The Pahalgam attack was an Indian failure and a response to the brutalities that have been happening inside Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IIOJK). The Kashmiris never accepted their occupation and continued to fight against the occupiers. The Kashmiri guerrilla fighters had been using different tactics to get rid of the occupied force, and continued to face forced disappearances, mass killings, and other number of other brutalities against the Muslims of IIOJK.

It is to be noted that the attackers operated for an extended period of time, apparently questioning victims before executing them. These reports were conveyed by the Indian outlets, such as the Indian media reports, themselves. Considering these reports, the separatists had sufficient time to execute their plan with no fear of interruption, showcasing that they were well aware of the presence and schedule of the armed forces.

Operation Sindoor was not a watershed response, but an escalatory mistake that shed innocent civilian blood.

The statements used by Lt Gen Sanjay Verma in his recent article, quoting, ‘Operation Sindoor’ as a ‘Watershed Response’ to the Pahalgam attack of April 22, 2025, portrays only one-side of the picture, giving the impression of the actions of the Indian armed forces positioning them as a strategic success and bold innovation in counterterrorism doctrine. This version of the story, however, is fundamentally wrong, propagating the operation as a right and successful attack without regard to the disproportionality of this action.

Unfortunately, the international community completely ignored the imprudent legitimacy and the disturbance it caused to the stability in South Asia. ‘Operation Sindoor’ was not a success story of accuracy and determination but an act of escalatory ambition that was intended to target non-military and civil installations, which did not accomplish its declared goals, and highlighted the resilience of the Pakistani nation and its international image. Not only this but his whole argument revolved around the change in strategies to gain war goals, showing the intentions of initiating wars again against Pakistan.

Other than this, his article placed special focus on two things, i.e., Institutionalized and robust R&D, and Structural reform in capability building, which further strengthens the fact that India’s intentions to destabilize the region won’t stop here. The amendments throughout the paper that he has suggested pay special focus on the fact that next time they execute a successful attack. Ironically, the Lt.Gen missed including Pakistan’s response to protect the state and sovereignty of the state.

It should be noted that the biggest failure was the incapability of their pilots to fly Rafael jets. This counterargument is a harsh refutation of the arguments presented in the opinion piece, pointing out the idea of Pakistan’s restraint, military performance, and support abroad, and showing the strategic errors of India.

The 88-hour operation Sindoor of the calibrated strikes established a new matrix of military response to India where precision and a technological touch were featured. Nevertheless, this description overlooked important failures and exaggerations. According to reports of the Interior Ministry of Pakistan and the media of the country, as well as the Al Jazeera media organization, the strikes by the Indians were aimed at the civilian settlements, such as the mosques and madrassa’s which included small children and killing 31 civilians.

The Resistance Front claimed responsibility, challenging India’s narrative of Pakistani involvement.

India, calling itself the biggest democracy, failed to protect the basic rights and violated international law by attacking the innocent civilians, yet showcasing that its image as a strong democracy and protector of human rights is not true. Essentially, the deployment of BrahMos missiles and drones in populated areas such as those in Bahawalpur begs the question: could India be accurate with the said claims? India justifies its strikes against terrorist facilities by the absence of independent proof, the UN investigations for example.

The fact that Pakistan calls for be investigation by Transparency International investigation which India denies, implies that another country would be trying to hide civilian casualties, or maybe an independent, unbiased investigation would expose India more.

When India was blaming JeM for the attack, the Resistance Front (TRF) claimed responsibility for the Pahalgam attack, further casting India of wrapping blame on Pakistan-based groups due to a plausible false flag operation. Moreover, the Lt Verma opinion piece poster has already presented a distorted figure of information in India. The Hindu and fact-checking websites like Factly have revealed that Indian assertions of catching the Pakistani cities or hitting Karachi port as false.

More so, there were news channels that publicized themselves with claims about taking Port at Lahore, which is not geographically present, to begin with. There is a contradictory narrative and propagation of lies on the side of India, which Pakistan counters through its information campaign comprising a 20-page document with video evidence.

Moreover, Lt also interpreted a unified political support of India as an advantage, although such consideration ignores the lack of legitimate interest in the operation as well as its regional implications, whereas, on the contrary, the same gap was identified to be countered by the government regarding its future policies.

India’s strikes targeted mosques and madrassas, killing 31 civilians according to Pakistan’s Interior Ministry and Al Jazeera.

The Pahalgam attack in India is based on false intelligence interception, as India blamed the participation of an expelled Pakistani Army commander, Hashim Moosa; however, no evidence was found against him. In the Sky News interview, Defence Minister of Pakistan Khawaja Asif insisted that the attack was a false flag operation based on the retracted claim by TRF.

The fact that India rejected the call by Pakistan for an UN-led investigation to put a stop to such cases and acts of sabotage is not firming its accusations. The operation worsened the rift between India and Pakistan, necessitating the mediation of the US to broker a ceasefire on May 10, 2025. The international community felt sympathy towards the diplomatic initiatives of Pakistan such as a closed-door meeting in the UN Security Council and even the Iranian proposal to mediate the conflict.

The assertion of the opinion piece that there was strong international support in favor of India is exaggerated because the global powers did not want to support India but rather to de-escalate. The opinion column goes to the extent of commending the technological prowess of India, pointing to locally developed systems, quoting  BrahMos and Akash, but BrahMos is based on the Russian cruise missile technology, showing it is not a local technology.

Nevertheless, the military actions of Pakistan portray their strength and endurance. The level of western propaganda reached new limits as according to a German daily newspaper ‘Neue Zurcher Zeitung’, blaming Pakistan quoted that “Pakistan has refuted the story of Indian impunity criticizing that Pakistani-shot down a Chinese-supplied air defense that triggered India to attack its capital, Islamabad.”

However, the events of May 10 proved otherwise, Operation Bunyan al-Marsus, reputed Pakistani reprisal attacks, making the world witness Pakistan destroying Indian military infrastructure, demonstrating that an inferior defense budget ($9 billion vs. India $78.7 billion) cannot preclude an ability to strike back.

The calculated measures of retaliation of Pakistan meant that there was no wholesome intervention, which is in line with its diplomatic campaign to have a ceasefire. This restraint was opposed by the aggressive stance of India, and it had threatened the stability in the region. The opinion article supports the view that R&D and acquisition reformation are necessary to counter capability shortage in India; however, the Pakistani point of view evinces that over-dependence on emergency purchases (INR 40,000 Cr) by India is an indication of taking Pakistan for granted.

Pakistan uses cost-effective systems, and the effectiveness of these systems against the strikes by India means that the defense ecosystem in Pakistan is stronger than the disjointed procurement process by India. The opinion writing acknowledges the fact that India had capacity shortfalls, and emergency purchases address only a few gaps. The Operation Sindoor revealed that, India had been using imported munitions (SCALP, AASM Hammer) and therefore have delusional Atmanirbhar.

Pakistan’s military and diplomatic response positioned it as seeking stability amid India’s aggressive stance.

Operation Sindoor was not a watershed response, but an escalatory mistake that shed innocent civilian blood, and did not include Pakistani involvement, even after their videotaped confessions against them. The fact that Pakistan has been able to provide an effective military response and diplomacy, including a demand for an independent probe that has allowed it to convey its narrative of resistance, is the direct opposite of the Indian theme of victory.

The fallout of such an operation in terms of recent tensions in the region and the spread of misinformation demonstrates the strategic overreach by India. The urge by Pakistan to restructure the international monitoring of such conflicts along with its demonstrated military and diplomatic capabilities makes it a responsible state that aims to establish stability in such an unstable area.

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.