India-Pakistan aftershocks: Five strategic reflections to win the story

Time of India

26-05-2025

What came as a surprise to all of us in South Asia, is the sudden promotion of General Asim Munir as Field Marshal for having 'defeated' India in this conflict. He has thus increased his hold on the political, social and economic fields in Pakistan. Furthermore, considering the dislike of the Pakistani people for their politicians, they are perhaps happy to support Munir as the defacto ruler of Pakistan. His continuation in power will mean a regular conflict with India under their 'bleed India by 1000 cuts doctrine'. Thus they will use this path to remain in power and continue with the false perception of claiming victory.
If one looks at India's recent military response to Pakistan's Military-backed terror groups in this context, it has exposed deeper lessons for its strategic posture. While the battlefield may have yielded clear tactical success, the war of narratives, regional and global diplomacy, and long-term threat perception revealed key gaps. In this article, we distil five critical key takeaways and areas that require more serious thinking. These go beyond the immediate military gains; the episode offers deeper lessons on diplomacy, strategic communication, and regional geopolitics. As the dust settles, India must go beyond reaction and embrace a 360-degree or a no-box approach to security, diplomacy, and strategic communication.
Not Against Pakistan, But Against Terror and Its Architects
Let's be clear - India's action targeted terror infrastructure and those protecting it, not the Pakistani people. This distinction is vital. Our conflict is with those who perpetuate violence, primarily elements within the Pakistan military and its proxies who are also designated as terrorist groups under UN Security Council's Resolution1267 Sanctions namely, Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) and Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT). To this geometry lets add a new faction which is yet to be designated as one by the same committee: The Resistance Front (TRF) who claimed responsibility for the
Pahalgam
Massacre and not the ordinary citizens. Even though they retracted soon after under the obvious pressure of the Pakistani military.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Vietnam: New Container Houses (Prices May Surprise You)
Container House | Search ads
Search Now
Undo
The Pakistan military benefited the most from this conflict, especially after General Asim Munir's inflammatory April 16th speech which invoked the 'two-nation theory'. It issued a veiled war call, which effectively served to protect whatever little the military was holding and to renew its mandate to dominate the Pakistani populace. Unfortunately, this nuance was won in Pakistan's national discourse, which predictably portrayed the conflict as a patriotic victory making Gen Munir a hero, which resulted in his odd promotion to a Field Marshal.
Now, India must persist in making this distinction clear, especially to the international community and Pakistan's civil society that it's not 'an era of war but there would be zero tolerance towards terror'. Also amplify a narrative that decoupling the Pakistani populace from its military establishment may open future doors for peace and prosperity. Not to be missed, is that many Pakistani Punjabis claim their heritage from Rajputs and Jats and speak in Punjabi language, which negates the theory that Pakistanis are descendants of Arabs and Turks.
Live Events
Narrative Warfare Is the Next Frontier
Pakistan's claim of 'victory' despite clear losses on the ground exposed a major Indian vulnerability: communication strategy. While India acted within the framework of Article 51 of the UN Charter and showcased operational superiority, it faltered in shaping the global and domestic discourse and perception.
Narrative warfare is no longer secondary, it is central to 21st-century conflict vis-à-vis military combat. India must build a comprehensive, integrated communications doctrine that spans traditional diplomacy, digital engagement, and media strategy. Without a timely, fact-based, and emotionally intelligent narrative, operational success risks being obscured by adversarial propaganda.
We have been able to raise the issue of terrorism at the UN, BRICS and SCO, including our Prime Minister's demand for an international convention at the UNGA. This demand should be escalated with pamphleteering about the Pakistan military's conspiracy in promoting disturbances, both within and without.
Surprisingly, no one has criticised Pakistani terrorism but just terrorism. One hopes that the ensuing seven global trips by all Party delegations from India to engage in the required communication with friendly countries would tilt the scales. We are aware that countries would respond on the lines of their national interest, rather than what we may wish them to do.
Nepal's Silence Was a Diplomatic Miss
One may recall that among the twenty-six innocent lives lost in the Pahalgam massacre was also a Nepali tourist, which should have generated regional condemnation if not global. Yet Kathmandu remained diplomatically mute. Whether this was due to internal caution or a failure on India's part to engage proactively, the outcome reflects a missed opportunity.
India's 'neighbourhood first' policy needs sharper execution. Moments like these demand swift, behind-the-scenes diplomacy to build regional consensus against terrorism. A coordinated South Asian stance on cross-border terrorism is in our collective interest.
Why Doesn't Pakistan's Public Speak Out?
Terrorism has devastated Pakistan itself for a long time. For instance, the Rawalpindi school massacre in 2014, in which more than 130 children were killed brutally, remains a tragic marker of this shared trauma. Similarly, the 2009 Lahore police academy attack, and 2016 Lahore Gulshan-e-Iqbal Park bombing killing many innocent children and civilians is devastating and the list goes on. Yet, there is a conspicuous absence of public empathy from Pakistan when India suffers, though some people did speak out.
This silence stems from decades of militarised indoctrination and a political narrative that legitimises violence against India. Hillary Clinton's warning still resonates: 'You can't keep snakes in your backyard and expect them only to bite your neighbours.'
India must engage with Pakistan's civil society, diaspora, and intellectual class to foster a counter-narrative that challenges the status quo. Empathy must be reintroduced into the regional discourse. But first, Pakis' need to stand in one-voice against homegrown terrorism.
A Third Front Is Emerging, and this is looking alarming!
While India remains vigilant on its western and northern borders, a third vector of strategic concern is emerging in the east. Just in the wake of the recent conflict, a Turkiye-backed group in Bangladesh circulated a map of 'Greater Bangladesh', incorporating Indian territories in Assam, Meghalaya, and West Bengal.
Similarly, incendiary remarks from a retired Bangladeshi Major General followed on his Facebook profile, and we quote 'If India attacks Pakistan, Bangladesh should occupy the seven states of Northeastern India'.
All these reflect ideological vulnerabilities and external influences that could destabilise India's eastern frontier. Turkiye, Azerbaijan, China and Pakistan are increasingly operating in a coordinated ideological axis. India must urgently recalibrate its engagement.
Proactive diplomacy with Dhaka, enhanced intelligence-sharing, and public diplomacy will be key to neutralising this threat. The goal must be clear: preserve regional stability and prevent fringe elements from dictating national narratives.
In conclusion, Pakistan's economic fragility, water stress, and internal insurgencies may tempt its military establishment to externalise internal failures through adventurism. Meanwhile, global powers like the U.S. continue to view Pakistan as a strategic lever due to its location, despite Islamabad's consistent export of instability and terror.
India must, therefore, invest not just in kinetic capability but in resilience, regional and global partnerships, and narrative dominance. The next war may not be over land or airspace or underwater but over perception, psychology, influence, and legitimacy.
Lastly, as Operation Sindoor continues the message is simple: India will not invite a war. But if it is forced upon us, we will not only defend our borders, but we will win the story.
Views expressed are personal. The Authors work for CUTS International, a 42-year old global public policy, research and advocacy group with regional offices over four continents.