Operation Sindoor – the four days of Indian counterterror military strikes on nine Pakistani terror camps, 11 military airbases and other targets between May 7 and 10 – were a pivotal historic moment. It marked a point of no return when Pakistani nuclear blackmail ceased to deter robust Indian counter-terrorism military action, in the aftermath of the horrific Pahalgam terrorist attack.
As this Deep Dive goes live, seven Indian all-party Parliamentary delegations from both government and Opposition have fanned out across 33 global capitals to make India’s case for diplomatically isolating and financially blacklisting Pakistan and explain the new zero-tolerance to terror policy, demonstrating a multi-pronged counterterror strategy.
India stands firm against provocations
Successive Indian governments have avoided military escalation, despite grave terrorist provocations, given the nuclear component on both sides. This trend was partially reversed under Prime Minister Modi in 2016, following the terrorist attack on an Indian Army camp in Uri, Kashmir, which resulted in 19 casualties.
That attack saw a potent response in the form of a cross-border surgical strike on terrorists using Indian Army Special Forces. Three years later in 2019, when a suicide bombing killed 40 Indian police personnel in Pulwama (also in Kashmir), the Indian government sent fighter jets across the international border to bomb terrorist training camps in Balakot, Pakistan.
There was no mass casualty terror attack on India after that for six years, demonstrating the deterrent power of precise military counterterror actions. The latest terrorist atrocity, and among the most horrific, was in Pahalgam in Kashmir when 26 innocent civilians (25 Indians and one Nepali) were executed in cold blood simply because they were Hindu. That was the proverbial final straw.
Operation Sindoor
On May 7, in response to the Pahalgam atrocity, Indian drones struck nine terrorist bases, including the headquarters of two major terrorist organisations, Lashkar-e-Taiba in Muridke and Jaish-e-Mohammed in Bahawalpur. Both bases were flattened completely. The Operation was named Sindoor, in honour of the sacred red vermillion worn by Hindu married women, as the husbands of 26 women were killed in the Pahalgam attack simply for their faith.
India made it clear in its official statement that the military strikes were aimed at destroying terrorists, not attacking the Pakistani state or military. Civilian casualties were minimal, whereas over 100 terrorists including senior extremist leaders were confirmed killed in the strikes.
India’s military comes of age
Nonetheless, Pakistan chose to respond with drone attacks and artillery strikes on Indian targets the following day. A Sikh gurdwara in Poonch, Kashmir, was among the victims of artillery shelling, demonstrating a lack of regard for both cultural sensitivity and civilian life by Pakistan.
Indian retaliation and escalation over the following two days appears to have caused considerable damage to Pakistani air defences and military assets, as evidenced by both satellite imagery and videos taken by civilians in Pakistan, whereas most Pakistani missiles and drones appear to have been shot down, as there was hardly any imagery of damage to Indian bases or buildings. This turn of events likely strongly contributed to Pakistan asking India for a ceasefire on May 10.
MORE LIKE THIS…
Global media narrative turns in India’s favour
Neutral military experts, such as Tom Cooper, a world-famous military aviation historian, labelled Operation Sindoor a ‘clear-cut victory’ for India. The Pakistani military suffered heavy damage, with hundreds of millions of dollars of high value assets such as transport and electronic surveillance planes damaged or destroyed in Indian missile strikes. This is cumulative damage that will take Pakistan many years and billions of dollars to recover from.
Walter Ladwig, a respected international security specialist from King’s College London also suggested India achieved its military objectives with a calibrated retaliation. Despite signs of an anti-India bias among some Western media in the past, evidence of Indian military dominance in the form of videos and imagery is irrefutable.
MORE LIKE THIS…
India’s vigorous counter-extremism stance
What does all this mean? There are two primary strategic outcomes. Chiefly, Pakistan’s nuclear bluff has been clearly called. It can no longer use the threat of nuclear weapons to try and protect its terrorist assets from Indian retaliation.
Secondly, the world is adapting to rising Indian power. Indian delegations of 51 dignitaries, including politicians from all political parties and 8 ambassadors were mandated to go abroad to foreign legislatures and think-tanks, to isolate Pakistan and have it diplomatically and financially sanctioned for sponsoring terrorism. They visited 32 countries and the EU headquarters. This garnered a positive reception, with support from international powers such as Japan and Germany for India’s robust counter-terrorism stand made clear.
MORE LIKE THIS…
Did Labour-led Britain subtly back India?
As Shashi Tharoor, one of India’s most eloquent speakers in the Parliamentary delegation said in New York after visiting the memorial to the victims of the September 11 terrorist attacks there, "I don't work for the government, as you know. I work for an Opposition party, but I myself authored an op-ed in one of India's leading papers, within a couple of days saying that the time had come to hit hard and hit smart and I'm pleased to say that's exactly what India did."
The onus is now on the international community to respond. Thirdly, and notably, the British government supported India in its fight against terrorism, despite the ruling Labour Party’s dependence on the votes of British Pakistanis, indicating growing Western frustration with Pakistan’s lack of respect for international law and order.
In an ideal world, no country would have to send VIP delegations abroad to lobby and gain support for a counterterror stand, for the moral right to self-defence. Many countries have historically insisted on equating India and Pakistan, despite ample evidence that Pakistan is the aggressor and India is defending itself against reprehensible extremist attacks. A growing chorus of support for India suggests that this is now changing. Britain did not urge restraint on India, while Russia, the US and France all supported India to go after the Pahalgam perpetrators.
MORE LIKE THIS…
Will Pakistan rethink its behaviour?
Pakistan’s nuclear bluff has been decisively called, and it is beginning to find out that state sponsorship of extremism and terrorism leads only to diplomatic isolation. Most importantly, Indian security doctrine has now been changed by the Modi government – any future act of mass casualty terrorism will lead to an Indian declaration of war on Pakistan.
Pakistan would do well to take note of both that doctrinal change, and growing international support for India, to rethink and change its pernicious behaviour.
Jeevan Vipinachandran is a UK-based writer and political analyst specialising in political conflict and counterterrorism. With a Masters in Comparative Politics: Conflict Studies from the London School of Economics (LSE), his core interest is in international relations with a special focus on the rise of India and its impact on the world stage.