India-Pakistan Flashpoint: Was Operation Sindoor Inevitable — and Necessary?
11 May 2025 . #2501
Mayilvaganan Muthumariappan undertakes a critical analysis of the 2025 India-Pakistan standoff, triggered by the 2025 Pahalgam attack, and explores the rationale underlying ‘Operation Sindoor’ while reflecting on the wider prospects for future peace.
On May 7, 2025, India conducted a series of precision airstrikes, designated ‘Operation Sindoor,’ deep within Pakistani territory, targeting what it identified as terrorist infrastructure in Bahawalpur, Sialkot, and Muzaffarabad. This operation forms part of a comprehensive Indian strategic campaign that India initiated in response to the brutal attack in Pahalgam on April 22, which resulted in the loss of 26 civilian lives. The Indian government characterized these airstrikes as deliberate, justifiable, and long overdue, following a two-week period that drew the attention of both Pakistan and the international community to the acts of terrorism.
Notably, India accelerated its implementation of economic, diplomatic, and environmental measures against Pakistan, particularly managing the Indus water resources, before it initiated a military operation referred to as ‘Operation Sindoor.’ These airstrikes show India’s commitment to addressing the significant anguish endured by Indian women who have grieved the loss of their husbands, brothers, and fathers in Pahalgam.
Pakistani forces retaliated by engaging in shelling against the Indian side. Both nations framed their actions as measures of self-defense rather than acts of aggression. This development signifies a considerable escalation in hostilities between the two nuclear powers until both parties reached a ceasefire on May 10th, which the United States and a few other nations facilitated. This analysis evaluates India’s Operation Sindoor and the broader implications of terrorist activities based in Pakistan in Kashmir and India.
The Trigger: Pahalgam Attack
The recent flashpoint erupted following a terrorist attack on a tourist convoy in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, on April 22, 2025, which killed 25 Indian nationals and one Nepali citizen. The Islamic Resistance Front, an alleged offshoot of Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), reportedly executed the attack, quickly linking it to operatives based in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir.
The Indian government has established a comprehensive security framework in Kashmir under the Union government’s auspices since 2019, but the topography of Pahalgam makes it vulnerable to terrorist acts. Located in the Anantnag district, Pahalgam sits at the confluence of the Lidder and Aru rivers, at an elevation of approximately 2,130 meters (7,000 feet). Surrounded by pine forests and positioned near significant hotspots like Tral, Anantnag, and Kulgam, this location allows terrorists to move freely, complicating the efforts of security forces.
By specifically targeting tourists, the attackers aim to instill an atmosphere of fear and distrust, subsequently projecting a sense of insecurity and vulnerability among Indian citizens regarding Kashmir. In this way, they seek to undermine the perception of normalcy that Indian authorities promote, thereby eroding local confidence in security and governmental stability. Importantly, Pahalgam acts as a vital hub for the annual Amarnath Yatra, which generally occurs from June to August and attracts tens of thousands of Hindu pilgrims. This assault galvanized public opinion throughout India and provoked national sentiments, leading to widespread calls for retaliation.
India’s Broader Response
India concluded its period of restraint in 2016, as the Indian government decided to respond promptly to any terrorist activities occurring within its territory, citing Pakistan’s insufficient measures to regulate the terrorist factions operating within its borders. Thus, the Indian government must take decisive action following the Pahalgham incident for three reasons: first, to address the tragic loss of civilian lives at Pahalgham; second, to restore public confidence by showing that it is acting promptly; and third, to establish the necessary conditions for the upcoming annual Amarnath yatra, expected to begin in June/July, while also preventing any potential future attacks within the state.
Consequently, India took the unprecedented step of suspending the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty and obstructed the flow of water from the Indus River into Pakistan, a provision allowed under the treaty. For decades, India permitted billions of cubic meters of unutilized water from the Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej rivers to flow into Pakistan, as outlined by the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), even as militant groups based in Pakistan engaged in terrorist activities along these very rivers.
Additionally, India implemented various economic and diplomatic measures to isolate Pakistan. These actions included banning direct and indirect imports from Pakistan and advocating for Pakistan’s continued presence on the Financial Action Task Force’s grey list due to concerns about terror financing. Moreover, India instituted restrictions on media, series, and films from Pakistan on OTT platforms like Netflix and Amazon. Furthermore, India initiated a significant diplomatic effort after the attacks by engaging foreign missions in New Delhi.
The Strikes: Operation Sindoor
Between 1:05 and 1:30 a.m. IST on May 7, Indian forces conducted a series of coordinated airstrikes that targeted nine locations within Pakistan and Pakistan-held Kashmir. The operation involved Rafale fighter jets, which received support from airborne early warning systems and electronic warfare aircraft while targeting training camps and logistical centers linked to Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) in various sites, including Bahawalpur, Muridke, Sialkot, and Muzaffarabad. India asserted that the strikes aimed to avoid damage to both military and civilian infrastructures, focusing instead on “non-state actors” using precision munitions such as SCALP cruise missiles and AASM Hammer bombs.
The Indian government did not execute ‘Operation Sindoor’ in isolation; instead, it took action amid intensified political and domestic pressures, compelling the government to respond decisively against the perpetrators and ultimately leading to the initiation of Operation Sindoor on May 7, 2025.
India’s response carries significance that goes beyond mere military strategy; it sends a broader message intricately embedded within the country’s actions. The Indian security apparatus asserts that it harbors those responsible for the Phalgham attack, including handlers and trainers, across the Line of Control. Consequently, India deems ‘Operation Sindoor’ essential.
