Operation Sindoor, India’s most recent military response to a cross-border terrorism incident, represents much more than an operational mission; it marks a turning point in India’s security stance and has birthed a new doctrine. Due to the nature of its speed of execution and its audacious messaging, it demonstrates that military response to terrorism is no longer isolated; it is now part of India’s national security strategy. This transformation changes not only India’s approach, but the entire strategic dynamics of South Asia, and re-calibrates New Delhi’s levels of forbearance regarding Pakistan-based terror.
There are important lessons that can be drawn from the conduct of Operation Sindoor which indicate how this incident represents a break from historical Indian responses to non-ratifying of unilateral pacts; from Lahore Declaration that reaffirmed commitment to the Simla Accord, which also was never horoured by Pakistan; and in turn what it suggests for the future of the region.
This is not an ill-judged “stunt” that the global media has largely assumed. This is a strategy, and that too an enduring one. The 2016 surgical strikes and Balakot airstrikes of 2019 were viewed as unique, retaliatory events tied to the past. They had symbolic implications, but were intended as isolated events. Countries can have incidents of reprisal, and be seen, in media discourse, as “not known to normally apply military capabilities in such a manner,” but Operation Sindoor is both identifiable and intended as a different form of an enduring strategy. Other than a spectacle, that may in itself, have singular implications. This is a clear and formal articulation of a strategy of an active deterrent capacity, that probably doesn’t need degree of collateral under no circumstances whatsoever. The message is unequivocal, and deliberately so; cross-border terrorism is now also met with military responses. No longer will we see strategic restraint, that inherently framed India’s responses to Pakistan in the past. Now, we see something close to a doctrine of active deterrence; an evolution, much more with action than hesitation, and with preemptive diplomacy or defense (diplomacy that embodies the power to act first over an adversary) rather than as reactive responses to diplomacy.
With Operation Sindoor, India is challenging the concept of ‘Terrorism as War,’ given it’s Grey Zone activities. Traditionally, terrorism was a sub-conventional threat, with it being serious, but below the threshold of formal warfare. This allowed Pakistan to conduct a kind of “asymmetric warfare,” where Pakistan could host and deploy non-state actors against India, but not face the repercussions of a full blown conflict. Operation Sindoor rejects this distinction. By declaring that acts of terrorism from Pakistani soil are acts of war, India has erased the distinction between state and proxy as well as conventional and unconventional. The implication is powerful: Any terror attacks from groups based in Pakistan may invite real-time military responses, with the issue of escalation now reverted back to Islamabad.
Previous to this, Indian responses to terrorism attacks usually amounted to constructing diplomatic cases, forming dossiers, suggesting cooperative investigations, or offering “credibly evidence,” all with a view to developing international pressure upon Pakistan. Those attempts have normally failed to keep future attacks at bay or bring any of the attackers to book meaningfully. With Operation Sindoor, India is indicating a necessary shift. If Pakistan occupies and hosts terror groups, and these terror groups conduct themselves with impunity and attack India, that’s enough for action. No more ‘Dossier Diplomacy.’ Further, evidence was previously a harbinger of military action, politically useless today. Hence, India is setting its own standards for action, instead of waiting for international or bilateral or multilateral permission.
The muted but predictable calls coming from Western capitals for “restraint on both sides”, have now been relegated to background noise, in the halls of power (read action) in New Delhi. The implicit expectation that India must always exercise diplomatic forbearance in absorbing attacks has lost its credibility. With Operation Sindoor, India is asserting separation from perceptions of world opinion, asserting that its response to terrorism will no longer be perceived through the filter of its allies’ or Western approval or by the terms of multilateral treaties; it will be considered an internal issue to resolve. This is a coming of age moment for Indian foreign policy: the articulation of strategic autonomy, in both words and actions. If her allies wish to do so, they may “support” India in its actions, and align their counter-terrorism policies accordingly, if they see it fit. In any case, India will continue to act upon its own right of the national interest regardless of what pretense of consensus either “friends” or diplomats wish to offer.
Operation Sindoor has created a new standard for India-Pakistan relations and may mark the end of any bilateral framework as we have known it. The sustained bilateral dialogue, cultural exchanges, back-channel initiatives, and other attempts are all well and good as moving forward toward some possible framework for peace and stability, however, these steps seem to be now gone. Instead, we now just have a clear, ‘security-first’ posture with little room for accommodating traditional bilateral relations. The burden of de-escalation has now been placed squarely back on to Pakistan: eliminate all terror infrastructure, or else. The notion that we can continue goodwill again Pakistan’s persistent cross-border terrorism has been outrightly rejected.
Operation Sindoor symbolizes more than a military action, it signifies an evolution of the Indian strategic thought. For years, India has delicately balanced between a firm response to incursions across the line and avoiding escalation. That calculus has changed. By putting military retaliation as part of its policy options and decoupled the notion of India’s actions from international opinion or conventions of diplomacy, India has given a clear signal: it will protect its sovereignty on its own terms, and it will treat terrorism manifesting from across the border as an act of war, not a crime.
Pakistan has reached a critical moment in its history. The old rules no longer apply. And for the international community, especially for those that are concerned with regional stability, Operation Sindoor serves as a clear signal that South Asia’s tenuous peace is facing a perilous danger unless the root causes of terrorism are tackled head on.
Will this doctrine lead to deterrence of future attacks, or drive the subcontinent closer to a perilous precipice? Only time will tell.
