In the early hours of 7 May 2025, the Indian Armed Forces launched Operation Sindoor, a precision strike targeting terrorist infrastructure across Pakistan and Pakistan Occupied Kashmir. The mission, carried out with surgical efficiency, hit nine specific sites known to host and support militant operations. Not a single Pakistani military facility was targeted ~ a telling sign of India’s calibrated intent: to punish, not provoke; to signal resolve, not spark escalation. Yet, the message from New Delhi was unmistakably firm. Those who dare spill innocent blood on Indian soil will not be allowed impunity, sanctuary, or the illusion of invincibility.

This targeted response follows the heinous Pahalgam terrorist attack ~ an act of barbarity that claimed 26 lives, including that of a Nepali national. The attack, carried out in one of Kashmir’s most beloved and iconic tourist spots, was not just an assault on individuals. It was a strike against hope, normalcy, and the economic backbone of the Valley’s civilian life. The blood that stained the meadows of Baisaran stands as a chilling reminder that the terror infrastructure across the border is not just intact but emboldened. With Operation Sindoor, India has decisively res – ponded; not merely with outrage, but with action.

Advertisement

For years, Pakistan has played a dangerous double game on the global stage. While making token gestures of peace in multilateral forums, its deep state machinery ~ particularly the ISI ~ continues to nurture and direct radical groups like Jaish-e-Mohammed, Lashkar-eTaiba, and other affiliates. These groups do not operate in the shadows of the Pakistani state; they are sheltered in its very bosom. They receive training, logistical support, and political protection. This duplicity, couched in a veil of plausible deniability, has enabled Islamabad to wage an asymmetric war against India while avoiding full fledged conventional conflict. India’s strategic response to this has evolved.

The days of strategic passivity ~ where provocations were met with diplomatic notes ~ are long gone. The 2016 Uri surgical strikes and the 2019 Balakot airstrikes marked a decisive shift: New Delhi would respond beyond its borders, targeting the sources of terror with precision. Yet deterrence, as the Pahalgam tragedy has again shown, is not permanent. It is a process that must be maintained and adapted continuously. It requires constant recalibration ~ a multi-dimensional doctrine that combines kinetic retaliation with long term diplomatic, technological, and economic strategies. Operation Sindoor thus re – presents a continuation of this doctrine, but with a refined edge. No civilian areas were hit.

No Pakistani military targets were attacked. This was not war; it was law enforcement by other means, targeted justice against actors who operate in the grey zone, abusing international norms while hiding behind national borders. While military responses are vital, terrorism cannot be seen purely as a battlefield issue. India’s most successful move after Uri and Pulwama was not just military retaliation but its diplomatic offensive. India succeeded in exposing Pakistan’s terror nexus globally. Islamabad’s grey-listing by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) and growing scepticism in capitals like Paris, Berlin, and Tokyo marked significant victories. Yet, realpolitik remains a stubborn obstacle. Washington, for instance, continues to engage with Pakistan through a transnational lens, driven by its interests in Afghanistan and the broader China-Pakistan dynamic.

Drones, aid packages, and strategic leverage remain on the table; reminders that morality is often subordinated to utility in global diplomacy. This is precisely why India must continue its diplomatic campaign with renewed vigour. Forums like the Quad (India, US, Japan, Australia), the G20, and the BRICS+ provide platforms to isolate Pakistan not just bilaterally but structurally. The narrative must shift: from Pakistan as a victim of terrorism to Pakistan as a sponsor of it. Every act of terror must be linked back to the machinery that fosters it. Every international gathering must be used to tighten the narrative net. Silence and neutrality must be made unaffordable for the global community.

Parallel to this, India’s evolving water diplomacy represents a critical front. In the wake of the Pahalgam attack, New Delhi took a bold, unprecedented step: placing the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) in abeyance. The move rattled Islamabad, prompting it to cry foul and accuse India of weaponising water. But in truth, India has shown remarkable restraint over the decades by adhering to the IWT, even during wars and terror attacks. Now, amid changing climate conditions, growing strategic imperatives, and repeated provocations, that restraint is being reconsidered. With new hydroelectric projects such as Pakal Dul and Ratle being fast-tracked, India is sending a clear message: leverage will not remain unused when blood is spilt without consequence. Water may well become its most potent strategic lever.

Domestically, the Pahalgam attack has exposed gaps that need urgent attention. Despite improvements, India’s border infrastructure, particularly along the LoC and International Border, remains incomplete. Fencing projects are delayed. Terrain challenges persist. Technological upgrades, such as AI-powered surveillance, unmanned aerial vehicles, satellite monitoring, and underground sensors, are yet to fully integrate. Israel offers a valuable template: a defence grid that merges physical barriers with digital precision and swift response teams. India must adapt such models with urgency. Chasing terrorists once they infiltrate is a losing game. The focus must be on denial of entry, of movement, of opportunity.

The ideological battle is no less crucial. Terror is not just im – ported; it is incubated in minds. Online radicalisation, clandestine preachers, and social media propaganda are actively targeting the youth, particularly in sensitive regions like Kashmir. India’s counter-terror doctrine must now include cyber-policing, psychological profiling, deradicalisation centres, and counter-narrative campaigns. These centres, already pilo – ted in some states, must be expanded with the involvement of psychologists, religious scholars, sociologists, and community leaders. The goal must be to rescue minds before they are lost, to offer purpose before they are lured into peril. Terrorists aim not just to take lives but to destroy livelihoods. The symbolism of targeting a tourist hub like Pahalgam is not accidental ~ it is economic sabotage. If fear drives away tourists, investment dries up, hope dissipates, and the valley returns to darkness.

In recent years, Kashmir saw over 20 million tourist arrivals, a record. That trajectory must not be derailed as economic normalcy remains the most enduring antidote to violent extremism. At a broader level, India’s approach aligns increasingly with the theory of offensive defensive realism in international relations. In an anarchic global system where state actors often disregard norms, security cannot be achieved passively. It must be built proactively. India can no longer afford to play by rules that its adversary flouts with impunity. From kinetic responses like Operation Sindoor to diplomatic manoeuvres and water leverage, every aspect of policy must contribute to a broader architecture of deterrence. Strategic patience must not be mistaken for inaction; it must now be paired with strategic innovation and pressure.

Pakistan, meanwhile, finds itself in a state of internal chaos ~ political instability, economic crisis, the Baluch insurgency, and the rise of Tehreek-i-Tali – ban Pakistan (TTP) have stretched its capacities thin. This fragility, while dangerous, also presents an opportunity. India must use this strategic space not for futile dialogues or performative summits, but to consolidate gains. Dialogue, if at all, must be dictated by India’s terms: complete cessation of cross-border terrorism, verifiable dismantling of terror camps, and accountability for past attacks. The Pahalgam attack, tragic and infuriating as it is, could yet serve as a turning point ~ an inflexion point in India’s fight against state-sponsored terrorism.

With Operation Sindoor, India has taken a step in the right direction. But this step must be part of a larger march, not just to punish perpetrators but to dismantle the architecture that enables them with strategy, strength, and sustained pressure.

(The writer is an author, political analyst, and columnist)