India’s strategic narrative: No more dossiers, a use of visible but proportionate force

Modi’s address capped the strategic narrative arc New Delhi has been scripting in recent weeks—across the political, military, and psychological domains—in response to Pakistan’s terror playbook. Far from a one-off retaliation, Op Sindoor signals a calibrated shift: deterrence through clarity, not ambiguity.

Yet, amid the digital din and social media smog—amplified by Pakistan’s disinformation apparatus—the nuance of India’s doctrinal pivot has often been drowned out. Official briefings laid it out plainly: the rules of engagement have changed. But in an age where narrative warfare is as real as missile strikes, clarity risks being lost to cacophony.

‘It’s not over yet’ seems to be the message the Modi administration is sending. That makes it vital to unpack what India is really signalling—not just to Islamabad, but to the world.

Ways in which cost-benefit calculus has changed

Op Sindoor marks more than just a tactical manoeuvre—it is a symbolic hardening of India’s military doctrine. The era of calibrated restraint is giving way to a posture that is sharper, more deliberate, and unapologetically assertive. New Delhi is conveying through a series of measures that India seeks to alter Pakistan’s cost-benefit calculus.

First, by removing the earlier demarcation between terror and state-on-state conflict. New Delhi is signaling that terrorism as earlier defined in the Pakistan context under the oft abused ‘proxy wars' and hidden in the guise of grey zone tactics will no longer be immune from conventional punitive action by India. Simply put, terror attacks, would invite public, kinetic Indian military retaliation. The official briefings repeatedly outlined this when they framed Pahalgam as the ‘original escalation’ and India’s precise retaliation that lasted 25 minutes targeting terrorist infrastructure at nine sites in territories controlled by Pakistan as a response to that escalation. Officials underlined that India’s actions had not targeted Pakistan’s military infrastructure or its people.

Second, it put the onus on Pakistan to manage further escalation. So when Pakistan responded with a relentless wave of attacks first on May 8th with drones across the western border reaching Amritsar, Jammu, Srinagar, and 26 other locations, and continued over the next few days with attempted strikes on India’s military infrastructure, India doubled down on its retaliation. First by destroying Pakistan’s HQ-9 air defence system in Lahore and targeting key cities, including Sialkot and Islamabad and then by crippling key Pakistani air bases at Murid, Rafiqui, and Sargodha, and striking the infamous the Nur Khan base in Rawalpindi. Pakistan’s subsequent counterstrikes fizzled against India’s air defences.

Third, Modi’s statement on May 12th implying the cessation of hostilities was ‘a pause not the end’ and ‘incumbent on Pakistan’s behaviour’ are further markers of India’s approach and intent. His reiteration that any talks with Pakistan would only focus on terrorism and PoK and India would not be constrained by the nuclear bogey, conveyed that redlines had been re-drawn and terms of engagement put in place without troops crossing the border. The new normal was a path of escalation, where India would accelerate the cost of Pakistani action with the aim of making its support to terrorism unsustainable.

Indus Waters Treaty: Pakistan can’t take anything for granted

Decision makers in Delhi have indicated that Pahalgam only ‘telescoped New Delhi’s decision’ to recalibrate the Indus Waters Treaty, since 65 years after it came into force the context of the treaty and the political realities had changed. Thus India’s move to suspend the IWT beyond legal muscle flexing, conveyed the message that “the era of cost-free provocation is over”.

By holding the treaty in abeyance, New Delhi weaponised what was once a symbol of hydro-diplomatic stability. Framed under the “unable or unwilling” doctrine, India framed its rationale clearly—Islamabad’s refusal to dismantle terror infrastructure forfeits the privileges of peacetime cooperation.

Indian officials in their briefings have rejected accusations of reckless brinkmanship. They argue that India’s actions are measured, proportionate, and aligned with international norms. Citing the UN Security Council’s condemnation of the Pahalgam attack and emphasising that no Pakistani military targets were hit, Delhi has drawn a sharp line between lawful retaliation and escalation.

