By: Sofiqua Yesmin, Research Analyst, GSDN

In the early hours of May 7, 2025, India launched Operation Sindoor, a series of precision military strikes targeting terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir (PoJK). This operation, a direct response to the brutal April 22, 2025, terror attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, which claimed 26 civilian lives, marked a significant shift in India’s counterterrorism strategy. The operation not only dismantled key terror hubs but also redefined the security dynamics between India and Pakistan, two nuclear-armed neighbors with a history of tense relations. As the dust settles, the road ahead for South Asia remains fraught with challenges, opportunities, and uncertainties. This article explores the context, execution, and outcomes of Operation Sindoor, and analyzes its broader implications for regional stability, diplomacy, and the future of South Asia.

The Context: A Deadly Trigger in Pahalgam

The Pahalgam attack on April 22, 2025, was one of the deadliest terrorist incidents in India since the 2008 Mumbai attacks. Gunmen targeted tourists in the scenic Baisaran Valley, killing 25 Indian nationals and one Nepali citizen. The attackers’ method was particularly chilling: they segregated male tourists, identified non-Muslims, and executed them in cold blood, leaving their Hindu wives widowed. Indian intelligence agencies quickly traced the attack to operatives linked to Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), two Pakistan-based militant groups with a long history of targeting India. The National Investigation Agency uncovered digital and testimonial evidence pointing to support from Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), with operational bases in Muzaffarabad and Karachi.

The brutality of the attack, combined with its targeting of civilians and tourists, sparked outrage across India. Prime Minister Narendra Modi, while attending engagements in Saudi Arabia, swiftly decided that the incident demanded a decisive response. The choice of the name “Operation Sindoor” was symbolic: sindoor, the red vermilion powder worn by married Hindu women, represented the widows left behind by the attack and underscored India’s resolve to avenge the loss and protect its sovereignty. This emotional and cultural framing resonated deeply with the Indian public, particularly among supporters of the Hindu nationalist government, amplifying calls for retaliation.

Execution of Operation Sindoor: Precision and Restraint

Operation Sindoor was launched in the intervening night of May 6-7, 2025, between 1:05 and 1:30 AM, as a coordinated tri-service effort involving the Indian Army, Navy, and Air Force. The operation targeted nine terrorist sites across Pakistan and PoJK, including key hubs linked to LeT, JeM, and Hizbul Mujahideen. These locations, identified as training and operational bases, included strongholds in Muridke, Bahawalpur, and areas in Pakistan’s Punjab province—regions previously considered off-limits for direct military action.

India employed a range of high-precision, standoff weapons to minimize risk and collateral damage. The Indian Air Force deployed SCALP cruise missiles, HAMMER precision-guided bombs, and loitering munitions, often called “kamikaze drones,” which hovered over targets to ensure accuracy before striking. Rafale jets, equipped with advanced weaponry, executed deep strikes without crossing into Pakistani airspace, a deliberate choice to avoid escalation. The 23-minute mission exposed gaps in Pakistan’s air defense network, which was either bypassed or neutralized, with no reported loss of Indian assets. The Indian Navy supported the operation by pinning Pakistan’s naval forces near the coast in the Arabian Sea, while the Army bolstered ground-based air defenses with systems like the indigenous Akash and the Russian S-400.

India’s official stance emphasized the operation’s focused, measured, and non-escalatory nature. No Pakistani military, civilian, or economic targets were hit, and the strikes claimed over 100 terrorists, including high-value operatives like JeM leader Abdul Rauf Azhar, implicated in the 1999 IC-814 hijacking and the killing of journalist Daniel Pearl. The operation showcased India’s military superiority, technological advancements, and seamless tri-service coordination, signaling a new era in its counterterrorism doctrine.

Pakistan’s Response and Escalation

Pakistan’s response was swift and escalatory. Islamabad claimed 26 civilians and 46 others were killed or injured in the Indian strikes, accusing New Delhi of an “act of war.” Pakistan’s military launched retaliatory drone and missile attacks on May 9-10, targeting military installations in northern and western India, including Srinagar, Jammu, and Punjab. India’s robust air defense systems, such as the Akashteer, intercepted many of these, and retaliatory strikes hit 11 Pakistani air bases, reportedly destroying 20% of its air force infrastructure. Pakistan claimed to have shot down Indian aircraft, including Rafale jets, but India has not confirmed these losses, and the claims remain unverified.

The tit-for-tat exchanges marked the worst fighting between the two nations in over two decades, raising fears of a wider conflict. Pakistan’s narrative portrayed India’s actions as aggressive, with officials like Defence Minister Khawaja Asif attempting to discredit India on international media, though such claims faltered under scrutiny. Domestically, voices like Pakistan People’s Party Chair Bilawal Bhutto Zardari condemned the strikes as cowardly and vowed a united response. However, a ceasefire, described by India as an “understanding,” was announced on May 10, 2025, following diplomatic efforts.

Strategic Shift: A New Doctrine

Operation Sindoor marked a paradigm shift in India’s national security strategy. Prime Minister Modi declared it a “new normal,” emphasizing that India would no longer tolerate nuclear blackmail or state-sponsored terrorism. The operation targeted not just terrorists but also challenged Pakistan’s perceived nuclear shield, with strikes near sensitive sites like the Kirana Hills and Noor Khan Airbase. This bold move signaled that nuclear capabilities would not deter India from responding to cross-border terrorism.

A significant long-term development was India’s decision to hold the Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance. This 1960 agreement, a cornerstone of hydro-diplomacy, has constrained India’s ability to leverage its upper riparian position. By suspending obligations, India introduced a new geo-economic tool, particularly potent given Pakistan’s deepening water crisis. This move, combined with precision strikes, demonstrated India’s willingness to use both kinetic and non-kinetic measures to assert dominance.

