Seventy-two Hours That Changed South Asia

India’s has unleashed a more proactive, punitive doctrine on combating cross-border terror. Any act of terror, henceforth, would be met with decisive counter-strikes on pre-identified targets, without seeking permission or mediation. This represents an evolution in Indian military doctrine toward punitive retaliation as a standing option, rather than reactive last resorts.

Operation Sindoor, conducted from May 7 to May 10, 2025 showcased India’s enhanced joint warfighting and credible punishment capability. It was a demonstration of integrated air-land-sea power, precision strike, and information warfare (briefings, imagery) against terror threats. The operation hasestablished a new “normal” where India is willing and able to strike high-value terrorist infrastructure across the border, even under nuclear overhang, while carefully controlling escalation.

The three-day operation combined air strikes, ground actions, and naval deployments to neutralize terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistani-occupied Kashmir (PoK). Indian spokespersons emphasized “immense restraint” in choice of targets, stressing that strikes were “measured and non-escalatory” even as they warned of severe consequences for any future attacks.

In effect, Operation Sindoor signals to Pakistan (and other adversaries) that aggressive provocations will be met quickly and powerfully. It was launched as a calibrated, cross-border military response to the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack carried out by non-state terror proxies of Pakistani Army.

Official briefings confirmed that over 100 terroristswere killed, including high value (terror) targets (HVTs) – Yusuf Azhar, Abdul Malik Rauf and Mudasir Ahmed. These precision strikes targeted nine identified terror camps:

–  Bahawalpur – A known JeM stronghold and the hometown of its founder, Masood Azhar.
– Muridke – The headquarters of LeT, situated near Lahore.
– Kotli – Located in PoK, associated with militant training activities.
– Muzaffarabad – The capital of PoK, known for hosting various militant camps.
– Sialkot – A city near the international border, linked to terrorist operations.
– Gulpur – A region in PoK with reported militant presence.
– Bhimber – Situated in PoK, associated with terrorist training facilities.
– Chak Amru – A location in Pakistan’s Punjab province linked to militant activities.
– Masar-e-Aqsa – Reportedly a code name for a terror training facility; exact location undisclosed.

Multiple Pakistani military facilities were also targeted, deliberately “striking where it would hurt”. The Indian Air Force (IAF) executed precision strikes on 11 Pakistani military airbases. These operations aimed to neutralize strategic assets, including drone warfare command centers, air defense nodes, and aircraft deployment hubs. The targeted airbases were:

– Nur Khan Airbase (Chaklala) – A major airbase near Islamabad, serving as a key hub for military and VIP transport.
– Rafiqui Airbase – Located in Shorkot, Punjab, it’s one of the Pakistan Air Force’s (PAF) primary operational bases.
– Murid Airbase – Situated in Punjab, known for housing advanced fighter squadrons.
-Sukkur Airbase – A strategic base in Sindh province, supporting both military and civilian operations.
– Sialkot Airbase – Located near the eastern border, playing a crucial role in regional defense.
– Pasrur Airbase – A facility in Punjab province, contributing to air defense operations.
– Chunian Airbase – Another Punjab-based airfield, supporting various military activities.
– Sargodha Airbase – One of the largest PAF bases, hosting multiple fighter squadrons and training units.
– Skardu Airbase – Located in Gilgit-Baltistan, serving as a forward operating base in the northern regions.
– Bholari Airbase – A relatively new base near Karachi, enhancing the PAF’s operational reach in the south.
– Jacobabad Airbase – Situated in Sindh, it’s a dual-use facility for both military and civilian purposes.

Satellite imagery released by the Indian Air Force (IAF) shows unmistakable damage at these sites, providing undeniable proof of strike effectiveness. The outcome was clear: terrorist camps decimated and high-value targets eliminated, with “results for the whole world to see”.

India inflicted heavy losses on Pakistan’s forces during the confrontation. India’s Director General of Military Operations (DGMO) reported about 35–40 Pakistani Army personnel killed in the engagements. In addition, the IAF confirmed that it had shot down “a few” high-tech Pakistani fighters (likely F-16s or J-10Cs).

