By Annunthra Rangan
How often can we truly say that war is justified? Rarely—perhaps never. At a time when the world is already grappling with devastating conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza, the last thing anyone expected was the eruption of yet another confrontation. And yet, here we are—India and Pakistan, once again standing on the precipice of war.
Following the horrific terrorist attack in Pahalgam on April 22, which claimed the lives of innocent civilians—many of them tourists—India launched a swift and calculated response. In the dead of night, under a veil of secrecy, Indian forces carried out Operation Sindoor, targeting nine terrorist camps across the border. The operation was named not for aggression, but for grief—after the sindoor worn by the women who lost their husbands, sons, and brothers in the brutal attack.
This is not a war born of ambition or conquest; it is one fuelled by mourning and a demand for justice. While one side lights lamps of celebration, claiming tactical success, another pleads for peace—desperate not to lose more to a history marred by bloodshed.
The Pahalgam tragedy has become a pivotal moment in both Indian and Pakistani domestic politics, with each government leveraging the incident to bolster internal authority. In India, the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party has tapped into public outrage to reinforce its image as a national security stalwart—particularly as elections approach in several northern states. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government has adopted assertive rhetoric and intensified security operations in Kashmir, framing the response as a necessary measure to honour the victims and restore national dignity. This narrative of retribution has resonated deeply with the electorate, granting the administration greater political leverage to expand internal security frameworks, including heightened surveillance and policing in Kashmir.
In contrast, Pakistan has dismissed India’s allegations, framing them as disinformation and a deliberate distraction from internal issues. The Pakistani government has denied any involvement in the Pahalgam attack, instead portraying India’s military actions as unprovoked aggression. The incident has galvanized domestic support within Pakistan, with leaders accusing India of staging a “false flag” operation. These diverging narratives have only served to further entrench public opinion on both sides, leaving little room for diplomatic engagement or moderation.
In this fraught atmosphere, India launched Operation Sindoor, a coordinated military response targeting terrorist infrastructure across Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK). In the early hours of May 7, 2025, at approximately 1:05 am and 1:30 am, the Indian Armed Forces executed precision missile strikes on nine identified terrorist camps. The operation was in direct retaliation for the April 22 Pahalgam attack, in which 25 Indian citizens and one Nepali national lost their lives.
During a Ministry of Defence briefing, Colonel Sofiya Qureshi stated that the strikes successfully neutralized all nine targets, which included critical hubs used for recruitment, indoctrination, and launch operations. Among the key locations targeted were Bahawalpur, a known Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) stronghold, and Muridke, the headquarters of Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT).
Wing Commander Vyomika Singh elaborated on the scope of the operation, noting that the targeted camps were spread across a wide geographical range—from Sawai-Nala in northern PoK to Bahawalpur in the south. She emphasized that all strikes were based on verified intelligence and designed to avoid civilian infrastructure and minimize collateral damage.
Operation Sindoor marks the third major retaliatory strike by India on terror infrastructure within Pakistani territory and PoK. It follows the 2016 surgical strikes in response to the Uri attack and the 2019 Balakot airstrikes after the Pulwama bombing.
The targeted Sites in Pakistan are:
- Sarjal, Sialkot: Just six km from the international border, linked to the March 2025 attack on J&K police.
- Mehmoona Joya, Sialkot: A major Hizbul Mujahideen base, pivotal to attacks in Kathua, Jammu and Pathankot.
- Markaz Taiba, Muridke: A historic LeT facility tied to the 2008 Mumbai attacks; struck four times.
- Markaz Subhanallah, Bahawalpur: A central JeM hub used for recruitment and leadership indoctrination.
The targeted Sites in PoK:
- Sawai Nala, Muzaffarabad: LeT training ground for attacks in Sonmarg, Gulmarg, and Pahalgam.
- Syedna Bilal, Muzaffarabad: JeM staging area with explosives and jungle warfare training.
- Gulpur, Kotli: LeT camp linked to Rajouri and Poonch assaults.
- Barnala, Bhimber: Specialized in weapons handling and deployment into J&K.
- Abbas, Kotli: Elite LeT Fidayeen training center, with capacity for 15 militants.
Pakistan claims to have shot down five Indian Air Force jets, including a Rafale. A French intelligence source confirmed one Rafale loss, prompting further investigation. Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif boasted that Indian jets were “blown to smithereens.” While India has officially dismissed these accounts as disinformation, unverified eyewitness reports from Punjab and Wuyan village in Kashmir suggest that aircraft may indeed have crashed on Indian soil.
