Let us first address the question of ceasefire. The cessation of active military operations came into effect on 10 May 2025. However, there were massive violations on the night of 10 May from the Pakistani side. India’s Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri had to call an (almost) midnight press conference to read the riot act to Pakistan. Fortunately, the situation stabilised thereafter.
There are many voices in India questioning the logic of the ceasefire, especially at a stage when we were presumably ahead or winning. The argument is that we were not done punishing Pakistan and should have continued.
People must understand that when the government sends the armed forces to war, it lays down—very clearly—the conditions for termination. If we were to decipher those conditions from official briefings and press notes, it becomes clear that we were willing to de-escalate the moment the other side agreed to cease military operations. Therefore, as soon as Pakistan’s DGMO offered to cease operations, our conditions were met.
A more detailed analysis will naturally follow in military HQs and various ministries, but at this stage, the ceasefire is a wise decision. It’s important to note that this is a cessation of fire, not of hostilities. The possibility of rapid escalation still exists.
Also read: Did India achieve deterrence? Depends on whether Pakistan was psychologically bruised
Operation Sindoor: Retaliation after Pahalgam attack
The trigger for Operation Sindoor was the dastardly attack on tourists perpetrated by Pakistan-backed terrorists on 22 April 2025 in Pahalgam. India launched air strikes on terror infrastructure during the intervening nights of 6 and 7 May, naming the mission ‘Operation Sindoor’. This was an unprecedented military operation—in peacetime, India had never struck Pakistan at this scale.
It was unprecedented for several other reasons as well:
1. Strategic autonomy
In the aftermath of the Pahalgam incident, most major powers condemned the attack but were unwilling to hold Pakistan accountable. Many advised India to accept Pakistan’s offer of a joint investigation. Having burnt our fingers in past joint investigations after the 26/11 and Pathankot attacks, India was unwilling to waste time or resources on a similar effort.
India carried out these strikes without waiting for UN Security Council sanctions or approval from major global powers. This move reflected India’s strategic autonomy. Operation Sindoor’s success—including the elimination of UN-designated terrorists like Maulana Yusuf Azhar—underscored India’s ability to act decisively without external validation.
2. Willingness to escalate under nuclear overhang
India offered Pakistan an off-ramp after the initial strikes, which was declined. In subsequent waves, India selectively targeted military sites, including C2 nodes, radars, weapon storage facilities, and airbases. India was well-prepared for escalation and held the Pakistani military accountable for enabling terrorism.
This approach dismantled Pakistan’s twin strategy of deniability and nuclear sabre-rattling. In the past, Pakistan would deny involvement or blame rogue elements within the Establishment. When faced with a conventional Indian response, it would threaten mutual annihilation. India called this bluff.
3. Economic despair vs military arrogance: Pakistan’s hubris
Even while engaged in a conflict with a much larger adversary, Pakistan was seeking international loans to stay economically afloat. The contradiction of pleading for economic assistance while spending heavily on its military exposed the hubris in Pakistan’s strategic calculus. It also revealed how out of touch the Pakistani military establishment is with the struggles of the awaam.
4. Denial of safe sanctuary
Operation Sindoor exposed the vulnerabilities in Pakistan’s air defense network. India struck targets deep within Pakistan using a combination of BrahMos missiles, HAMMER, and SCALP munitions. Even heavily defended locations like the Nur Khan Airbase in Rawalpindi were within reach.
This shattered the myth of impregnable Pakistani defenses. While the strikes may not have knocked Pakistan’s military out of contention, they clearly revealed the path to destruction should hostilities continue.
5. Testing strategic patience
The Pahalgam terror attack tested India’s strategic patience and restraint. Pakistan miscalculated, assuming India would absorb the provocation. It was a strategic misreading of India’s evolving posture. Previously, Pakistan operated in a grey zone—training and arming terrorists while hiding behind deniability. Not anymore.
In its revised doctrine of assured retaliation, India has made it clear: any act of terror will be treated as an act of war.
Also read: Operation Sindoor aimed at hands that wield the gun, not brains that control the hand
Operation Bunyan Ul Marsoos: Pakistan’s failed response
Pakistan’s military response, Operation Bunyan al Marsoos, launched on 10 May, carries significant symbolic messaging. Derived from Quranic verse Surah Al-Saff (61:4), the operation’s name reflected a deliberate attempt to frame the action in religious-ideological, rather than purely military, terms.
The operation failed to inflict significant damage or deter India from further retaliatory strikes. The plan to use religious terminology to evoke sympathy and garner support from the broader Islamic Ummah failed miserably.
A notable development was the Indian ulema supporting Operation Sindoor. This countered Pakistan’s traditional monopoly over Islamic religious narratives. Historically, Pakistan has used religious fatwas to portray itself as a victim of Indian aggression. But Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind and Darul Uloom Deoband, with their statements supporting the Indian response, neutralised that narrative.
This shift has ramifications beyond the battlefield. By asserting religious legitimacy, India weakened Pakistan’s ability to mobilise Islamic support internationally.
Information domain
Some critical—and unpleasant—lessons emerged in the information domain.
In today’s hyper-information age, people consume information at a massive rate. These operations revealed the unpreparedness of traditional media, the unreliability of social media, and the undeniable need for a strong, official narrative.
The information space abhors a vacuum. In the absence of verified official versions, fake news fills the gap. In a cut-throat, breaking-news environment, news channels picked up unverified social media content and passed it off as news. Recent advances in AI have made it even easier for malicious actors to spread disinformation.
Though the truth eventually emerges, the damage to institutional reputation is already done by then.
The key lesson: we must provide accurate and truthful information through official channels—however unpleasant it may be—so long as it does not compromise operational security or ongoing missions.
Ceasefire and lessons from Operation Sindoor
Operation Sindoor and Operation Bunyan al Marsoos represent a new chapter in India–Pakistan relations—characterised by strategic boldness, technological precision, and narrative power. India’s unilateral action, precise targeting, and religious counter-narratives reflect a confident, self-reliant state that refuses to tolerate cross-border terrorism.
Pakistan’s retaliatory operation, while assertive, exposed its vulnerabilities and economic constraints. The US-mediated ceasefire helped avert a wider conflict—but the strategic message has been delivered.
Group Captain Ajay Ahlawat (R) is a former IAF officer. He tweets @Ahlawat2012. Views are personal.
(Edited by Prashant)