As Air Marshal A.K. Bharti explained, Pakistani jets were prevented from entering Indian airspace, and while wreckage was unavailable, radar and pilots’ reports show multiple PAF aircraft were hit. These Pakistani losses came alongside India’s minimal own casualties: five Indian military personnel plus some civilian casualties were reported, while all participating Indian pilots returned safely to base.

Rumours that a Rafale jet was lost were publicly refuted by Air Marshal Bharti, who reiterated that mission objectives were met and all crews were accounted for. The strikes were carried out with weapons accuracy and intelligence-driven coordination, underscoring the IAF’s enhanced precision strike doctrine. DGMO Ghai noted that nine terror targets were hit “using precision weapons”.

The IAF’s Operation Sindoor was a textbook precision strike campaign. Air Marshal Bharti explained that India chose to hit only critical terrorist and military infrastructure – airbases, radar sites, command centers and terror camps – in a swift, coordinated, calibrated attack. The effectiveness was publicly demonstrated by before-and-after satellite imagery released by the IAF, clearly showing craters and destroyed facilities at Pakistan’s Nur Khan (Chaklala) and other bases.

 

For example, damage at Mushaf/PAF Base Minhas (near Islamabad) and Sargodha was evident in the imagery. Air Marshal Bharti emphasized “decisively” hitting key targets, and remarked, “Have we achieved our objectives of decimating the terrorist camps? The answer is a thumping yes, and results are for the whole world to see”. The IAF’s message was that all selected objectives were met with high precision.

Operationally, the air campaign was accompanied by robust air defense. During the operation, Pakistan launched its own aerial probes, including multiple unmanned drones and combat aircraft. Indian defences intercepted all incursions: Air Marshal Bharti noted that since Pakistani planes were kept out of Indian airspace, India had no wreckage to display but confirmed a few jets were downed.

On May 8–10, Pakistan also sent waves of UAVs and small drones targeting Indian military bases and even civilian areas across Jammu & Kashmir. Several reports said that these “wave[s] of UAVs and small drones intruded” after the announced ceasefire and were “successfully intercepted” by Indian air defences. Similarly, DGMO Ghai later reported that drones were “spotted and intercepted over Jammu and Kashmir — including Srinagar — and parts of Gujarat” during the breach of the ceasefire, with cross-border firing resuming overnight. In all cases, Indian forces responded quickly: as Air Marshal Bharti put it, India’s combat losses are “part of combat”, but mission success and pilot safety were assured.

In Operation Sindoor, India’s Carrier Battle Group (INS Vikramaditya and INS Vikrant along with escorts) was rushed to the northern Arabian Sea to reinforce India’s maritime deterrence. Within 96 hours of the Pahalgam attack, the Indian Navy deployed a Carrier Battle Group (CBG) and accompanying surface and submarine forces into the northern Arabian Sea. Vice Admiral A.N. Pramod explained that carrier groups, submarines and naval aviation were readied for combat at sea, exercising live weapon firing to validate readiness and precision strike capability.

The forward deployment (with carriers INS Vikramaditya and the indigenous INS Vikrant) sent a strong signal. India demonstrated it could “strike at sea and on land – including Karachi – at a time of our choosing”. Pakistani naval assets were largely kept in port under Indian surveillance, and India achieved “complete battle space transparency” in the Arabian Sea. This naval posture reinforced deterrence, showing that India could escalate into sea lanes if necessary.

After a DGMO-agreed ceasefire on May 10 (1700 IST), Pakistan quickly violated the truce. Within hours, Pakistan fired across the Line of Control and launched armed drones into Indian airspace. Ghai noted “it took only a couple of hours for Pakistan to violate these arrangements”. India’s response was immediate: any future breach was warned to “trigger a strong military response”. Ghai emphasized that the Chief of Army Staff had “given full authority to retaliate against any future breaches”.

