of decision and then strike with lethality, surprise and precision. Stockpiling, repositioning, deception, posturing, application of non-kinetic means and intelligence preparation preceded the assault. Pakistan’s options for immediate response were narrowed by design and extent.
Key principles behind the execution:
- Time: Posturing completed; contingencies rehearsed.
- Place: Deep, sensitive targets across Pakistan including Punjab, not just border outposts.
- Intensity: Multiple redundant strikes ensured destruction. No second chances or recuperability.
Precision technology, backed by electronic warfare and cyber sabotage, ensured that Pakistan’s air defences were blinded. Radar jamming and EW measures were timed to perfection — Pakistan’s defence systems simply did not see the attack coming and if they saw it was both too late and too little to respond.
Pakistan’s Dilemma: Empty Threats, Limited Options
Pakistan, compelled to respond for domestic optics, now faces a credibility crisis. It cannot target India’s terror equivalent because India does not host terror factories. Any Pakistani strike on civilian or military assets will be unjustifiable—and invite an escalated response.
Its limitations are stark:
- No war stamina: With an economy on IMF lifelines and dwindling ammunition stockpiles, Pakistan cannot sustain a prolonged conflict.
- No strategic depth: Urban density and fragile infrastructure make it vulnerable. Its narrow waist geography and internal turmoil are to its disadvantage.
- Nuclear deterrence diluted: India’s doctrine and credibility have neutered this card. India does not differentiate tactical and strategic nuclear weapons and India’s No First Use policy is flexible with massive retaliation. Pakistan will cease to exist.
Pakistan’s failure to intercept or pre-empt the strikes revealed the hollowness of its radar and air defence systems—India dominated both the kinetic and non-kinetic battlefield.
Barring the expected pro forma concerns of Turkey and a few outliers, most global powers either supported or quietly accepted India’s right to self-defence. The message was unequivocal: Pakistan must dismantle its terror infrastructure or risk becoming a pariah. Even the response from Pakistan’s strongest ally China was lukewarm seeking an end to hostilities
Global Reaction: Support or Silence
Barring the expected pro forma concerns from Turkey and a few outliers, most global powers either supported or quietly accepted India’s right to self-defence. The message was unequivocal: Pakistan must dismantle its terror infrastructure or risk becoming a pariah. Even the response from Pakistan’s strongest ally China was lukewarm seeking an end to hostilities.
India’s message to the world was clear: We will not be provoked, but we will respond with escalation if Pakistan strikes back. The onus of escalation rests with Pakistan but the assurance to strike back more severely is by India.
Conclusion: A New Strategic Normal
Operation Sindoor is more than a mission — it is a national doctrine in action. A synergy of political will, military precision, technological edge, economic leverage and diplomatic acumen. It demonstrates that modern India will not tolerate terrorism, proxy war, or strategic blackmail.
This was not a war for war’s sake—it was a Just War, waged to uphold sovereignty, secure peace, and send a message not just to Pakistan, but to the world – Terrorism will have Zero Tolerance.
India has the capability, credibility, and conviction to fight its Dharma Yudh—not through jingoism, but through precision, restraint, and righteous fury. This is India 2025 on its way to India 2047.
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
