Two weeks after a terrorist attack in Pahalgam, a tourist spot in India administered Jammu and Kashmir, resulting in the killing of 26 civilians, India launched its response. The strikes were named Operation Sindoor, reportedly hitting nine sites in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir on the night of 6-7th May. Delhi presented it as an anti-terror campaign. Indian Defence Minister, Rajnath Singh, claimed that strikes “neutralized nine terrorist camps” and eliminated “over hundreds of terrorists”, calling the strikes as “unimaginably precise”.
Pakistan condemned operation Sindoor as an “act of war” and a serious violation of its territorial sovereignty
Pakistan categorically denied any involvement in the Pahalgam attack, calling for investigation of the attack through neutral party states and offered to facilitate the investigation. Pakistan condemned operationSindoor as an “act of war” and a serious violation of its territorial sovereignty. Its military launched Operation Bunyan-al-Marsoos (Arabic for “Solid Cemented Structure” or “Iron Will”) on the 10th of May, a retaliatory campaign.
Radio Pakistan and the state media claimed that retaliatory strikes struck key airbases of India (Pathankot, Udhampur), missile depots, destruction of the Indian Brahmos missile site in Beas. The same day in an Indian briefing Colonel Sofiya Quershi said, 26 Indian locations were targeted by Pakistan claiming mostly strikes were intercepted and “limited damage” took place at some targeted locations. Pakistan also claimed to have hit down five Indian aircrafts (Including three Rafales: French made 4.5 generation aircrafts) and intercepted drones, along with launching of cyberattacks on India’s power grids.
Indian leadership and mainstream media presented Operation Sindoor a climacteric retaliation. Indian officials emphasized the strikes precision and restraint. Indian Air Force Wing Commander Vyomika Singh said in the briefing that the strikes “neutralized” terrorist camps with “clinical efficiency” and a “considerable restraint”. Rajnath Singh praised the accuracy of the operation stating, “Nine terrorist camps were destroyed and a large number of terrorists were killed”. Later, in an all-party meeting he claimed the killing of over hundred terrorists and warned Pakistan not to “exploit India’s patience”.
Domestically, the government mobilized and took measures to prepare the public for emergencies. Nationwide civil-defense drills were held, mock air-raid and shelter exercises were noted in cities like Lucknow and Varanasi of India. Almost all Indian leadership across the spectrum (except a few critics) lauded the strikes and unity behind the armed forces. The official statement had not positioned Sindoor as anything other than an anti-terrorism measure. Among analysts there was talk about how India wanted to get global support of its position. Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri constantly shot down Pakistan’s accusations as “lies, misinformation, and propaganda,” noting that India focused on hitting militants alone while expressing utmost condemnation of any civilian death in Pakistan.
Pakistani officials emphasized that the victims of Sindoor were only civilians (including women and children), putting the toll at 33 dead in Pakistan
However, India’s claims were questioned by independent sources, some analysts, and opponents. Pakistani officials emphasized that the victims of Sindoor were only civilians (including women and children), putting the toll at 33 dead in Pakistan and denied that they were militants. Analysts observed that both sides “mapped each other’s air defences” in these strikes. India’s claim of killing hundreds of terrorists and not civilians was impossible to verify as some international correspondents and think tanks urged caution. Delhi was impressed by the precision achieved by the SCALP (an air launched guided long range cruise missile known for its stealth capabilities) missiles, but Pakistan shotdown several Indian planes (including the Rafael) and 70-odd drones, severely denting India’s claim of aerial superiority.
India deployed drones followed by the launching of ballistic missiles on May 9-10, allegedly targeting three air bases including Rawalpindi Nur Khan airbase, Chakwal Murid airbase, and Rafiqui airbase of Shorkot as a surgical reprisal for Pakistan’s drone incursion. Pakistan’s military spokesperson DG ISPR, Lieutenant General, Ahmad Sharif Chaudhary, dismissed all Indian drone attack claims as baseless lies.
These drone encounters brought forth a new dimension: Unmanned aerial attacks and state-of-the-art air defenses were a part of both forces, blurring the conventional advantage. India demonstrated its capabilities with the S-400 and Barak missile systems to thwart incoming Pakistani drones. Meanwhile, the Pakistanis claimed that they had successfully repelled about 100 incoming attacks on May 9, further escalating the scuffle.
Pakistan called it a “robust response to blatant Indian aggression,” vowing to “protect Pakistan’s territorial integrity”
Pakistan’s official messaging, made Operation Bunyan as a justified retaliation (rightful defense) and a divine (righteous) cause. The operation, named Bunyan-al-Marsoos by Islamabad, tapped religious symbolism. It has been noted by analysts that the selected operation name refers to a Quranic verse that speaks about believers fighting “as if they were a solid cemented structure”. The state leaders in Pakistan described the conflict as a just fight to protect their people. State media described it as a firm assertion of Pakistan’s “Iron wall” defense of sovereignty. Pakistan called it a “robust response to blatant Indian aggression,” vowing to “protect Pakistan’s territorial integrity”.
