Operation Sindoor I 'It's a more assertive and riskier move, signalling a major shift'

As India confirms the launch of Operation Sindoor, a retaliatory missile strike on Pakistan following the Pahalgam terror attack that killed 26 civilians, questions loom over the possibility of escalation. In this interview, Nisha P S speaks with The Federal’s Editor-in-Chief, S Srinivasan, to unpack what the strikes mean for India’s military strategy, Pakistan’s likely response, and the global diplomatic fallout.

Nisha P S: Pakistan has said it will respond to India’s strikes “at a time and place of its own choosing”. Should Indians be worried about a retaliatory attack?

S Srinivasan: That’s a boilerplate response from Pakistan—it's what they usually say after any escalation. Since India claims to have conducted missile strikes on nine targets in Pakistan, Pakistan has to respond in some way, at least rhetorically. But the real question is what kind of counter-action they will take.

India seems prepared. We saw civil defence drills planned across the country and news of Indian Air Force exercises along the borders even before this operation. So clearly, there was anticipation of retaliation.

This situation is more dangerous than 2019. Back then, the Pakistani government under Imran Khan was more inclined towards reconciliation. Now, the Indian establishment holds Pakistan’s current power centre — General Asim Munir and NSA Asim Malik — responsible for orchestrating the Pahalgam attack. They believe this was a deliberate escalation, not a routine terror incident.

Nisha: Do you think the Pahalgam attack was part of a larger strategy?

Srinivasan: This wasn’t just another terror strike. Twenty-six civilians were killed, including 25 Indians and one Nepali. The method of attack, the brutality, and the targeting of civilians indicate it was designed to provoke and polarize.

Indian defence experts speaking to The Federal have said this seems calculated. It looks like an effort to communalize the narrative and inflict maximum political and psychological damage. India’s response, then, was inevitable.

Nisha: The Indian government says it didn’t hit military targets—only terror camps. Will that make a difference diplomatically?

Srinivasan: It might. The Indian government has made it clear that military establishments were not touched. If that holds true, India can claim this was a limited, targeted strike. But everything depends on the actual damage inflicted and, more importantly, the civilian casualties on the other side.

There are already reports of 12 civilian deaths in one area (as of 4 am). If those figures are confirmed and more such reports emerge, then Pakistan will feel compelled to act, not just for strategic reasons but for its domestic audience.

Nisha: How significant is the military nature of India’s strike this time, especially compared to Balakot in 2019?

Srinivasan: This was not an airstrike like Balakot. This time, India reportedly used missiles, which changes the equation. It’s a more assertive and riskier move. It signals a strategic shift in how India chooses to respond to cross-border terrorism.

That said, the scale of damage and precision of these strikes will only become clear later in the day, especially after the Ministry of Defence’s scheduled press briefing.

Nisha: What kind of international reaction do you foresee?

Srinivasan: So far, the international community has unequivocally condemned the Pahalgam attack. No one supports terrorism, so that’s expected. But now that India has retaliated, the global response will depend on two factors:

The extent of civilian casualties in Pakistan.

India’s messaging—if it continues to position the strike as a counterterrorist action and not an act of war.

The world is already grappling with two major conflicts—Ukraine and Gaza. A third conflict zone between two nuclear-armed neighbours would alarm everyone. So, we can expect strong calls for de-escalation, especially from powers like the US and EU.

Nisha: Will this impact India’s global image?

Srinivasan: India has said the targets were only terror camps. If it can maintain that narrative, global sympathy will remain with New Delhi. But as I mentioned, that hinges on what we learn about the actual ground situation.

A lot also depends on how India’s diplomatic corps handles this. We’re already seeing preemptive moves: Indian embassies issuing clarifications, defence attachés being activated, etc.

By evening, with the Defence Ministry's press conference and possibly a political statement, we’ll have a clearer picture.

The content above has been generated using a fine-tuned AI model. To ensure accuracy, quality, and editorial integrity, we employ a Human-In-The-Loop (HITL) process. While AI assists in creating the initial draft, our experienced editorial team carefully reviews, edits, and refines the content before publication. At The Federal, we combine the efficiency of AI with the expertise of human editors to deliver reliable and insightful journalism.