Precision, restraint - the statesman

Operation Sindoor and the military escalation between India and Pakistan have reopened old questions about deterrence, tactical agility, and the role of rationality in conflict between two

nuclear-armed neighbours. What stands out this time, however, is not just the intensity of engagement, but the degree of control exercised in its execution ~ and the strategic recalibration

that followed early setbacks. Chief of Defence Staff, General Anil Chauhan, has confirmed that the Indian Air Force sustained losses in the opening exchanges of the conflict. While numbers

and operational details remain classified, what followed reflects a conscious shift in India’s approach. The Indian response involved swift tactical corrections, deeper penetration into

Pakistani airspace, and the use of precision-guided strikes against military targets ~ actions that altered the balance of the confrontation in just three days. This episode marks a

watershed in several ways. First, it signals a maturing of India’s military doctrine in the sub-conventional warfare space. Rather than resorting to indiscriminate escalation or political

posturing, the armed forces demonstrated an ability to absorb initial losses, adapt rapidly, and respond in a manner that was both forceful and measured. This shift also places greater

responsibility on India’s political leadership to communicate clearly with both domestic and international audiences during crises ~ ensuring that military actions are not misread, while

also reinforcing India’s commitment to rules-based conduct and regional stability. The choice to target air bases, rather than civilian infrastructure or symbolic sites, also underscores the

intent to keep the conflict within rational, professional bounds. Secondly, the absence of nuclear brinkmanship is notable. Despite operations near sensitive Pakistani nuclear

infrastructure, both sides maintained a clear distance from strategic thresholds. This reflects a shared, if ta cit, understanding that conventional warfare can ~ and should ~ be conducted

below the nuclear line. Advertisement As General Chauhan remarked, rationality prevailed, and uniforms on both sides acted with restraint and clarity. Thirdly, this conflict introduces a new

norm: conventional force as a calibrated policy tool. The Indian government’s declaration that any future attacks will be met with decisive military response is not mere rhetoric. It

implies a standing readiness posture that will now require persistent operational vigilance, particularly from the Air Force and intelligence services. This, in turn, demands better funding,

integrated command systems, and political-military synergy. Advertisement Finally, the non-involvement of China ~ at least in any active or visible manner ~ is significant. While Pakistan

remains a close ally of Beijing, India reported no unusual activity on its northern borders during the crisis. This creates a small, strategic breathing space for India to refine its western

theatre doctrine without immediate multi-front complications. What this conflict demonstrated, ultimately, is that future engagements between India and Pakistan may no longer follow the

template of past confrontations. The use of precision air power, emphasis on tactical rationality, and avoidance of nuclear signalling could become the new grammar of military crisis

management in South Asia. That is a fragile but welcome evolution. Advertisement