In response to the escalating conflict, India shut down the Attari border, disrupting trade, while Pakistan suspended the Simla Agreement. India also suspended the Indus Waters Treaty, managing water flows to exert pressure through strategic releases that have caused flooding in Pakistan.
The timing is critical. Pakistan’s military faces increasing pressure at home amid internal instability, economic collapse, and the fallout from the imprisonment of former Prime Minister Imran Khan. In this context, Army Chief General Asim Munir is reasserting the military’s dominance as the bedrock of national stability.
The Pahalgam attack’s ripple effects extend far beyond Kashmir. It has further destabilized South Asian diplomacy, jeopardizing any prospects for SAARC’s revival. India has tried to promote alternative regional frameworks, but as long as the India-Pakistan relationship remains antagonistic, economic integration across South Asia will remain stalled.
Kashmir’s tourism industry, just beginning to rebound, has been hit the hardest. The targeting of tourists has triggered mass cancellations, devastating the region’s economy. The psychological toll of this violence is expected to deter future travel, investment, and community confidence.
On a broader economic scale, bilateral trade between India and Pakistan—which was already severely restricted—has ground to a halt. Flight suspensions and visa bans have paralyzed logistics. Foreign investment, particularly in infrastructure and energy, is retreating in the face of mounting uncertainty.
Pakistan has retaliated by shelling Poonch in Jammu and Kashmir—often mischaracterized in international media as “India-administered Kashmir”, a term rejected by India. As escalation continues, India may leverage the crisis to push for Pakistan’s denuclearization. With Islamabad in financial disarray, pressure from international actors like China or the US could come with steep costs.
China’s role remains ambiguous. Though Beijing has not condemned the Pahalgam attack, its silence is strategic—motivated by its heavy investment in the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). Further Pakistani reliance on China could lead to strategic concessions, including territorial or infrastructure control.
Pakistan’s military has already begun deploying Chinese-manufactured J-10 fighter jets, equipped with PL-15 long-range missiles, in response to India’s Rafales. This development adds another layer to an already volatile geopolitical standoff.
Meanwhile, the US has struck a careful balance—condemning the Pahalgam attack through former President Donald Trump, but avoiding deeper involvement. Trump has floated the idea of selling F-35s to India, while New Delhi reportedly explores acquiring Israeli combat drones, hinting at preparations for a prolonged conflict.
Russia, mired in its own war in Ukraine, has condemned the Pahalgam attack, but is expected to maintain strategic ambiguity given its ties with both India and China.
Evacuations have begun across border states. In Punjab and Kashmir, civilians are fleeing homes, leaving livelihoods behind. The humanitarian toll continues to mount. India remains firm in its counter-terrorism doctrine; Pakistan remains defiant in its retaliatory stance.
India’s “no first use” nuclear policy signals strategic restraint. But Pakistan has never formally adopted such a stance, injecting unpredictability into future developments.
Further complicating the regional landscape is Pakistan’s deteriorating relationship with Afghanistan. Even the Taliban condemned the Pahalgam attack—a rare diplomatic win for India. However, Bangladesh’s warming ties with Pakistan may present India with new vulnerabilities, particularly along the Radcliffe Line.
The Pahalgam attack has reignited one of South Asia’s most volatile rivalries, further destabilizing diplomacy, economic cooperation, and security. The next steps remain uncertain, but the implications will reverberate far beyond the subcontinent.
War, however, has never been a solution. History shows it only deepens divides, destroys lives, and leaves scars that endure long after the last bullet is fired. While the conflict intensifies, civilians—those with no role in these decisions—suffer the most. Families of soldiers grieve in silence, carrying burdens they never chose.
Meanwhile, those of us sipping tea in safety, echoing slogans like “Eh Dil Maange More” or “Happy Diwali,” are far removed from these harsh realities. The real cost is borne by everyday people caught in the crossfire of political decisions.
This will not be remembered as a victory—but as a tragic chapter where lives were torn apart while leaders moved on. The true casualties of this escalation are the civilians whose hopes for peace now lie in ruins.
—The writer is a Senior Research Officer at Chennai Centre for China Studies. Her research interests constitute China-WANA (West Asia and North Africa) relations and human rights