Reflectively, India’s decision underscores a shift in regional diplomacy: treaties concluded when peace prevailed will no longer be immune to the consequences of a proxy war. Water, once a shared lifeline, is now a quiet battleground where the price of terror is being re-calibrated seems to be the message from New Delhi

Amplifying the casus belli of the ‘restrained response’

In the aftermath of the Pahalgam attack, PM Modi’s message to the world was unmistakably clear: future stability hinges on deterrence, not dialogue. While the international community urged restraint, New Delhi’s global messaging stood firm, insisting that the need of the hour was not patience, but accountability. India argued that there would be no moral equivalence between the victims and the perpetrators.

The Pahalgam massacre wasn’t an unfortunate casualty of war; it was a deliberate, calculated act of terror, orchestrated by “non-state actors” embedded within Pakistan’s security establishment. The once-convenient fig leaf of plausible deniability was no longer acceptable. Since Pakistan’s own leadership, through its statements and presence of high-ranking Pakistani officials at the funeral of militants in Muridke, led by US-designated terrorist Abdul Rauf exposed Pakistan’s persistent ties to terror groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and Jaish-e- Mohammad (JeM).

India’s call to the world wasn’t to choose sides but to stop pretending that both sides were equal. Modi’s speech highlighted that Bahawalpur and Muridke were not just terrorist camps — they were the ideological factories that fuel global jihad. From the horrors of 9/11 to the London bombings and the ongoing terror in India, the trail often leads back to these very compounds.

Global response, however, has been disappointing

Despite the clarity of India’s message, the global response remained mixed. While key players like the US, Israel, France and even Russia showed solidarity, some from Gulf nations, also a part of the OIC, empathised with India, predictably Pakistan was never explicitly named despite the overwhelming evidence of its involvement.

New Delhi in the aftermath of Pahalgalm has had to deal with a few uncomfortable truths - while India’s diplomatic weight is growing, the global terror discourse remains paralysed by political duplicity and diplomatic inertia. The world may stand with India, but the struggle for a coherent response to cross-border terror continues despite New Delhi’s outreach and appeals.

On Kashmir, it’s just not on the agenda

Senior officials in the know have indicated that despite Pakistan’s efforts to internationalise the Kashmir issue, India has blocked any attempts to put Kashmir on the table and rejected offers of third-party mediation. Even US President Donald Trump’s attempts to offer mediation over Kashmir, following what he framed as the US role in pushing Pakistan for a ceasefire was ignored by India’s narrative.

New Delhi articulated that its policy on Jammu and Kashmir remains unchanged—only the return of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (POK) remains to be discussed if at all. This rejection underscores India’s refusal to allow third-party involvement in what it sees as a bilateral issue with Pakistan. New Delhi has signalled its resoluteness—India’s position on Kashmir is non-negotiable.

Senior officials have suggested that India is keen on drawing the curtains on the era of shuttle diplomacy—where the US rushed to mediate after every crisis. Notably, the IMF's approval of a $2.4 billion bailout for Pakistan—a mix of a $1 billion Extended Fund Facility and a $1.4 billion climate-focused Resilience and Sustainability Trust—was a financial lifeline for Islamabad, but in New Delhi’s eyes, it looked like a reward for bad behaviour.

Reports suggest that the US, as the IMF’s largest shareholder with veto power, was likely central to this manoeuvre, offering financial leverage to secure Pakistan’s de-escalation. The Indian attempt, now an in the future, has to articulate its dissatisfaction and pushback against Pakistan using bad behaviour as a tool to negotiate monetary bailouts. PM Modi’s speech echoed this sentiment when he said India has made it clear that talks and terror, trade and terror cannot coexist. India's message repeatedly over the last few weeks has been to argue that it will no longer be deterred by Pakistan’s nuclear posturing or bow to diplomatic appeasement.

Demonstration of India’s credible military capabilities

The operation was to India’s mind a strategic success that showcased the armed forces capability for tactical precision. Psychologically, the operation punctured Pakistan's sense of invulnerability, demonstrating that its nuclear status does not shield it from accountability. The mission also demonstrated India’s operational readiness, putting the spotlight on India's advanced military capabilities, including effective use of air defences and missile systems.

India responded with precise counter-actions aimed at disabling drone, missile, and aircraft launch sites. In addition, it methodically weakened Pakistan’s air defence and offensive systems—signalling a strategic shift from mere retaliation to shaping the broader battle space. Apart from showing tri-service synergy both on the battlefield and while briefing global media, the operations also sent a message of India’s capability development journey which has been paved with painful lessons learnt.

