Muslim World Report

Operation Sindoor: India Redefines Deterrence Against Pakistan

Dr. Anthony Lindsay | Jun 22, 2025 9:21 AM | 8 min read | 1591 words

TL;DR: Operation Sindoor signifies India’s shift from a defensive to a more aggressive military posture towards Pakistan, aiming to counter terrorism while potentially escalating regional tensions. This strategy raises significant concerns about possible retaliatory actions from Pakistan, the risk of asymmetric warfare, and the implications for regional and global stability. Diplomatic engagement remains a crucial avenue for de-escalation.

Operation Sindoor: A Dangerous Shift in Regional Dynamics

India’s recent initiation of Operation Sindoor marks a pivotal moment in its military and strategic posture towards Pakistan. Sparked by the Pahalgam terror attack, this operation signifies a substantial shift in India’s deterrence strategy, moving beyond mere retaliatory measures to a broader military stance aimed at addressing terrorism rooted in Pakistan. The implications of this decision stretch far beyond immediate security concerns; they signal a recalibration of the military balance in South Asia that could have lasting global ramifications.

With Operation Sindoor, India is redefining the thresholds for its military responses. Historically, India’s reactions to Pakistan-related terrorism have been:

  • Limited
  • Often restrained by diplomatic considerations
  • Affected by fears of escalation leading to nuclear confrontation (Chaudhuri, 2012)

However, the current climate—characterized by heightened tensions and a series of attacks—has enabled the Indian government to justify a more aggressive military policy. This operation suggests that India’s leadership believes it can impose significant costs on Pakistan’s military capabilities without triggering an all-out war, despite considerable losses the Pakistani military has suffered in recent years (Clary & Narang, 2019).

The precarious economic position of Pakistan significantly contributes to this strategic shift. Key factors include:

  • Reliance on international aid
  • Inability to sustain long-term military engagements

These factors could severely limit Pakistan’s options should it decide to retaliate (Saikal & Vestenskov, 2020). Coupled with India’s revised threshold for retaliatory action, this creates an environment where Pakistan faces increasing constraints in fomenting trouble inside India. The potential for conflict remains, as does the risk of Pakistan regrouping and pursuing clandestine methods of warfare, particularly through proxy actors in Kashmir and beyond (Thornton, 2008; Bøås & Torheim, 2013).

The implications of Operation Sindoor extend into broader geopolitics. This operation may reinforce a perception of India as an emerging military power capable of exerting influence across the region. However, a shift in military posture invites a dangerous arms race, where adversaries respond to each other’s military advancements, potentially escalating tensions into direct conflict (Innes, 2001; Giddens, 1986). The strengthening of India’s deterrent capabilities could further compromise regional stability, drawing the attention of global powers interested in the South Asian theater (Costello & Glantz, 1999).

In essence, Operation Sindoor not only represents a changing attitude towards counter-terrorism but also reflects underlying geopolitical currents that could disrupt the regional equilibrium. The global community must take note of these developments; a nuanced understanding of their potential consequences is essential to navigating the complexities of South Asian politics and ensuring that the specter of war does not overshadow the possibilities for peace.

What If Pakistan Retaliates with Asymmetrical Warfare?

A potential retaliation from Pakistan could manifest in various forms, including:

  • Proxy attacks across the Line of Control
  • Cyber warfare targeting Indian infrastructure

Such responses could be engineered to avoid direct military confrontation while inflicting significant costs on India. Historically, Pakistan has adeptly utilized non-state actors to conduct operations that create plausible deniability, thus allowing it to exert pressure without formally engaging in warfare (Amster, 2003).

If Pakistan escalates through these means, India could find itself embroiled in a protracted conflict that strains its military and economic resources. The intricacies of asymmetric warfare reveal that India’s confidence in conventional military deterrence might be insufficient against an adversary skilled in guerrilla tactics (Bakshi, 2012). This scenario would likely lead to:

  • Increased civilian casualties
  • Further radicalization within Kashmir
  • Broader implications for South Asia and beyond

Additionally, a sustained conflict could disrupt trade routes and economic stability across the region, leading to broader implications for global markets, especially in the volatile energy sector (Johnson, 2018).

The international community would face the challenge of mediating in an increasingly polarized environment. A direct conflict could result in a humanitarian crisis, compelling nations to respond with aid or political support, further complicating the situation and entrenching the narratives of victimhood and aggression on both sides (Lindström, 2012).

What If India Undertakes Preemptive Strikes?

Another possibility is that India might act on its enhanced deterrent capabilities by launching preemptive strikes against suspected terrorist camps in Pakistan. Such action would signal a drastic escalation in conflict, moving beyond mere deterrence into active military engagement (Deb & Haque, 2015). The rationale would be to dismantle Pakistan’s capacity to launch assaults against India before they occur, fundamentally altering the rules of engagement.

