The 2025 India Pakistan drone war had brought South Asia into a perilous new era of armed hostility. It started with a horrific incident in Indian-occupied Kashmir, in which a disastrous attack claimed the lives of a number of tourists. In retaliation, India conducted what it termed “precision strikes” on suspected terrorist sanctuaries in Azad Jammu and Kashmir. But behind the veil of counter-terrorism propaganda, a dark reality surfaced; civilians were the main victims of India’s aggression. Far from a legitimate military exercise, the strikes betrayed a worse trend the normalization of ideology-based violence by India’s BJP government.

Civilians were the main victims of India’s aggression, far from a legitimate military exercise.

India’s so-called “Operation Sindoor” was a major step up in South Asian drone warfare. With surgical-strike footage and nationalist commentary flooding Indian media, the action was hailed as a victory of technological superiority and “decisive leadership.” But Pakistan’s ground-level investigations, independent observers, and even some international media accounts established that no credible terrorist infrastructure was targeted. Rather, it was non-combatant civilians most of them women and children whom the assault fell upon. These facts reveal the emptiness of India’s rationale and uncover a greater, ideological motivation.

This is where Hindutva comes into the picture. The BJP’s ruling political ideology, Hindutva imagines India as an essentially Hindu state an ethno-religious state that is exclusive in nature with minorities, especially Muslims, being assimilated or marginalized. Although Hindutva’s repressive presence is most evident within India in the form of mob violence, discriminatory legislation, and anti-Muslim propaganda, it also influences India’s actions outside its borders particularly against Pakistan, which is portrayed as both a religious and geopolitical competitor.

In Hindutva logic, Pakistan is not just a neighbor but a signifier of historical resentment and ideological challenge. Its existence negates the myth of homogeneous Hindu civilization. In such a perspective, tit-for-tat attacks on Pakistan are not only strategic measures but symbolic displays of Hindu overlordship. BJP’s military aggression, then, has to be read not just as policy but as performance a show to establish the civilizational superiority Hindutva preaches.

Hindutva imagines India as an essentially Hindu state, exclusive and repressive.

The timing of the strikes also needs to be questioned. India is again at the threshold of general elections. In a repeat of the 2019 Balakot air strikes pattern, the BJP is apparently employing militarized nationalism to mobilize its voters. The message is stark: vote for strength, vote for revenge, vote for those who “teach Pakistan a lesson.” This toxic mix of ideology, politics, and militarism has transformed the region into an unstable theatre where civilian lives are offered as a sacrifice on the altar of electoral politics.

By contrast, Pakistan’s retaliatory action, Operation “Bunyan- um-Marsus,” was proportionate and targeted Indian military facilities while skirting civilian loss of life. It was as much a demonstration of military preparedness as strategic restraint. Pakistan might have fired back in like manner, bombarding civilian sectors to avenge the loss of its citizens. But it refused to take that path, affirming instead the moral high ground by asserting its right to self-defense under the law of nations while calling for de-escalation and diplomatic efforts.

However, restraint will not by itself ensure peace. The underlying problem is one of asymmetry of ideology. Pakistan’s military doctrine is based on security thinking and deterrence. India’s posture today, on the other hand, is being increasingly determined by a religio-political doctrine that perceives conflict as catharsis a way of reaffirming national identity. Under such circumstances, rational deterrence yields to emotional impulse, and diplomacy is lost in war cries.

This is not just a bilateral issue. The international community needs to take notice of the ideological radicalization of Indian statecraft. As majoritarian ideologies increasingly dictate foreign policy, they undermine international norms, pose a threat to regional stability, and give encouragement to other illiberal regimes. Global silence in the face of India’s civilian targeting is likely to normalize such an approach and create a pernicious precedent.

Military aggression has to be read not just as policy but as performance, a show to establish civilizational superiority.

Furthermore, complicity from media in India has further polluted the narrative terrain. Indian news media,  spread disinformation and vilify Pakistan unjustifiably. Instead of critiquing the government’s war efforts or looking into civilian killings, these channels operate as propaganda outlets, further endorsing the Hindutva vision and stifling criticism. Such reduction of space in the media narrows the people’s exposure and erodes democratic accountability within India itself, as well as in how the international public comes to see the conflict.

Pakistan needs to follow a multi-track approach now: enhance its diplomatic efforts to place the ideological nature of Indian aggression in the international spotlight, report civilian casualties on credible international media outlets which it did to much extent, and initiate a regional security dialogue that includes neutral interlocutors. This is not merely a question of military moves it is one of winning the narrative in the international arena.

Peace for South Asia is not possible at the expense of the ruins of homes and bodies of civilians. Nor can peace arise from Hindutva ideological ashes that deify war and demonize tolerance. What this region requires instead is a refreshed commitment to discourse, decency, and de-radicalization. As the drones fall silent for now, the ideologies that drive them still linger. And unless the world is prepared to face them, the next crisis may not be far behind.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author. They do not represent the views, beliefs, or policies of the Stratheia.