The rules of engagement on the LoC has shifted: all field commanders are authorized to respond proactively to any ceasefire violations. This was encapsulated in Ghai’s stark warning: “There will be a response — and it will be a punitive one”. Crucially, Ghai stressed India was no longer waiting for Pakistani action. He declared that India had put Pakistan “on notice” and would strictly implement a prepared roadmap: “I’m not concerned about what Pakistan will do; I am only concerned about what we will do. We have a roadmap and a plan and we will follow it diligently”.

The Indian briefings also undercut Pakistan’s narrative of non-involvement. India publicly released photos and names of Pakistani military and civilian officials attending the funerals of the slain terrorists. For example, one Ministry of Defence slide showed Lt Gen Fayyaz Hussain Shah (Commander, Pakistan’s Lahore Corps), Maj Gen Rao Imran Sartaj, and Brigadier Mohammad Furqan Shabbir all solemnly present at a Lashkar-e-Taiba camp funeral in Muridke. The names of the following Pakistani officials – Dr. Usman Anwar, Inspector General of Punjab Police and Malik Sohaib Ahmed Bherth, Member of the Provincial Assembly of Punjab – were also revealed.

The funerals were conducted with full state honours, coffins draped in Pakistan’s flag. Such imagery delivered a clear diplomatic message: Pakistan’s uniformed leaders were publicly aligning with terrorists, which directly contradicts Islamabad’s denials of state sponsorship. This evidence was meant to demonstrate to the international community that Pakistan’s military and political establishment cannot claim plausible deniability.

At the same time, India maintained a narrative of limited objectives. The forces struck specific targets “without seeking to overthrow [Pakistan] or destabilize, focusing on terrorists and their backers. This calculated approach aimed to avoid a wider war while imposing high costs. Diplomatically, India has portrayed this as a necessary self-defence action, using the parade of evidence (lists of dead terrorists, satellite photos, burial attendees) to justify its course.

The prompt rebuttal of rumours (e.g. denying any lost Rafale) was part of preserving credibility. Overall, Operation Sindoor demonstrates an evolving Indian posture: one of predetermined retaliation and steadfast deterrence, supported by clear communication to both domestic and international audiences.

Globally, Operation Sindoor has drawn international attention to the cross-border terror threat. By openly briefing journalists and sharing evidence, India sought to take the diplomatic initiative. The disclosures (terrorist body counts, funerals) were aimed at winning international sympathy and support for India’s right to self-defence. In practice, major powers have been cautious: the United States and others quickly supported the ceasefire call, but India has insisted on responsibility and consequences for Pakistan rather than mediation. India also signalledto regional partners and forums (e.g. Quad countries) that it can handle security threats effectively.

On balance, Sindoor has likely strengthened India’s global standing as a decisive counter-terror state. It projects an image of a confident India that can leverage its growing military capabilities – precision aviation, modern jets, intelligence and space assets, and a blue-water navy – to secure its interests. For Pakistan, the operation was a setback in terms of international reputation, forcing it to manage uncomfortable optics (its generals at funerals) and to limit escalation. For the wider region, the episode underscores the precariousness of the nuclear balance; India’s readiness to carry out a joint strike signal adds a new dimension to South Asian deterrence calculus.

In sum, Operation Sindoor achieved its military objectives with decisive force, while carefully managing escalation. It reinforced India’s deterrence by demonstrating that future provocations – from the Line of Control or elsewhere – will be met with rapid, large-scale retaliation. The operation also influenced doctrine and diplomacy: India has signalled readiness to act unilaterally against terror infrastructure, and to publicize evidence of Pakistani complicity. As a result, India’s international stance is strengthened (by backing from allies who deplore terrorism) and Pakistan is portrayed as a state backing and sponsoring terrorism.

Operation Sindoor thus marks a doctrinal shift: India has normalized “pre-emptive punitive response” as part of its strategic toolkit, reshaping how the subcontinent will handle cross-border terrorism going forward.

2025 India-Pakistan warOperation SindoorPahalgamterror attack