The message being sent was an affirmation of India's indigenous defence capabilities. In a rare real-world test, India showcased its commitment to self-reliance, deploying homegrown systems that not only matched but outperformed expectations. India’s air defence, as briefings showcased, was a precision-woven, multi-layered shield.

From Russian S-400s and Israeli Barak-8s to indigenous Akash and QRSAM missiles, backed by anti-aircraft guns and electronic warfare tools, India deployed an integrated response system. At the heart of this architecture was Akashteer—a fully indigenous command-and-control network that fused data from 3D radars, mobile sensors, and satellite feeds to deliver seamless, real-time interception. India’s ability to pierce through Pakistan’s Chinese-supplied defence systems also served a strong message: Military power isn’t defined by what you buy off the shelf, it’s defined by what you can seamlessly integrate, adapt, and operationalise under pressure.

A promise on resolve, potent domestic symbolism

For India Operation Sindoor wasn’t only about neutralising terrorists—it was also about owning the narrative, redefining symbols, and asserting a cohesive identity primarily to the domestic audience. Unlike past operations with aggressive names meant to project strength, this operation’s name was chosen as a personal tribute to the victims, particularly the widows of the Pahalgam attack. Vermillion /Sindoor is a symbol of marriage in Indian culture. The Indian government was deliberate in invoking the symbolism and tapped into a powerful emblem of protection and dignity in India Indian tradition, reinforcing its role as a guardian of national identity. The government tied a counter-terror operation to the emotional fabric of Indian society and united a nation. The decision to have two senior women officers—representing different services and faiths—lead the communication effort wasn’t a token gesture; it was a deliberate inversion of the terrorist's misogynistic message. Where terrorists used women as tools of fear, India elevated them as symbols of strength.

If the message from terrorists was to divide India, the symbolism of Op Sindoor was to showcase power through India’s pluralism. In subsequent briefings, and in the PM’s address, this sentiment echoed. The Indian aim was to project, powerful imagery, use cultural cues, and provide narrative clarity, to reframe the feeling of victimhood into national resolve. The military briefings also told Indians that perpetrators of the countless terror attacks that had left collective scars in the Indian psyche were among those eliminated. Justice for victims, the message reiterated would be pursued at all costs.

Main takeaways of Op Sindoor

It is still perhaps too early to analyse how Op Sindoor, will impact national psyche since it is still an evolving operation. There is no doubt that it demonstrated India’s resolve in safeguarding its sovereignty and its changing playbook on Pakistan sponsored terrorism. However, once the dust settles, it would be imperative that just as a robust narrative on India’s actions was strategised, an honest narrative that assesses lapses, gaps in capacity and capability building and prioritisation of indigenous defence capabilities needs to be undertaken.

Success today must serve as a foundation for preparedness tomorrow.

Apart from taking accountability of intelligence and cyber capabilities, strengthening protection for  critical infrastructure while offensive capabilities to disrupt adversary networks will continue to require more work.

However, the biggest lesson despite Indian efforts is that the battles of the cognitive domain still need to be understood. As a senior official mentioned, ‘if Kargil was a lesson on the impact of television during a border crisis, Op Sindoor has brought home challenges on managing disinformation in the age of social media.’ While briefings offered clarity and fact checks thwarted disinformation from Pakistan, keyboard warriors muddled efforts both at home and abroad.

Op Sindoor in its conduct, precision and achievement of objectives with the end of hostilities is an exercise of strategic maturity and its articulation is for the world to see. The Indian people should be trusted with information on the cost of war, for any operation of this scale would involve casualties of people and systems. The evolving nature of the conflict explains reluctance to divulge details, but the collateral is the endless speculation that is weaponised by the adversary.

It has been argued that “together, strategic narratives and military strategy link intent, action, and understanding.” - Indian intent, action and articulation with Op Sindoor has been potent and left no strategic ambiguity. It’s the global terrorism discourse which needs more clarity. Yet for India, cutting through the clutter, motivated or otherwise, will require effort and careful recalibration.

(Shruti Pandalai is a Fellow at the Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, New Delhi, looking at India’s Foreign and Security policy, its strategic thought and practice. Feedback @shrutipandalai.)

Views are personal and not representative of the institute or government of India.