The Indian government’s morning briefing on May 10 made one thing unmistakably clear: the overnight strike from Pakistan was not a knee-jerk retaliation but a calculated, limited escalation — one that had been thoroughly prepared and intentionally executed. India’s response, swift and proportionate, underlined its firm control of the escalation ladder, defusing immediate panic while reinforcing its red lines.
As both militaries mobilized for what became the most serious exchange since the 2019 Balakot strikes, analysts quickly noticed a disturbing shift in Pakistan’s tactics and a clear evolution in the kind of threats deployed. The escalation wasn’t about border skirmishes or isolated provocations anymore. It was about testing resolve, probing weaknesses, and shaping perceptions — all under the glare of a hyper-connected media landscape.
Pakistan’s Escalation: Premeditated and Layered
On the surface, Pakistan’s actions may have seemed reactive. But scratch the surface, and the signs point to a deliberate strategy, crafted not for immediate battlefield gains but for long-term tactical and strategic leverage.
The drone barrage of May 9 was massive — 400 to 500 drones across the LoC and International Border. Officially framed as an intrusion attempt, experts argue it was a calculated SIGINT (Signals Intelligence) and reconnaissance operation.
“Lighting up” Indian air defense radars, as one defense source put it, was the actual aim. Pakistani forces likely sought to map India’s radar coverage zones, missile interception points, and response timelines. By forcing Indian air defense systems into action, Pakistan’s planners harvested valuable data on electromagnetic signatures, sensor ranges, and potential coverage gaps.
In short: this wasn’t about striking targets. It was about learning — and setting up the next move.
The night of May 10 marked the real escalation.
At around 1:40 AM, Pakistani forces moved from drones to cruise and possibly ballistic missiles. “High-speed” projectiles, according to Indian military briefers, were launched against multiple Indian airbases — a phrase chosen carefully to signal a qualitative leap in threat profile.
Cruise missiles like the Ra’ad and Ra’ad-II — both subsonic and Pakistan-made — may have been used, though official confirmation remains classified. There is also speculation around Fatah-1 guided MLRS strikes, launched from Pakistani territory and aimed at Indian forward positions.
A video circulating on social media shortly after the strikes showed Fatah-1 rockets being launched by Pakistani troops, confirming use of GPS/INS-guided artillery rocket systems with ranges exceeding 130 km. These aren’t the kind of systems used for harassment. These are strike systems designed to suppress or degrade key tactical assets.
If Pakistan expected India to be caught off-guard, it miscalculated.
Sources within the Indian security establishment revealed that India had already interpreted the May 9 drone swarm as a SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses) rehearsal. Troop positions had been quietly adjusted, radar systems rotated, and airbases warned.
India’s counter-strike readiness was baked into its posture well before the first Pakistani missile hit its target.
According to the official GoI briefing, the Pakistani attack targeted military infrastructure across four key airbases: Udhampur, Pathankot, Adampur, and Bhuj. There was limited damage reported, with casualties minimized due to preemptive defensive measures.
Pakistani state media and military accounts claimed a major victory — including the destruction of an S-400 air defense system at Adampur, damage to the BrahMos base at Nagrota, and neutralization of artillery units in Rajasthan and Punjab.
However, these claims appear grossly exaggerated. Independent satellite imagery and defense correspondents embedded near the claimed sites have found no evidence supporting the destruction of the S-400 or significant degradation at Nagrota. The artillery position damage remains unverified but plausible, given their proximity to the LoC.
India’s measured rebuttal didn’t just refute these claims — it exposed them as propaganda. No dramatic counter-narratives, no hyperbole. Just a calm assertion: India is in control, and Pakistan’s narrative doesn’t change the facts on the ground.
Hours after Pakistan’s cruise missile strikes, India’s counterattack was underway. But it was not a retaliatory barrage — it was a message, surgically delivered.
The Indian Air Force launched ALCM (Air-Launched Cruise Missile) strikes on five critical Pakistani airbases:
Nur Khan (Chaklala) – Near Islamabad, used for military airlift operations and VIP transport.
Murid (Chakwal) – Known for drone training and operational logistics.
Rafiqui (Shorkot) – A mainstay for fighter jet operations.
Rahim Yar Khan – A dual-use civilian airport, suspected hub for drone operations.
Sialkot – Hosting both radar and operational infrastructure.
Satellite visuals posted by open-source analysts show a cratered runway at Rahim Yar Khan, confirming a direct hit. Videos of the explosion suggest secondary detonations — indicative of an ammunition or drone storage facility being targeted.
Two radar sites — at Sialkot and Masroor — were also destroyed using stand-off precision munitions. These installations are critical for early warning systems and airspace monitoring in northern and southern Pakistan, respectively.
By disabling them, India signaled that it could blind Pakistan’s aerial surveillance network at will.
India’s strike on Rahim Yar Khan — a civilian airport — was not taken lightly. But there’s a strategic rationale.
Pakistan has been using civil air corridors and infrastructure to move drones and military assets, exploiting India’s reluctance to target civilian zones. The hit on Rahim Yar Khan sent a clear message: masking military operations under civilian infrastructure won’t be tolerated.
Even here, India didn’t target terminal buildings or civilian aircraft — it hit the runway and hangar facilities used by military drones, according to post-strike imagery. This was deterrence by precision, not provocation.
Despite suffering missile strikes, India notably did not respond with ballistic missiles.
Pakistan’s use of the Fatah-1 system — a 140-km guided rocket — could have justified a response with Prithvi or Prahar-class ballistic systems. India chose not to, and the reason is strategic: keep the escalation limited, deny Pakistan the opportunity to claim equivalence, and avoid triggering international intervention.
By sticking to ALCMs and stand-off systems, India retained both the moral and operational high ground. It responded with strength — not spectacle.
One of the most discussed events from the night of May 10 is the alleged strike on Bolari Airbase in Pakistan’s Sindh province.
Social media videos showed large explosions and thick black smoke rising from the vicinity of the base. Defense analysts speculated that ammunition depots may have been struck, leading to secondary explosions.
However, Indian officials made no mention of Bolari in their press briefings, and its targeting remains unconfirmed.
It’s possible the strike occurred after official operations were declared complete — or was carried out by a platform not publicly acknowledged, such as a drone loitering beyond formal mission hours. Another theory suggests a local accident or unrelated explosion, misattributed in the fog of war.
India’s military press conference on May 10 ended with a deliberate statement: retaliatory operations are complete unless provoked again.
This declaration did two things simultaneously:
De-escalated the immediate crisis — no itchy fingers on either side.
Reaffirmed India’s doctrine — violations will be punished swiftly, precisely, and proportionally.
For India, the real battle is not just military. It’s perceptual. By keeping responses measured and communication tight, India projects itself as the more responsible, capable power — both domestically and on the global stage.
As of now, the LoC remains tense but stable. Civilian airspace restrictions in northern India and eastern Pakistan are gradually being lifted. Military alert levels remain high, but no further attacks have been reported since early morning on May 10.
The geopolitical focus now shifts to diplomatic channels, with backchannel communications likely underway via interlocutors in the UAE and the United States. Both sides are recalibrating for what’s next.
Pakistan’s May 10 escalation was dangerous — not because of its scale, but because of its intent. It wasn’t a spontaneous eruption. It was a test: of India’s defenses, of resolve, of global tolerance.
India’s response passed that test. It was deliberate, proportional, and assertive — designed to punish, deter, and contain.
