In the past month, India has faced a momentous escalation in tensions with Pakistan, following a series of events that have tested national security and diplomatic resilience. It also put forth the importance of nuclear deterrence. What happened and how did it come to be? Let’s have a look.
Pahalgam Attack: Harbinger to Collapse of Already Fragile Peace
On April 22, 2025, India was rocked by one of the deadliest terror attacks in Kashmir in recent memory. The scenic town of Pahalgam, known for its tranquil beauty and tourist-friendly atmosphere, became the epicentre of horror when gunmen opened fire on a group of civilians, killing 26 and injuring dozens more. What made the attack especially grotesque was the targeted nature of the killings. Witness accounts revealed that the assailants separated Hindus from Muslims and demanded the non-Muslims recite the kalma, an Islamic declaration of faith, before executing those who refused.
This communal targeting sent shockwaves through India. Although The Resistance Front (TRF), a proxy outfit linked to Lashkar-e-Taiba, initially claimed responsibility, the group later retracted its statement. This move was widely seen as an attempt to muddy accountability. For Indian intelligence and defence analysts, however, the evidence pointed squarely toward Pakistan-based terrorist infrastructure. The operation bore the hallmark of cross-border coordination, likely involving handlers across the Line of Control (LoC). India’s Ministry of External Affairs condemned the attack in the strongest terms, calling it not just a terror incident but a “state-sponsored act of war.”
The political atmosphere in New Delhi hardened overnight. The public, media, and political opposition united in demanding a strong, decisive response. Within days, India’s security apparatus, under the Prime Minister’s direct supervision, began crafting a retaliatory strike, something swift, precise, and unambiguous in its message to Pakistan: such provocations would no longer go unanswered.
Operation Sindoor: A Measured Strike, A Clear Signal
On the morning of May 7, 2025, India launched “Operation Sindoor.” It was a tri-service precision strike that targeted nine identified terrorist launchpads and logistical hubs across Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) and parts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The operation was conceived not as a knee-jerk military spasm, but as a cold, calculated mission designed to inflict maximum damage on Pakistan’s cross-border terror infrastructure with minimal escalation.
Air Force Sukhoi-30MKIs and Rafale jets led the assault. They dropped precision-guided munitions on key locations believed to be occupied by Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed operatives. Simultaneously, special operations teams neutralised smaller targets closer to the LoC, including safehouses used by TRF-linked operatives. Naval intelligence also played a surveillance role in ensuring that Pakistan’s western coastlines remained neutralised during the mission window.
The Ministry of Defence characterised the mission as “controlled, precise, and non-escalatory,” a phrase that captured India’s intent: this was not war, but a message. Yet, make no mistake, Sindoor marked India’s deepest cross-border engagement since the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War. Pakistani radar installations remained surprisingly passive, suggesting either Indian electronic warfare superiority or calculated restraint by Rawalpindi.
Domestically, Operation Sindoor was met with widespread public approval. Even opposition leaders, usually critical of security operations, hailed the mission’s precision and clarity. For the Indian establishment, Sindoor was not just about avenging Pahalgam, it was about restoring deterrence, recalibrating the Indo-Pak dynamic, and demonstrating that India would no longer rely on international sympathy alone when its citizens were butchered.
Pakistan’s Response: Provocations and the Golden Temple Incident
Predictably, Islamabad did not take India’s Operation Sindoor lightly. Within hours of the airstrikes, Pakistan initiated heavy artillery shelling across multiple sectors along the LoC, targeting civilian and military positions alike. Several died along the border, most of them civilians, including children. But what followed next was far more audacious and far more sinister.
According to senior Indian Army officials, Pakistani forces attempted a targeted drone and missile attack on the Golden Temple in Amritsar on the night of May 9. The Golden Temple is the centre of faith for one of India’s most important minority Sikh community. It witnesses a show of faith from nearly 100,000 devotees every day and it open 24/7. Had the Pakistani attack on the Golden Temple succeeded, the implications would have been catastrophic, both in terms of loss of life and potential communal unrest. Fortunately, India’s air defence systems, already on high alert, successfully intercepted all incoming drones and short-range missiles.
The Army later revealed that intelligence inputs had alerted them to the possibility of such an attack, and a rare decision was made to station defence artillery within the sacred premises of the Golden Temple itself. This deployment had the blessing of the head granthi, who recognised the extraordinary threat at hand. The Army’s measured but firm response neutralised what could have been a national catastrophe.
This attempted attack on a holy site was condemned across the political spectrum in India. The message was clear: Pakistan, unable to match India’s conventional capabilities, was now stooping to symbolic terrorism. From New Delhi’s perspective, this had developed beyond a military retaliation into a psychological warfare aimed at provoking internal unrest within India. The restraint shown by Indian authorities in both defensive readiness and public messaging prevented the situation from spiralling into a larger communal crisis.
Ceasefire and Diplomatic Crosscurrents
On May 10, a ceasefire was announced by both India and Pakistan after high-level military talks between the Director Generals of Military Operations (DGMOs). But unlike previous ceasefire understandings, which often came at the urging of external powers, this time India made it clear: the ceasefire was a result of direct, military-to-military communication and not foreign mediation. India said that the Pakistani military commander approached India for a ceasefire. However, some days later, Pakistan claimed the opposite.
In fact, U.S. President Donald Trump’s earlier statement claiming credit for brokering the ceasefire sparked a diplomatic row. India’s Ministry of External Affairs swiftly dismissed the assertion, with Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri stating categorically that no third party had any role in what was a bilateral military engagement. The American narrative was seen in New Delhi as opportunistic at best, misleading at worst. In fact, President Trump too, later took a U-turn from his previous patronising narrative and said that he did not do it but played a role.
China, meanwhile, issued a carefully worded statement backing efforts by both sides to maintain peace but avoided taking a clear stance. Its involvement with Pakistan, however, is no secret. Turkish involvement became another diplomatic sore point when Turkish ground handling firm Çelebi had its security clearance revoked by India, an action seen as retaliation for Ankara’s pro-Pakistan rhetoric during the crisis. A voluntary movement from Indians boycotting Turkey and Azerbaijan as tourist destinations also arose.
India’s diplomatic messaging throughout this period has been unambiguous: peace is desirable, but not at the cost of sovereignty or national security. Talks can only resume when Pakistan demonstrates credible action against terror groups operating from its soil. Until then, India has signalled it will maintain elevated troop levels, continue intelligence operations, and respond militarily if provoked again.