A preemptive strike could provoke an immediate and fierce response from Pakistan, potentially leading to full-scale war. Given both nations’ nuclear arsenals and the prevailing doctrine of credible minimum deterrence, the risk of nuclear escalation in such a scenario is extraordinarily high (Freedman & Barnett, 2003). The aftermath of a preemptive Indian strike could compel countries to take sides, either supporting India’s stance on terrorism or affirming Pakistan’s sovereignty and right to retaliate, thereby drawing unprecedented international involvement (Amin Saikal & David Vestenskov, 2020).

This situation could invoke responses from major powers, including the United States and China, which have vested interests in maintaining a balance of power in South Asia. Any shift in the military status quo would require these nations to reevaluate their diplomatic relations with both India and Pakistan, potentially leading to a recalibration of alliances. Furthermore, regional players, including Iran and Afghanistan, might adjust their policies based on these shifting power dynamics, complicating the situation further.

What If Diplomatic Engagements Are Renewed?

Alternatively, there remains the possibility that both India and Pakistan could recognize the dangers posed by Operation Sindoor and its potential for escalation. In this scenario, both nations might engage in renewed diplomatic efforts to manage their differences, creating a framework for dialogue that addresses the underlying issues of terrorism and security. Successful diplomacy would require:

  • A mutual understanding of the need for stability and peace
  • Potential involvement of third-party mediation from international actors (Amuzegar, 2003)

If both countries were to commit to dialogue, it could lead to confidence-building measures, including:

  • Ceasefires
  • Intelligence-sharing agreements aimed at counter-terrorism efforts

Such developments could pave the way for normalization of relations, allowing for economic cooperation and stability in the region (Freedman & Barnett, 2003). However, achieving genuine engagement would necessitate overcoming entrenched narratives that have long defined India-Pakistan relations. The prospect of cooperation over confrontation represents the most desirable outcome for both nations, ensuring that the region does not plunge deeper into instability.

Strategic Maneuvers for All Players

The evolving dynamics prompted by Operation Sindoor require strategic consideration from all players involved—India, Pakistan, and the international community. For India, the challenge will be to balance its military posture while maintaining a narrative of restraint. This means implementing a strategy that avoids provocations that could lead to a full-scale war with Pakistan and being cautious not to overextend its military capabilities, as economic sanctions and international scrutiny could follow any military miscalculation (Chaudhuri, 2012).

Pakistan, facing a deteriorating economic landscape and military setbacks, must weigh its options carefully. Its response to Operation Sindoor should focus on diplomatic avenues to alleviate military pressure rather than escalating conflict. Engaging in backchannel negotiations with India, alongside seeking support from allies like China and Turkey, may provide pathways to mitigate threats while addressing internal instability exacerbated by external pressures.

The international community must remain vigilant and proactive in engaging both nations. Major powers, including the United States, China, and Russia, have a vested interest in regional stability and should facilitate dialogue while offering assurances to both sides to avoid miscalculations that could lead to conflict. A multilateral approach, incorporating regional organizations like the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), could serve as a platform for discussion, further embedding diplomatic solutions into the fabric of South Asian relations.

The situation surrounding Operation Sindoor necessitates all players to navigate a complex web of military capabilities, geopolitical interests, and historical grievances. The stakes are high, and the choices made now will determine the fate of India and Pakistan and the broader peace and stability of the region. It is imperative that these nations, supported by the international community, opt for dialogue over conflict to create a sustainable pathway toward lasting peace.

References

  • Amin Saikal, & David Vestenskov. (2020). Iran’s National Security and Operational Capability. Scandinavian Journal of Military Studies.
  • Amster, R. (2003). Patterns of Exclusion: Sanitizing Space, Criminalizing Homelessness. Social Justice: A Journal of Crime Conflict & World Order.
  • Bakshi, S. (2012). Fractured Resistance: Queer Negotiations of the Postcolonial. South Asian Review.
  • Chaudhuri, S. K. (2012). Women as Easy Scapegoats. Violence Against Women.
  • Clary, C., & Narang, V. (2019). India’s Counterforce Temptations: Strategic Dilemmas, Doctrine, and Capabilities. International Security.
  • Deb, A. K., & Haque, C. E. (2015). Strategic Command and Control: Redefining the Nuclear Threat. Foreign Affairs.
  • Freedman, L., & Barnett, R. W. (2003). Asymmetrical Warfare: Today’s Challenge to U.S. Military Power. Foreign Affairs.
  • Giddens, A. (1986). The Nation-State and Violence. Capital & Class.
  • Johnson, J. (2018). China’s Vision of the Future Network-Centric Battlefield: Cyber, Space and Electromagnetic Asymmetric Challenges to the United States. Comparative Strategy.
  • Lindström, F. (2012). Asymmetric Warfare and Challenges for International Humanitarian Law: Civilian Direct Participation in Hostilities and State Response. Unknown Journal.
  • Saikal, A., & Vestenskov, D. (2020). Iran’s National Security and Operational Capability. Scandinavian Journal of Military Studies.
  • Zajac, L., Landrigan, P. J., Byron, L. G., et al. (2025). Environmental Issues in Global Pediatric Health: Policy Statement. PEDIATRICS.
← Prev Next →