Tensions between South Asia’s nuclear-armed rivals—India and Pakistan—have reached a boiling point once again. On the night of May 7th, Pakistan accused India of violating its airspace and launching multiple drone incursions over major Pakistani cities. Lieutenant General Ahmed Sharif, the spokesperson for Pakistan’s Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR), stated that Indian drones had been intercepted over Lahore, Gujranwala, Chakwal, Attock, Rawalpindi, Bahawalpur, Mianwali, and Karachi. This latest episode comes on the heels of India’s recent military operation—code-named Operation Sindoor—targeting terror camps across the border in Pakistan and Pakistan-controlled Kashmir.
According to Pakistan’s ISPR, 12 drones were shot down, with their debris scattered across various locations. The Pakistani army has begun recovering the remnants as part of an investigation into the extent of the breach. In Lahore, one drone strike on a military installation resulted in injuries to four Pakistani soldiers and minor infrastructural damage. Elsewhere, in Mianwali, a drone reportedly killed one civilian and injured another.
“We know how to deal with this aggression very well,” said General Sharif in a defiant tone. “We are dealing with it, and we not only have the determination but also the ability to respond to these aggressors.”
In response to Pakistan’s claims and rising tensions, Indian Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar issued a stern warning: “We do not wish to escalate the situation. But if Pakistan acts, we will not back down either.” Speaking alongside Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi in New Delhi, Jaishankar reiterated that Operation Sindoor was a direct response to a terrorist attack in Pahalgam, a popular tourist town in Jammu and Kashmir. He emphasized that India’s actions were not against the Pakistani state but against terror groups that enjoy sanctuary across the border.
Operation Sindoor marks the third acknowledged Indian strike against cross-border terrorism, following the 2016 Uri surgical strikes and the 2019 Balakot airstrikes. Each of these operations signals a tectonic shift in India’s strategic doctrine. No longer content with absorbing attacks without reprisal, India now opts for a policy of calibrated retaliation.
Retired Admiral Arun Prakash, former Chief of Naval Staff and a recipient of the Vir Chakra, explains this shift as both strategic and technological. “What we’re witnessing is a transformation. The old India, which responded diplomatically or politically to acts of terror, has evolved. Now, we respond militarily—and with precision,” he said in an interview.
Unlike in 2001, when terrorists attacked the Indian Parliament, or 2008, when coordinated attacks paralyzed Mumbai, today’s India is unwilling to allow such provocations to go unchallenged. Prakash emphasizes that this transformation is backed not just by political will, but also by a new generation of military technology.
Modern warfare no longer requires boots on the ground. With precision-guided munitions, advanced satellite intelligence, and long-range drones, India can now strike with devastating accuracy from a distance. Operation Sindoor, according to reports, relied heavily on drones, satellite imaging, and real-time coordination between the Indian Air Force and ground intelligence.
“The days of sending battalions across the border are over,” says Admiral Prakash. “Now we fight from the skies, from the command centers, and through the screens. And that makes our response both more effective and more difficult to predict.”
This shift allows India to operate below the nuclear threshold—launching punitive strikes without triggering a full-blown war. It’s a message not just to Pakistan, but to the global community: India is a responsible power, capable of self-defense without courting catastrophe.
Despite public denials, Pakistan’s repeated vulnerability to Indian strikes has exposed glaring weaknesses in its intelligence and air defense capabilities. Operation Sindoor, like the Balakot and Uri strikes before it, reportedly caught Pakistani defense forces off guard.
“The fact that India has now carried out three successful cross-border operations without significant military pushback tells us something important,” says defense analyst Major General (Retd.) Ashok Mehta. “Pakistan’s assumption that nuclear deterrence would shield it from retaliation is being directly challenged.”
The use of terrorism as an asymmetric strategy has long been a pillar of Pakistan’s approach to India. For decades, it relied on deniability and a nuclear umbrella to avoid retribution. But India’s current trajectory suggests that era may be over. Each limited, targeted strike by India chips away at that long-held strategic calculus.
Pakistan’s internal political dynamics further complicate the situation. Civil-military relations in the country are strained, with the military often accused of harboring or turning a blind eye to extremist groups. Public criticism of the army’s failure to prevent Indian incursions could fuel domestic unrest or calls for military retaliation.
“There is immense pressure on the Pakistan Army to respond,” notes Pakistani journalist Zahid Hussain. “Even if the response is symbolic, they cannot be seen as passive. This could mean more drone activity or cross-border firing in Kashmir. The danger is that one miscalculation could tip us into a much larger conflict.”
Every military action carries the risk of escalation, particularly between two nuclear-armed states. The challenge for both India and Pakistan is managing the so-called escalation ladder—the series of potential steps that can lead from skirmish to full-scale war.
India’s strategy appears calibrated to strike hard but stay low on that ladder. Its strikes are precise, aimed at non-state actors, and carefully avoid civilian infrastructure. Yet, as Admiral Prakash warns, “Every time you climb a rung, the next one gets closer. You need leadership with vision and nerves of steel to know when to stop.”
The international community has not ignored these developments. In previous crises—the 1999 Kargil War, the 2008 Mumbai attacks, or the 2019 Balakot strike—the United States, China, and other major powers played key roles in de-escalation behind the scenes.
So far, the global response to Operation Sindoor has been muted. Analysts suggest this is because India’s operation was measured and fell within the bounds of legitimate self-defense. Unlike Pakistan’s earlier accusations of reckless escalation, this time New Delhi appears to have struck a careful balance.
Still, as tensions mount, the risk of a larger conflict cannot be ignored. “Nuclear weapons change the game,” says analyst Tanvi Madan. “Any crisis between India and Pakistan is not just a regional issue—it’s a global one.”
India’s new military posture is not just reactive—it’s strategic. Operation Sindoor fits into a broader doctrine that combines technological innovation with political resolve. This is a far cry from the strategic restraint of previous decades.
The Modi government, under increasing domestic pressure to show strength, has embraced this assertive posture. Yet it must tread carefully. The line between deterrence and provocation is thin.
Going forward, India’s path will be shaped by three core factors: technological superiority, diplomatic agility, and strategic clarity. Investments in AI, drone warfare, and cyber capabilities are already transforming India’s military. But these must be matched with diplomatic engagement and strong crisis management protocols.
Operation Sindoor is more than a military operation—it’s a statement. It tells Pakistan that cross-border terrorism will be met with force. It tells the world that India is no longer a passive actor but a strategic player. And it signals to the Indian public that their government is willing and able to defend national interests.
Yet, in this new normal, risks abound. Each operation, no matter how calibrated, brings with it the danger of miscalculation. The specter of nuclear war, however distant, remains a shadow over the subcontinent.
India and Pakistan now stand at a crossroads. The choices they make today will determine whether South Asia moves toward lasting security—or slips back into the cycle of provocation and retaliation.
