Delivering a broad impact within a narrow escape

New Indian Express

08-05-2025

India's response ticked many boxes—action, optics, message. We have learnt lessons from past strikes that a lack of pictorial evidence can let narratives spiral. This time, we presented the evidence professionally. By avoiding military targets, India offered the Pakistan Army an off-ramp. It's up to Pakistan to choose how to interpret the message
India's response to the Pahalgam attack was both unprecedented and calibrated. While some may have expected more in terms of scale, what unfolded was deliberate and measured. As many as nine camps were hit across Pakistan-occupied Kashmir and Pakistan itself. No military installations were targeted—only terror infrastructure. The operation was narrow in scope, but broad in impact.
What stood out was the finesse. India sent a clear message. We said, 'This is our response. It's for you not to escalate from here.' The optics, too, were striking—from the operation's name to the choice of two senior women officers at the press briefing. If I recall correctly, never before had the foreign secretary been flanked by two women in uniform at such a briefing. They looked extremely professional and lent credibility and poise to the announcement. The messaging ticked every box.
Compared to the strike on Balakot, the transparency this time was remarkable. Each site's selection was explained, and the rationale made public. Clearly, a lesson had been learned. Today's battlefields are more transparent—artificially, perhaps. But perception matters.
If you go back in history, for example, in 1971, India didn't produce pictorial records after hitting Karachi. At the time, operational commanders wouldn't have thought it necessary to gather 'proof'—that wasn't their priority. But post-Balakot, India realised that lack of imagery or the photographic kind of palpable evidence allows narratives to spiral. This time, that gap was closed. There was enough corroboration, enough circumstantial evidence—and even an admission from Pakistan's own foreign minister about past support to terror networks. That set the stage for global credibility.
The strikes going deep into 'mainland' Pakistan are significant. That they were launched from Indian soil adds yet another layer. Without crossing the border, India achieved its objectives—delivering impact and endeavouring to avoid the airspace escalation that could follow.
Availability of stand-off platforms with enhanced capabilities to hit deep into Pakistan complicates Pakistan's problems of response. For example, Rafales conducting a routine patrol on our side of the border could confuse them about whether it is a drill or a real provocation. We can disrupt his OODA (observe, orient, decide, act) loop or, in simple words, make his decision cycle difficult. If they react blindly, escalation is possible—but the initiative remains with India.
Both nations have long-range missiles that can carry different payloads. However, most of them are area weapons, designed for broad impact. India's strike in this case was surgical. It hit specific buildings while avoiding civilian areas. That sends a clear message: we're targeting terror infrastructure, not the country.
The Pakistan Army is now in a bind. Given that it controls nearly 60 percent of the country's economy and loathes appearing weak, some response is likely. Yet, by avoiding military targets, India offered them an off-ramp. They can issue statements, visit families of the dead—and still avoid escalation. If they're smart, they'll take it. Conflict threatens their economic interests.
But you can't rely on rationality. The army controls public opinion and has long fed its people a diet of hate and denial. Harsh as it seems, it's like dealing with a 'street lumpen'—he doesn't care what he's clothed in or whether he has a job, as long as he gets his fix. That's potentially dangerous. People with nothing to lose can act irrationally, or give the impression of being so.
India, by contrast, is a country looking towards prosperity. Our armed forces are ready. But we hope this is seen as a message, not a provocation. It's up to Pakistan to choose how to interpret it.
What's also striking is how India's machinery hasn't paused. Twenty years ago, a Pahalgam-like attack would have created a certain amount of confusion within the system. There would have been much hand-wringing, a certain sense of helplessness and lots of discordance about the kind of response. Today, even newspapers that didn't headline the response moved on to UK trade talks and space conferences. The government planned and executed a complex strike without missing a beat.
Whatever one's politics, the establishment has shown certain strategic decisiveness and operational savvy—in piracy ops, border standoffs, and cross-border strikes. Beyond military action, it has handled diplomacy with purpose. The global response has thus been muted. Not due to apathy, but because of clarity. When India said it would act, the world believed it. What may have surprised them was the restraint thus far. Even China, which may want Pakistan to stay afloat, knows it can't back endless failure. The consensus is simple: India is a country worth engaging. Pakistan offers little in return.