By Dipak Kurmi
The midnight of May 6-7, 2025, marked a tectonic shift in India’s counter-terrorism posture with the launch of Operation Sindoor — a multi-target, precision military strike deep into Pakistan and Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir. More than a tactical manoeuvre, this was a decisive political message underscoring India’s will to punish cross-border terrorism, reclaim its strategic deterrence, and reassert its moral authority in the face of a barbaric assault. The Pahalgam massacre, where 26 innocent tourists were gunned down in cold blood, was not merely an act of terror; it was a targeted, ideological provocation intended to polarise India internally and embarrass it internationally. The Indian response, therefore, had to transcend the rhetoric of condemnation and embody calibrated kinetic action.
The Pahalgam attack crossed every threshold of tolerance. It was not just an outrage against civilians, but a brutal reminder of the cost of strategic restraint. Operation Sindoor was crafted to be precise, symbolic, and effective — striking nine high-value terror hubs, including Muridke and Bahawalpur, long acknowledged as nurseries of jihadist extremism. What stood out was the professionalism of the Indian Armed Forces and the clarity of intent from the political leadership. Prime Minister Narendra Modi, in granting full operational autonomy to the forces, set a tone of resolve. The operation was planned not only to avoid civilian casualties but also to remain within the framework of India’s doctrine of legitimate self-defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter.
Military responses, especially in a nuclear-armed subcontinent, carry immense political weight. The scale and sophistication of the strikes demonstrated not just military prowess but a nuanced understanding of global optics. The Indian state sought to re-establish a conventional deterrent that had been diluted by years of reactive posturing and euphemistic frameworks such as “cross-border terrorism”. Such terminology obfuscated reality — that training, arming, and infiltrating militants constitutes an act of war. For decades, the Pakistani deep state, embodied in the nexus between the GHQ and the ISI, has orchestrated this low-cost war, while hiding behind the façade of non-state actors. The world, often complicit in its silence, allowed Pakistan to escape accountability.
However, the events of May 2025 marked a reset. The strikes were an overdue act of retribution, but they were also an assertion of strategic clarity. Pakistan’s decades-long policy of bleeding India through a thousand cuts now faces the reality of a nation willing to call its bluff. Unlike the post-Uri surgical strikes of 2016 or the Balakot airstrikes of 2019, Operation Sindoor unfolded on a broader scale, with simultaneous attacks across multiple locations and a heightened emphasis on psychological warfare. It was also a calculated gamble under the nuclear shadow. India used air-launched munitions and avoided striking Pakistani military assets, signalling a desire to avoid escalation. Yet, it was a stern warning — India would no longer passively absorb such provocations.
Pakistan’s response, predictably, involved a mix of denial, disinformation, and saber-rattling. Nuclear threats were once again floated, reflecting both desperation and doctrine. But the credibility of these threats is waning. The international community, while cautious, has grown weary of Pakistan’s nuclear blackmail. The strategic calculus today includes global environmental concerns, heightened surveillance of Pakistani nuclear assets, and a more assertive India unwilling to be paralysed by threats. It is reasonable to believe that Pakistan’s generals, despite their past misjudgements, understand the suicidal consequences of initiating a nuclear conflict.
Yet, the military dimension is just one axis. Diplomatically, India must brace for the challenge of narrative management. While Operation Sindoor may find tacit acceptance among key allies, the global community often pivots from counter-terrorism solidarity to conflict prevention. This shift creates moral equivalence between the victim and the aggressor. Moreover, the international system has shown reluctance to impose substantive penalties on Pakistan, despite its well-documented role in fostering terror. The United States and Europe, driven by geopolitical pragmatism, continue to view Pakistan as a necessary evil in their regional counter-terrorism strategies. Aid flows continue with minimal conditionality, and Pakistan remains outside the list of officially designated state sponsors of terrorism.
In such a scenario, India must leverage its rising global stature to change the discourse. It must demand clarity and commitment from the international community, especially on its position on Jammu and Kashmir. India must ensure that sympathy translates into pressure, and solidarity into action. Internally, the response must extend beyond the battlefield. The three Ps of counter-terrorism — Predict, Prevent, and Punish — require a multidimensional strategy. Prediction demands not just surveillance, but socio-political engagement. Building trust in every village of Kashmir, avoiding collective stigmatisation, and isolating terror ideologues from the broader population are critical.
Prevention entails enhancing our counter-terrorism capabilities, including unmanned systems, rapid mobility, and terrain-specific equipment. Protecting high-risk targets and tightening protocols are no longer optional but essential. The capacity to preempt attacks by striking at source, as Operation Sindoor showed, must become a permanent feature of Indian doctrine. However, secrecy should not be used as a shield against accountability. Parliamentary and public scrutiny of defence readiness and counter-terror operations ensures that strategic lapses are corrected and institutional learning takes place.
Beyond all, we must not fall into the psychological trap laid by the ISI — to divide India along its internal ethnic and religious lines. The dream of every DG ISI is to see India implode under the weight of its diversity, a mirror image of their own fractured polity. This makes internal cohesion our strongest shield. Coercive measures against Pakistan — such as reconsidering the Indus Waters Treaty — must be approached with strategic foresight. Water, like terrorism, is an emotional trigger. India must anticipate that such moves could become new rallying cries in Pakistan’s domestic propaganda.
Finally, India must accept a sobering reality: the fight against Pakistan-backed terrorism will not end with one strike. It is a protracted engagement requiring patience, resilience, and clarity. Attrition, escalation, and loss of life are possibilities that must be factored in. Yet, as the region grapples with the global shifts of the 21st century — climate crises, AI revolutions, and multipolarity — India cannot afford to be held hostage by a recalcitrant neighbour trapped in the paradigms of the 20th century. A secure Bharat is foundational to the dream of a Viksit Bharat. Operation Sindoor is not an end; it is the beginning of a new doctrine of accountability, clarity, and strength. If terrorism is to be uprooted, deterrence must be real, political unity must be unwavering, and the strategic imagination must be bold.
This is the new grammar of Indian security — and the world must take note.
(The writer can be reached at dipakkurmiglpltd@gmail.com)
