India-Pakistan Missile Strikes and the Shifting Paradigm of Conflict: An Analytical Reflection

Redrawing the Red Lines: India’s shift from restraint to response 

By Tajjamul Aly :

Between the 7th and 10th of May 2025, the subcontinent stood on edge, and the world watched tensely, uncertain what would happen next. What unfolded wasn’t just another round of cross-border skirmishes, it was a bold and unprecedented air conflict between India and Pakistan, triggered by the brutal Pahalgam terror attack of April 22. That attack didn’t just kill civilians, it jolted the political and military apparatus of both countries into motion, reopening old wounds and setting in motion a chain of high-stakes decisions.

India wasted no time. It suspended the Indus Waters Treaty, cut trade ties, and shut its airspace to Pakistani aircraft. Pakistan retaliated with airspace closure too, as expected. Tensions soared. And by the first week of May, it was clear: New Delhi was preparing for more than just words.

Then came the night of May 7. In a daring and coordinated strike, India launched missiles at nine separate locations inside Pakistan-administered territory. These weren’t just symbolic hits, they were meant to dismantle terror camps as Indian claimed and send a message loud enough to echo across borders: the rules of engagement had changed. 

This was Operation Sindoor, and it was unlike anything India had done before.

Unlike previous actions, such as the 2016 surgical strikes or the 2019 Balakot airstrike post-Pulwama, this operation wasn’t just a warning. It was retribution. It marked a new chapter in India’s counter-terrorism doctrine: that sub-conventional attacks (like terror strikes) would now invite conventional, kinetic military responses.

This marks a seismic shift. India, a country long known for strategic restraint, seems to have finally redrawn its red lines. The era of “sending a message” is over. The era of “inflicting cost” has begun.

For Pakistan, this shifting strategy is a serious, and perhaps painful, development. Supporting or tolerating proxy elements now comes with a high price—militarily and diplomatically. Any future incident that hints at state or non-state involvement from across the border could provoke swift and punishing retaliation. The cost-benefit calculus of proxy warfare has changed, possibly for good.

But while the boldness of India’s response has been acknowledged,  but many raising concerns about the loss of jets and the casualties involved, it’s important to remember what Air Chief Marshal said: "We are in combat, and losses are a part of it." In such a significant move, where a paradigm shift is taking place, some level of loss is almost inevitable. After all, India was confronting a nuclear-powered state with a professional military, this wasn’t some small, inconsequential force. The stakes were high, and to expect no losses in such a complex and risky operation would be unrealistic. Bold decisions come with their challenges, but they are essential when confronting a nation that doesn’t hesitate to escalate conflict.

After this incident, it raises a fundamental question: Can this be sustained?

Mobilizing armed forces, executing precise missile strikes, and managing post-conflict diplomacy is not a cheap or easy process. Can India afford to respond like this every few years? It’s a thought_provoking question, and the answer lies somewhere between deterrence and strategy.

There’s no doubt that Operation Sindoor achieved what it intended. It dismantled terror hubs, asserted strategic dominance, and set a new precedent. But beyond the battlefield lies the deeper challenge—what next?

India can’t afford to make this the default playbook every time. That kind of high-cost engagement isn’t sustainable for any democracy, let alone one still grappling with its own internal challenges.

Because here the truth is deterrence has its limits. If we want real peace, we need to do more than just fight, we need to heal, rebuild, and bring people together."

India must work on internal peacebuilding, especially in Kashmir. The region cannot remain a flashpoint forever. The people of Kashmir must be brought back into the fold, not just administratively, but emotionally and politically. Their trust must be restored. Their voices must be heard. And their lives must improve.

Kashmir's peace is the foundation for India’s long-term security. The people of Kashmir have endured far too long, and their desire for dignity and peace should not be overlooked. When they find hope, external threats will become secondary.

Simultaneously, India must lean harder on diplomacy. Ironically, action often lends weight to diplomatic efforts. After kinetic responses, the world tends to listen more closely. That momentum should be used wisely—to isolate terror sponsors, build international pressure, and engage adversaries from a position of strength.

But let’s not forget: this is no longer just about India and Pakistan.

The specter of a two-front war is now more real than ever. Pravin Sawhney a Defence analyst is already calling it a “one-front reinforced war,” given China’s silent but strategic support for Pakistan. This adds an entirely new dimension to India’s security planning. It is a conflict that’s deeply interconnected. This demands advanced military readiness, cutting-edge technology, and strategic partnerships.

Warfare has evolved. The battlefield now includes satellites, data centers, and cyber networks. India needs to invest not just in missiles, but in algorithms, artificial intelligence, and cyber defence. A 21st-century conflict requires 21st-century tools.

But here’s the thing no missile can fix:  Internal cracks.

If India is weak at home _ divided socially, economically, or politically, it doesn’t matter how strong it is on the border. External adversaries often win when societies are distracted, polarized, or fractured. National security starts at home. If the internal fabric begins to fray, even the best missiles won’t hold the country together.

So what’s the way forward?

First, institutionalize deterrence—but don’t let it replace diplomacy. India should maintain the credibility of its kinetic response, but also invest in quieter tools: cyber responses, economic levers, and international coalitions.

Second, stabilize Kashmir not through force, but through opportunity, dignity, and genuine engagement. The real victory is when the youth of Kashmir choose hope over hate.

Third, keep modernizing defence because you can’t deter what you can’t defeat.

Fourth, build domestic strength. A stable, united, and prosperous India is the best deterrent to any enemy. Rise above vote bank politics and personal interests , minimise communal tensions . Politics and political parties can only thrive when the nation is strong and secure, without a country, there can be no politics.

In the end, Operation Sindoor may go down in history as a turning point, not just for India’s counter-terror policy, but for its broader strategic posture. It was bold. It was risky. And it worked.

But if we are to truly secure our future, we must understand a deeper truth: military strength alone is never enough. A nation’s resilience lies not just in its missiles or tanks, but in its people _ united, secure, and hopeful.

India’s real strength will come from within. If we are divided at home—by politics, prejudice, or poverty, no weapon can defend us. National security begins with internal stability. A strong, inclusive, and just India will be the best deterrent to any threat.

So while missiles can destroy camps, only minds and hearts can build nations