Operation Sindoor marked a significant evolution in India’s approach to national security and the application of hard military power as a tool for deterrence. Following the terror attack at Pahalgam, Kashmir on 22 April, the Indian Armed Forces were granted full operational autonomy, leading to 88 hours of meticulously executed precision strikes. 

These actions were not only aimed at achieving tactical objectives but also at compelling Pakistan to reconsider its longstanding use of terrorism as an instrument of state policy.

The operation showcased a clear shift in India’s war-fighting doctrine. Unlike previous responses, Operation Sindoor was characterized by a marked escalation in scope, intensity, and precision. This reflected a new national security posture, treating state-sponsored terrorism as an act of war and signaling a decisive break from earlier, more restrained approaches.

The articulation of a “new normal” by the Prime Minister underlined this doctrinal clarity, emphasizing that India would respond forcefully to provocations, thereby seeking to alter the cost-benefit calculus for adversaries.

Deterrence, at its core, is about discouraging adversaries from taking undesirable actions, particularly military aggression. It operates through two principal mechanisms: deterrence by denial, which seeks to make aggression infeasible or unlikely to succeed, and deterrence by punishment, which threatens severe retaliation to impose costs on the aggressor.

Operation Sindoor effectively combined both approaches—deploying overwhelming force to degrade terrorist infrastructure (denial) while signalling a willingness to impose significant costs on Pakistan (punishment).

Historically, India’s deterrence posture has faced challenges, especially given Pakistan’s strategy of leveraging its nuclear arsenal to shield sub-conventional proxy warfare. Despite India’s periodic military responses—ranging from Operation Parakram (2001) to the Balakot airstrike (2019)—terrorist incidents continued, highlighting persistent gaps in deterrence. This dynamic was further complicated by Pakistan’s perception of escalation thresholds and its willingness to absorb costs that might deter more conventional states.

Operation Sindoor, however, demonstrated that calibrated use of conventional military power—underpinned by technological advancements and doctrinal reforms—can achieve objectives without triggering uncontrollable escalation. The operation’s precision and restraint allowed India to degrade terrorist capabilities while avoiding the nuclear threshold, thereby shrinking Pakistan’s perceived space for proxy warfare. The Pakistani military’s subsequent request for a ceasefire underscored the effectiveness of India’s approach in exposing vulnerabilities and compelling reconsideration of hostile actions.

The success of Operation Sindoor also highlighted the importance of continuous investment in military capabilities, intelligence, and doctrinal innovation. As adversaries adapt by dispersing assets and enhancing concealment, India’s security apparatus must evolve to maintain the credibility and effectiveness of its deterrent posture. This iterative contest of adaptation underscores the need for sustained modernization and readiness.

In conclusion, the lessons from Operation Sindoor reaffirm the enduring relevance of hard military power in ensuring deterrence. While building and maintaining such capabilities is costly, the alternative—vulnerability to coercion or aggression—is far costlier. India’s ability to apply force with precision and resolve has redefined its response toolkit, ensuring that future provocations will be met with greater magnitude and effectiveness. As global security environments remain volatile, the continuous nourishment of the instrument of force is imperative to preserve deterrence and safeguard national interests. Hard military power, therefore, remains the cornerstone of credible deterrence and national security.

Agencies