The goals of the strike were clearly defined in the ideological terms. They would target every Indian base from where they, “used to attack Pakistani people and the Masajids (Mosques)”. In a confirmation from operations centre (DG ISPR), it was reported that Pakistani strikes hit several Indian airbases including the Pathankot and Udhampur with long-range Fatah missiles. They declared the destruction of key valuable strategic assets: the Beas BrahMos missile depot, Udhampur and Pathankot airbases, and a brigade headquarter at Uri. Pakistan armed forces briefing also claimed the destruction of an S-400 battery stationed at Adampur, by launching a hypersonic missile from a JF-17 fighter jet, the authenticity of which India disputes.
Pakistan’s global messaging was aimed to show resolve. State media took the narrative of a triumphal victory. Images and maps hung with bunting depicting missile strikes, press releases proclaiming proudly “we pulverized” enemy targets, and social media posts accusing India of provoking the conflict. Islamabad received phone calls from US urging both sides to show restraint and de-escalate the situation. Mediation offers were received from Iran, UAE and KSA. Pakistan agreed to a ceasefire agreement with India, brokered by USA on May 11, portraying as Islamabad will agree to halt only, if India halts its violations and respects Pakistan’s territorial sovereignty and Line of Control.
India demonstrated its airpower and precision strike capability i.e., Using SCALP missiles, firing of Brahmos missiles, sending drones. This was a step beyond its last 2019 Balakot raid, where it reached deep inside Punjab territory of Pakistan. But the response of Pakistan showed that India’s deterrent is imperfect.
The fact that Delhi had to scramble and use its entire air defense systems (S-400s, S-300s, Akash missiles, Barak) against dozens of incoming Pakistani drones highlights the serious threat to India
Despite hundreds of drones killed and missiles launched, neither side has gained a decisive upper hand. Analysts noted that Pakistan “was left with no choice but to respond aggressively” and so it did, showing that its military can impose severe costs. Pakistan’s claims (crippling grid powers, hitting S-400, destroying Brahmos depot, shooting down jets) all have not been verified independently. Despite the CNN claims of downing of at least two jets including the Rafael, and May 11 statement of Air Marshal A. K. Bharti, “losses are part of combat”, when asked about the downing of the Rafale jet. But even the fact that Delhi had to scramble and use its entire air defense systems (S-400s, S-300s, Akash missiles, Barak) against dozens of incoming Pakistani drones highlights the serious threat to India.
For both states, the strikes took a serious turn as the conflict has gone far beyond Kashmir, making it more dangerous
After the strikes, both the states tried to shape the region and the world view of the conflict, each presenting its own version of the conflict while discrediting the opponent claims to gain domestic and international support. India insisted that it only struck the terrorist networks and demonstrated its strong will. Pakistan counters Indian narrative and portrays Indian actions as an aggression and serious violation of its territorial sovereignty, and that Indian strikes only targeted the civilians. For both states, the strikes took a serious turn as the conflict has gone far beyond Kashmir, making it more dangerous.
On deterrence credibility, claims are mixed. There are differences in opinions about whether India’s strikes have truly strengthened its ability to deter future attacks. India’s claim of killing over hundred terrorists may have domestic impact, but analysts call for scrutiny. Pakistan’s displaying of civilians (including childrens and womens) killed in India’s strikes questioned India’s moral ground. On the other hand, Pakistan’s blunt response (destroyed airbases, crippling defense system, cyber outages) alarmed Indian strategists about Pakistan’s retaliatory reach.
Military balance is still unstable between the two states. India still maintains the technological advantage (advanced fighter jets, air defense systems, stealth drones etc), but Pakistan demonstrated new tactics: drones swarm attack to confuse the air defense system of India. Use of JF-17s, Hatf missiles and electronic warfare prompting India to consider more investments in air defense despite having world class system already. India’s bombing raid replicated its earlier patterns of bombing the camps, showing the tactics remained the same.
At the end, narrative warfare looms large. India’s media provocation pumped national pride, while Pakistani media’s broadcasting of victim civilians and missteps of Indian strikes (e.g., bombing of the mosques) and use of religious and patriotic messages combined caused internal cohesion. While India’s secular framing of its actions (“hit terrorists, defend democracy”) might have resonated less abroad than Pakistan’s stance of righteous defense.
In a nutshell, Pakistan’s Operation Bunyan-al-Marsoos was designed in a way to restore deterrence: to convey the message that aggression provides equal or greater blowback. If the objective had been to make India “think twice”, Islamabad claims success.
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
