The Hindu Editorial Analysis
19 May 2025
Operation Sindoor — a doubtful deterrent
(Source – The Hindu, National Edition – Page No. – 08)
Topic: GS 2 & GS 3: Internal Security | India’s Counter-Terrorism Strategy | Foreign Policy | Role of Intelligence Agencies
Context
- Following the Pahalgam terror attack on April 22, 2024, Prime Minister Narendra Modi launched Operation Sindoor, a military response aimed at showcasing deterrence against cross-border terrorism.
- The editorial questions the efficacy of military retaliation as a deterrent, the lack of transparency in outcomes, and the need for parliamentary oversight and strategic realism.
Introduction
In the war on terror, retaliation alone cannot guarantee resolution.
India’s Operation Sindoor, touted as a muscular response to terrorism, reflects a familiar pattern of military assertion without systemic reform or accountability.
While symbolic, the operation raises serious concerns about strategic utility, civilian costs, and policy coherence.
The Core Argument: Retaliation ≠ Deterrence
1. Failure to Deter Future Attacks
- Despite surgical strikes (2016) and Balakot (2019), the Pahalgam attack still occurred, suggesting that cross-border retaliation is not a long-term deterrent.
- Investigations reveal that top perpetrators remain at large, with no concrete evidence of disruption to terrorist leadership or training hubs.
2. Missed Targets and Collateral Costs
- Past military strikes reportedly killed over 100 terrorists, but high-value targets like Salahuddin and Masood Azhar remained operational.
- The Mumbai 26/11 attackers, notably Ajmal Kasab, were prosecuted domestically—not neutralized through such operations.
Questioning Strategic Value
1. The Illusion of Tactical Success
- Eliminating foot soldiers or destroying camps does not eliminate the ideology, funding, or networks sustaining terrorism.
- Military retaliation often inflames hostilities, risking escalation along the LoC or IB, with civilian deaths and displacement.
2. International Image and Isolation Tactics
- India’s moves to diplomatically isolate Pakistan (e.g., after 26/11 or Pulwama) have limited geopolitical impact, as China and allies continue support.
- Even strikes post-Uri or Pulwama didn’t stop future attacks, suggesting the limits of global opinion as a deterrent mechanism.
Security Calculus: Who Gains, Who Pays?
1. India’s Military Expenditure vs Outcomes
- Operation Sindoor may bring short-term domestic political mileage, but offers little change in Pakistan’s calculus.
- Civilian casualties, infrastructure destruction, and economic uncertainty strain India’s security and development priorities.
2. Pakistan’s Proxy Infrastructure Remains Intact
- As long as Pakistan’s deep state and terror nexus remains unaddressed through coordinated global pressure, India’s military moves will not suffice.
What Needs to Change: A Realistic Framework
1. Strategic Shift from Retaliation to Disruption
- Focus must shift to intelligence-led policing, surgical legal action, and dismantling financial networks of terror groups.
- Strengthen NIA operations, ensure swift trials, and bring political consensus on anti-terror measures.
2. Broader Diplomatic Coalition
- India should work with global powers—U.S., France, Gulf States, and Russia—to raise costs for state-sponsored terrorism, both diplomatically and economically.
3. Civil-Military Balance and Parliamentary Oversight
- Anti-terror strategies should not bypass democratic checks.
- The need for transparency, public accountability, and policy debates in Parliament is critical to avoid over-militarization.
Conclusion
India’s war on terror cannot be won through spectacle.
Operations like Sindoor, unless backed by legal rigor, diplomatic coordination, and structural intelligence reforms, risk becoming more symbolic than strategic.
To secure its citizens and preserve democratic values, India must build deterrence not on bombs, but on justice, law, and unity of purpose.