In 2016 and 2019, India executed decisive surgical strikes on terrorist camps in Pakistan-held Kashmir, yet terrorists continue to exploit sovereign borders for protection after committing heinous crimes on Indian soil. Consequently, India now asserts that merely targeting Pakistan-held Kashmir fails to deter the terrorist groups operating from Pakistan. As a result, India has reevaluated its strategic posture and is conducting operations that extend into Pakistani territory to send a decisive message.
Pakistan’s Denial and Retaliation
Pakistan formally condemned the Indian airstrikes, calling them a breach of its sovereignty and labeling the attacks as “unprovoked aggression” that resulted in civilian casualties, with reports indicating at least 26 fatalities and 46 injuries. Furthermore, it alleged that five Indian aircraft were downed, including a Rafale, prompting serious concerns about escalating tensions in the region. In response, the Pakistani military intensified shelling along the Line of Control (LoC), particularly affecting the Rajouri, Poonch, and Kupwara sectors, which heightened fears among local populations. Conversely, India denied these claims, stating that all its jets returned safely after targeting only terror camps, while emphasizing its strategic capabilities and reinforcing its narrative of accountability.
International Response and Ceasefire
The United Nations, the United States, the European Union, China, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Russia, among others, have urgently called for the de-escalation of tensions advocating for it. While most global actors recognize India’s security concerns, they also offer cautionary advice against actions that could potentially spark a full-scale conflict.
President Trump initially expressed hope that India and Pakistan would cease their reciprocal actions at this time. Secretary of State Marco Rubio spoke with officials from India and Pakistan to help reduce tensions. In a conversation with Indian External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar, he expressed condolences for the April 22 terrorist attack in Kashmir that killed 26 people, mostly Indian tourists. He affirmed the U.S. commitment to work with India against terrorism. During his call with Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, Rubio expressed sadness over the loss of civilian lives in the ongoing conflict and urged Pakistan to stop supporting terrorist groups. China, an ally of Pakistan, adopted a restrained position, encouraging both parties to uphold regional peace without explicitly condemning the Indian military action.
Subsequently, on May 10th, U.S. President Donald Trump announced on his Truth Social platform that the U.S. had brokered an end to the fighting, declaring that India and Pakistan had agreed to a “full and immediate” ceasefire. This announcement was particularly unexpected since just days earlier, Vice President JD Vance had stated that the conflict was “fundamentally, none of our business.”
Conflicting narratives persist regarding the negotiations surrounding the ceasefire. While the United States’ involvement has received praise from Pakistan, India is trying to downplay it—determined to portray the ceasefire as a success and claiming that the neighboring nations engaged in “direct” talks on the agreement.
Regardless of the specific role that the United States played in bringing the air warfare to a conclusion, the White House consistently engaged in dialogue with both nations, as India and Pakistan, unlike Ukraine and Russia or Israel and Hamas, are nuclear-armed states, rendering the de-escalation of conflict essential for global security.
Nevertheless, the ceasefire has provided substantial relief to the civilians in the border areas of both countries and the general population overall.
Prospects of Peace
India diligently endeavors to achieve peace, particularly by seeking a Kashmir devoid of terrorism and promoting cooperation with its neighboring countries. New Delhi recognizes that it cannot realize this peace through inaction. Furthermore, it has grown increasingly weary of the persistent appeals to the international community about the atrocities that Pakistan-based terrorist groups commit in India.
Importantly, India has proactively engaged in dialogue, compiled considerable dossiers, and pursued diplomatic avenues; however, it has faced responses fraught with loss of life, violence, and bombings. The critical inquiry that resonates among Indians and, presumably, across the globe concerns the outcomes that Pakistan has achieved by unleashing terrorist groups.
The implications are significant: in the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing, Ramzi Yousef, a key conspirator, received training in terrorist camps was captured in Pakistan in February 1995. The hijackers associated with the 1999 Indian Airlines Flight 814 hijacking were reportedly linked to Harkat-ul-Mujahideen, an organization based in Pakistan. Furthermore, in the 2001 Indian Parliament Attack, India identified Jaish-e-Mohammed and Lashkar-e-Taiba, both anchored in Pakistan, as responsible parties. Evidence also indicated connections to Pakistan regarding the 2005 London Bombings, while the 2008 Mumbai Attacks were explicitly orchestrated by Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), which is based in Pakistan. Additionally, the 2010 Times Square Bomb Attempt involved Faisal Shahzad, a U.S. citizen of Pakistani origin, who had undergone training with Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP).
India seeks clarity on whether Pakistan will ultimately take decisive action against the groups that jeopardize its own future or whether it will continue to exacerbate the situation, inviting further missile assaults repeatedly.
Despite the existing tensions between both nations, neither party shows an inclination to escalate into a conventional, full-scale war. The specter of nuclear deterrence significantly restrains both nations from crossing predetermined thresholds. Nonetheless, the risks of miscalculation remain alarmingly high.
Given the fragility of communications and the absence of trust, any localized confrontation could quickly evolve into a more extensive conflict. Therefore, while the immediate future is fraught with uncertainty, one fact is evident—South Asia stands at a precarious and critical juncture. Whether this moment serves as a catalyst for addressing terrorism in the region or leads to increased instability hinges on the actions of Islamabad and the involvement of the international community.
Dr. M. Mayilvaganan is Director of CHSIA.
Views expressed are of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the CHSIA.