Analysis | A calculated retaliation: The message behind Operation Sindoor

Seasoned chess players visualise the next eight moves before taking a step. This helps them prepare for the response of the opponent and be ready for all possible contingencies that may arise. One only hopes that the Pakistani politico-military establishment war-gamed the escalation matrix before they indulged in a dastardly terrorist attack at Pahalgam.

They should have known that India would reply, and the retaliation, in all likelihood, will come on the terror infrastructure in the Pak-occupied Jammu & Kashmir (PoJK). Expectedly, the Indian government began “Op Sindoor” with the initiation of aircraft and missile attacks in the early hours of 7 May.

Surprisingly, the Indian strikes also struck a Jaish-e-Mohammed terrorist headquarters in the border town of Bahawalpur and Laskar-e-Taiba headquarters in Muridke, situated in the core of Pakistani Punjab. The assault on these two towns of Punjab serves as a definitive and strong message to Pakistan that India is ready to undertake any measures necessary to dismantle the terrorist infrastructure within its borders.

The attack currently appears symbolic, inflicting controlled punishment and not targeting any military installations. The objective of the Indian leadership may have been to inflict just sufficient damage on Pakistan while allowing it the chance to downplay the situation and avert escalation, akin to the Balakote strikes in 2019.

Nevertheless, the Indian government would have war-gamed all scenarios and must be ready for all levels of Pakistani response. The directive from the Ministry of Home Affairs to all state governments to conduct simulated drills and implement precautionary measures signifies India's preparedness.

The ball now lies in the Pakistani court; they may initiate an emblematic response in Indian Jammu and Kashmir that caters to their national pride and appeases public sentiment. Alternatively, they could opt for aerial or missile strikes along the entire border. The second option may escalate into a comprehensive confrontation.

Predicting the trajectory of such an all-inclusive conflict between the two nuclear-armed neighbours is exceedingly challenging. However, from the lower spectrum to the higher, it may range from missile strikes, aerial confrontations, and limited conflict in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir to full-fledged hostilities along the entire border, including the Arabian Sea.

The endeavour to predict the outcome of a conflict is extremely difficult. However, there is no doubt that Indian defence forces enjoy an edge over Pakistan and will have an upper hand in a limited or a prolonged conflict.

It is definite that the repercussions of a war for both nations, particularly Pakistan, will be severe, as it is currently experiencing a significant economic crisis. The existing fault lines in Pakistan could lead to catastrophic events, potentially resulting in its disintegration. Consequently, its leaders must recognise that it cannot endure conflict with India, and it must look at options to de-escalate and address India’s concerns on terrorism.

The Pakistani military is well-equipped and possesses an aggressive disposition; nevertheless, its response will also hinge on the attitude of its principal ally, China, which has the capacity to engage Indian forces on the northern front.

It is also well-established that China does not directly involve itself in the affairs of others. Nonetheless, it may offer sufficient logistical, diplomatic, and moral support to Pakistan. During the Kargil conflict too, the Chinese had maintained a position of neutrality, remaining largely on the sidelines.

As things stand now, the window between peace and conflict is exceedingly brief, possibly two or three days. In the previous global context, substantial diplomatic pressure would have been exerted on both nations to de-escalate and resolve the situation.

The global community is presently burdened by conflicts and diplomatic difficulties, with limited potential for significant diplomatic initiatives. President Trump's initial response was tepid, expressing hope that both countries will resolve the situation promptly.

After decades of suffering from the afflictions of cross-border terrorism — the metaphorical "thousand cuts" first declared by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto — India has ultimately opted to respond with resolute precision. This calculated response, aimed solely at removing terrorist infrastructure, signifies a notable change in India's security strategy.

This is not an impulsive act but a deliberate decision made after years of restraint and anguish. The Indian leadership undoubtedly considered the significant risks involved, including the possibility of escalation into open confrontation.

This represents a pivotal time for Pakistan's leadership. They should interpret the implications of India's conduct with discernment and sagacity. Escalation will not benefit anyone's long-term interests, particularly those of Pakistan.

The forthcoming course should be directed by practicality rather than hubris. Should Pakistan opt for diplomacy instead of denial, both countries retain the potential to de-escalate and strive for a more stable and secure future for the region.

(Major General Gajinder Singh is a former officer of the Indian Army and a former member of the United Nations Peacekeeping Force)