The misleading yet old familiar rhetoric has just resurfaced in the recently released Indian policy report, “Operation Sindoor & India`s New Doctrine of Deterrence,” after India carried out a false flag operation, “Operation Sindoor,” in May this year. The whole report is based on Indian narratives. It overstates military claims, stereotyping major geopolitical realities, and making efforts to underrepresent the strategic rationale of Pakistan. One of the sections is highly misleading as it portrays India`s disappointment in European diplomacy, and the author is tactful not to present the necessary contextual details that are so important to a fair and impartial understanding of the May Conflict.
Pakistan condemned the Pahalgam attack but rejects equating Kashmiri resistance with terrorism.
First, one has to remember that Pakistan itself has been a victim of terrorism and condemns any terrorist act in all its forms and manifestations. This is a reason that Pakistan quickly condemned the Pahalgam attack; however, one line that it took, like before, is that the indigenous struggle of the Kashmiris is being equated to terrorism, which is of concern and highly problematic. The Resistance Front (TRF), the organization accused of the attack, is rather an inside anti-India revolt against the decades-long Indian military occupation of the Kashmir valley, rather than a cross-border one. Many independent observers also believe it to be a front for local resistance organizations active within the valley. Unfortunately, the trend of hastily blaming Pakistan for such internal security lapses has become the new normal in New Delhi.
Second, the legitimization of Indian retaliatory attacks across the Line of Control (LoC), and even within the territory of Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJ&K), fails to acknowledge a fundamental principle: any cross-border strike constitutes a violation of international law. As a sovereign state, Pakistan has every right to respond in self-defense. What deserves recognition is Pakistan’s measured response, which avoided reckless escalation. The sole objective was to preserve credible minimum deterrence and prevent the region from being dragged into a nuclear conflict.
In contrast, Indian airstrikes have a poor record of limited tactical success paired with disproportionate propaganda value. For example, during the 2019 Balakot strikes, India claimed to have targeted a terrorist camp; however, independent media reports and satellite imagery later revealed that the Indian forces had struck an uninhabited hilltop.
Third, portraying European neutrality as a diplomatic failure clearly reflects double standards. The European Union’s (EU) call for restraint during the May conflict was not necessarily rooted in bias, but rather in recognition of the serious nuclear risks involved in the confrontation. The very idea of seeing the EU`s call for de-escalation as an insult to India is a frustration against the fact that such a call somehow puts India and Pakistan on equal footing. Besides, it cannot be ignored that both nations possess nuclear capability, and any misadventure or miscalculation can lead to a massive catastrophe in the region.
Any cross-border Indian strike violates international law and risks escalation.
Fourth, the Indian narrative relies heavily on unverified reports regarding the performance of the Pakistani and Indian air forces during the recent conflict. Indian claims of downing Pakistani jets remain unsubstantiated, while reports of Rafale aircraft being shot down have been verified by multiple media outlets and even acknowledged by senior Indian officials. It should not be overlooked that such comparisons risk fueling an arms race in the region. The focus should instead be on crisis management, deterrence stability, and the prevention of escalation, not on who flew the faster jet or how many aircraft were lost. Moreover, it is no longer surprising that such acts of Indian aggression frequently coincide with upcoming elections in India, a pattern not observed in Pakistan for at least the past three electoral terms, if not more.
Fifth, the reason that is being highlighted periodically in the article in question is that Europe did not come forward to support India, completely overlooks the historical background. History reveals the fact that Western nations have in most cases been even too swift to support the Indian story against Pakistan. To illustrate, the human rights violations and rampant miseries in the Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu & Kashmir (IIOJ&K) have never been admitted by the majority of Western countries, especially after the revocation of Article 370 in 2019, which quite openly disenfranchised the Muslim population of the occupied valley. In contrast, Islamabad has persistently advocated the Kashmir cause through diplomatic channels across multiple international platforms in its pursuit of justice for the oppressed.
Sixth, the claim that Pakistan is reliant on unconditional support from China and Türkiye, while India is constrained by “transactional” ties with the West, is indeed disingenuous. Islamabad’s partnerships are rooted in shared interests, regional stability, and strategic convergence, not merely in arms sales. Türkiye shares a principled stance with Pakistan on the Kashmir issue, while China’s defense partnership with Pakistan is based on mutual regional deterrence, particularly in response to destabilizing actions in South Asia.
Finally, the report’s claim that India “emerged confident” militarily from the May conflict is highly misleading and unsupported by independent analyses. In reality, India’s ruling party faced domestic criticism for underestimating Pakistan’s aerial preparedness, with Prime Minister Narendra Modi mockingly labeled “Surrender Modi” by major opposition parties.
EU calls for restraint reflect nuclear risk awareness, not anti-India bias.
Perhaps the most concerning aspect of the segment is its framing of the West’s caution as a form of betrayal. This perspective dangerously disregards the need for restraint and responsibility in one of the most volatile regions in the world. If nothing else, this experience ought to encourage Europe and other international players to take a more active stance in resolving the central problem, which is the unsettled status of Jammu and Kashmir. Otherwise, flare-ups will continue to pose a persistent danger to regional and international security in the absence of progress on this front.
Pakistan is still dedicated to the peaceful resolution of the disputes through diplomatic channels. However, it cannot be expected to tolerate the violations of its sovereignty. A balanced strategic partnership with both South Asian nations requires that Europe and the broader West engage with nuance, not nostalgia, and seek peace through parity, not patronage.
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.
