As expected, India has struck back to avenge the Pahalgam massacre. The Armed Forces launched Operation Sindoor on May 7, 2025. The name has a symbolic significance. Sindoor or vermilion mark is worn by married Hindu women. It is also worn by the warriors on their foreheads. The operation targeted terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir (PoJK). So, what are Operation Sindoor’s broader implications? Would it help address India’s strategic objectives? What could be its potential economic, geostrategic, and geopolitical consequences? Is an all-out war a possibility?
Purpose of Launching Operation Sindoor
The primary purpose of Operation Sindoor was to neutralise terrorist infrastructure responsible for planning and executing the Pahalgam-type attacks against India. The Indian Ministry of Defence identified nine terror camps across Pakistan and PoJK, linked to groups like Jaish-e-Mohammed, Lashkar-e-Taiba, and Hizbul Mujahideen, as targets. These groups were implicated in the April 22 brutal massacre of Hindu tourists, including newlyweds, that evoked widespread outrage in India.
The operation aimed to disrupt the operational capabilities of terrorist organisations and signal a zero-tolerance policy toward cross-border terrorism. The operation is a direct response to the loss of civilian lives. It resonates due to the cultural symbolism of targeting newly married men, as highlighted by the viral image of Himanshi Narwal, a widow of Navy Lieutenant Vinay Narwal.
Operation Sindoor underscores India’s commitment to holding perpetrators accountable, reinforcing its military and political resolve against Pakistan-backed terrorism. It was designed to avoid targeting Pakistani military facilities, emphasising restraint to prevent broader conflict while addressing terrorism.
Weapon Systems Used
Operation Sindoor was a joint operation by the Indian Army, Navy, and Air Force. It used advanced precision weapons to ensure accuracy and minimise collateral damage. Probably, air-to-ground missiles and guided bombs were used to target terror camps. These systems, possibly delivered by Indian Air Force (IAF) jets like the Dassault Rafale or Sukhoi Su-30 MKI, ensured high accuracy. The operation involved coordinated land and sea-based assets. Probably, naval platforms were used for launching BrahMos cruise missiles.
Advanced surveillance, satellite imagery, and signals intelligence guided the strikes. Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) or loitering munitions, such as Harop drones, may have been deployed for real-time targeting. The absence of strikes on Pakistani military facilities indicates the use of standoff weapons launched from Indian airspace, reducing the risk of direct confrontation.
The operation showcased India’s technological advancements in precision warfare, aligning with its modernisation efforts to counter asymmetric threats from Pakistan.
Effectiveness
The Operation Sindoor struck nine terror sites, including JeM’s stronghold in Bahawalpur and LeT’s base in Muridke. There are reports of deaths of at least 17 terrorists and injuries to 60 others. The strikes targeted key infrastructure in Kotli, Muzaffarabad, Muridke, and Faisalabad, disrupting planning and logistics hubs. Pakistan’s changing strategies to conceal terror camps were countered through extensive intelligence, suggesting a setback for these groups. The operation reinforced India’s capability to strike deep into Pakistani territory while maintaining a non-escalatory stance. This certainly enhances deterrence.
Pakistan has claimed civilian casualties, including three deaths, and alleged strikes on mosques, which India denied. These claims could fuel anti-India sentiment and complicate India’s narrative internationally. Additionally, the long-term impact on terror groups depends on their ability to reconstitute, which Pakistan’s support could facilitate. While Operation Sindoor achieved its immediate objectives, its long-term effectiveness hinges on sustained diplomatic and military pressure to prevent terror groups from regrouping.
Reactions of Pakistan, China, Turkey, and Muslim Countries
Pakistan
Apart from the expected condemnation, Pakistan has mobilised its forces. It has violated the ceasefire along the Line of Control, shelling Indian positions in Poonch and Rajouri. The rhetoric, including ISPR’s warning of “enduring grief” for India, suggests potential escalation, though immediate retaliation was limited.
China
China has not yet issued an official response but is closely monitoring developments. Given the strong China-Pakistan relationship, reinforced through the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), China is likely to support Pakistan diplomatically. But it will also urge restraint to protect its economic investments. Beijing’s silence may reflect strategic caution, balancing its rivalry with India and regional stability.
Turkey
Turkey has a history of supporting Pakistan on Kashmir. But it has not publicly commented on Operation Sindoor. Its alignment with Pakistan in forums like the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation suggests potential criticism of India’s actions, framing them as violations of sovereignty. Turkey’s response may be tempered by its own geopolitical priorities, including relations with the European Union and NATO.
Muslim Countries
Reactions from Muslim-majority countries vary. Saudi Arabia and the UAE were briefed by Indian officials and are likely to adopt a neutral stance, prioritising economic relations. Pakistan claimed support at the UN Security Council, but OIC has not condemned the Operation Sindoor. Iran may advocate de-escalation due to its regional interests. The lack of unified criticism reflects India’s growing diplomatic clout in the Muslim world.
Reactions of the USA, EU, Russia, and India’s Neighbours
United States
The U.S. was briefed by Indian officials and is monitoring developments. President Donald Trump expressed hope that the conflict “ends very quickly”. The U.S. supports India’s counterterrorism objectives but urges restraint to avoid destabilising the region. It needs to protect its interests in Afghanistan and also counter China’s growing influence.
European Union
The EU, through its member states like the UK, was briefed by India. The closed-door UNSC consultations, where envoys called for de-escalation, suggest EU concerns about regional stability. The EU may back India’s right to self-defence but emphasise dialogue to prevent escalation, aligning with its focus on global security.
Russia
Russia is a traditional Indian ally. It was briefed on Operation Sindoor. Its response is supportive of India’s counterterrorism efforts, given Moscow’s own concerns about terrorism. Russia may advocate for de-escalation to maintain its balancing act between India and China, ensuring stability in South Asia.
India’s Neighbours
As a victim of the Pahalgam attack (one Nepali citizen killed), Nepal may support India’s actions. But it will avoid overt alignment due to its delicate balance with China. Bangladesh, with strong ties to India, may privately endorse the operation but publicly call for restraint to avoid regional fallout. Sri Lanka and the Maldives are wary of Chinese influence. They are likely to remain neutral, focusing on economic ties with India. Bhutan is a close Indian ally. It is expected to support India’s actions.
The global response reflects a cautious acknowledgement of India’s counterterrorism rationale. It is tempered by calls for de-escalation to prevent a broader conflict.
Economic, Geostrategic, and Geopolitical Effects
Economic Effects
Operation Sindoor has immediate and potential long-term economic implications. The suspension of commercial flights in northern India and the closure of educational institutions in border areas disrupt local economies. Defence spending may increase, straining budgets.
Shelling and heightened military alertness disrupt border trade and local economies in Pakistan. International sanctions risks, given Pakistan’s efforts to evade FATF scrutiny, could worsen economic woes. The suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty by India could impact Pakistan’s agriculture, escalating economic tensions. Regional trade, including SAARC initiatives, may stall.
Geostrategic Effects
The operation reinforces India’s proactive stance against terrorism. It may deter future attacks. But the risk of Pakistani retaliation exists. The LoC remains a flashpoint, with ceasefire violations escalating tensions.
China’s investments in Pakistan via CPEC make it a stakeholder in regional stability. Operation Sindoor may prompt China to bolster Pakistan’s defences, intensifying the India-China rivalry.
The U.S. may increase engagement to mediate, while Russia’s support strengthens India’s strategic position. Both powers seek to prevent a nuclear escalation.
Geopolitical Effects
Operation Sindoor enhances India’s image as a decisive actor against terrorism. However, Pakistan’s narrative of civilian casualties could challenge India’s diplomatic efforts. The operation may strain India’s relations with Pakistan’s allies like Turkey but strengthen ties with nations like the UAE and Saudi Arabia, reflecting India’s growing influence. The India-Pakistan-China nuclear dynamic remains a concern. Operation Sindoor’s restraint avoids crossing nuclear thresholds, but escalation risks persist.
Possibility of an All-Out War
The likelihood of an all-out war between India and Pakistan following Operation Sindoor is low but not negligible.
Factors Against War:
India’s avoidance of Pakistani military targets and emphasis on non-escalatory strikes reduce the immediate trigger for war. The UNSC’s call for de-escalation, backed by the U.S., EU, and Russia, exerts diplomatic pressure to prevent escalation. The mutual nuclear threat may encourage restraint to avoid catastrophic consequences.
Factors Favouring Escalation:
Pakistan’s vow to retaliate, coupled with LoC shelling, suggests potential for tit-for-tat actions that could spiral. Nationalist sentiments in both countries, amplified by the Pahalgam attack and Pakistan’s claims of civilian deaths, could push leaders toward escalation. Small-scale conflicts could inadvertently escalate if miscommunication or miscalculation occurs.
So, while an all-out war is unlikely due to global mediation and nuclear deterrence, localised skirmishes along the LoC remain probable, requiring vigilant diplomacy to prevent broader conflict.
Conclusion
Operation Sindoor represents a bold yet calculated response to Pakistan-backed terrorism. It has achieved its immediate objectives of disrupting terror infrastructure and asserting India’s resolve. The operation targeted nine terror sites, showcasing India’s military capabilities. Reactions from Pakistan, China, and Muslim countries reflect geopolitical alignments, while the U.S., EU, Russia, and India’s neighbours advocate de-escalation. The operation’s economic, geostrategic, and geopolitical effects underscore the delicate balance in South Asia. But the Indus Waters Treaty suspension and LoC tensions are flashpoints. While an all-out war is unlikely, the risk of localised escalation necessitates diplomatic efforts to stabilise the region. Operation Sindoor, named for its cultural and warrior symbolism, reinforces India’s counterterrorism stance but highlights the challenges of navigating a volatile geopolitical landscape.
India Pakistan conflict, Operation Sindoor, Pahalgam massacre, Indian airstrike 2025, India strikes Pakistan, cross-border terrorism, India Pakistan tensions, Indian military operation, PoK terror camps, Jaish-e-Mohammed, Lashkar-e-Taiba, South Asia security, India counterterrorism, Indo-Pak relations, geopolitical analysis, India defence news, Indian Armed Forces, India surgical strike, Pakistan response, Line of Control tensions, India military strategy, terrorism in Kashmir, India Pakistan war risk, India defence policy, Indian air force strike
No comments:
Post a Comment