The operation also redefined deterrence. India’s restraint avoiding civilian and military targets contrasted with Pakistan’s escalatory response, highlighting a stark asymmetry in capabilities and strategic maturity. West Point expert John Spencer called it an “objective victory,” praising India’s clarity and execution. The strikes dismantled terror networks, restored deterrence, and established a new red line: state-backed terrorism would be treated as an act of war.

Regional and Global Reactions

The global response was mixed but largely favorable to India. The U.S., U.K., Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Russia were briefed by India’s National Security Advisor Ajit Doval, who emphasized the operation’s non-escalatory nature. The Wall Street Journal and BBC framed the strikes as a legitimate retaliation for the Pahalgam attack, while the UN Secretary-General urged restraint to avoid a military confrontation. U.S. President Donald Trump called the clashes “a shame” but expressed hope for a quick resolution, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio closely monitoring the situation.

Japan condemned the April 22 attack and urged dialogue, while China expressed concern over escalation, calling for adherence to international law. The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan and the Malaysian Ulema Association echoed calls for peace, highlighting the broader regional stakes. Within India, the Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee unanimously congratulated the armed forces, and traders in Delhi held a ‘Tiranga March’ in solidarity.

However, tensions led to unintended consequences. Pakistan closed its airspace, causing flight disruptions across South Asia and the UAE, with airlines like Emirates, Air France, and Lufthansa rerouting to avoid the region. Reports of harassment of Kashmiris in India raised concerns, with human rights groups calling for communal harmony.

The Road Ahead: Challenges and Opportunities

Operation Sindoor has reshaped South Asia’s security landscape, but the future remains uncertain. Below are key considerations for the road ahead.

1. Security and Deterrence

India’s new doctrine of pre-emptive, decisive action has strengthened deterrence, but Pakistan’s vow of retaliation risks renewed escalation. The cat-and-mouse game between terrorists and Indian intelligence will intensify, as groups like LeT and JeM seek to rebuild and hide. India must enhance its targeting capabilities, drawing lessons from Israel and the U.S., to sustain pressure on terrorist networks. The emergency procurement powers granted to the armed forces, with a budget of approximately Rs 40,000 crore, will bolster readiness, but sustained investment in advanced weaponry, cyber defenses, and space capabilities is critical.

2. Diplomacy and De-escalation

The ceasefire, facilitated by U.S. communication, underscores the need for dialogue. India’s framing of Kashmir as a bilateral issue and its refusal to invite Pakistan to a UN Security Council briefing signal a hardline stance. However, suspending the Indus Waters Treaty could strain relations further, especially if India restricts water access. A balanced approach combining pressure with backchannel talks could prevent a full-scale conflict, though Pakistan’s internal instability and reliance on China and Turkey complicate matters.

3. Regional Stability

South Asia faces heightened instability. Pakistan’s economic and political fragility, exacerbated by military losses and potential credit downgrades, could fuel domestic unrest. India’s assertive posture may deter terrorism but risks alienating neighbors if perceived as hegemonic. The operation’s de-hyphenation of the Kashmir issue from counterterrorism offers a chance to reframe regional narratives, but success depends on India’s ability to maintain global support and avoid communal tensions at home.

4. Global Implications

Operation Sindoor has global resonance. Democratic states are rethinking deterrence in an era of gray-zone threats and nuclear brinkmanship. India’s use of indigenous systems like Akash and space-based monitoring via ISRO highlights its growing self-reliance, positioning it as a counterweight to China. However, China’s concern and Pakistan’s ties with Turkey and China could draw external powers into the conflict, complicating de-escalation.

5. Humanitarian and Economic Concerns

The human cost 12 civilians and one soldier killed in Pakistani shelling in Jammu and Kashmir underscores the need for civilian protection. Border residents in areas like Uri are stocking supplies and demanding bunkers, while flight disruptions and blackouts reflect economic strain. India’s enhanced cyber vigilance and protection of hydropower assets are positive steps, but long-term stability requires addressing these grassroots challenges.

A Path Forward

The road ahead for South Asia hinges on strategic restraint, rational policy, and mutual respect. India must balance its assertive doctrine with diplomatic outreach to prevent escalation. Pakistan must abandon adventurist policies, address internal fragmentation, and pursue reforms for stability. The international community, including the U.S., UN, and regional powers, can play a constructive role by encouraging dialogue and upholding international law.

Operation Sindoor has demonstrated India’s resolve, maturity, and military prowess, but it also exposed the fragility of regional peace. The operation’s success in dismantling terror hubs and redefining deterrence offers hope, but the risk of retaliation and miscalculation looms large. South Asia stands at a crossroads: a future of coexistence and stability is possible, but it demands careful navigation, robust communication, and a shared commitment to rooting out terrorism.

Conclusion

Operation Sindoor was a watershed moment in South Asia’s history, blending precision strikes with strategic restraint to address a long-standing threat. It marked a new chapter in India’s security doctrine, challenging Pakistan’s support for terrorism and reshaping regional dynamics. The road ahead is complex, with challenges in security, diplomacy, and stability, but also opportunities for dialogue and reform. As India and Pakistan navigate this tense period, the choices they make backed by global support will determine whether South Asia moves toward peace or further conflict.

By: Taha Ali

Once celebrated as the common heritage of mankind and an arena reserved for peaceful exploration, outer space is being transformed into a theater of geopolitical competition and strategic display. With contemporary militaries largely reliant upon satellite-based technologies for navigation, communication, surveillance, and guiding missiles, outer space became the indispensable enabler of terrestrial military operations. But a phased shift from space militarization, where space assets were aiding military operations, into weaponization, where governments are designing systems that can destroy or incapacitate space-based facilities, has severe consequences.

The article is about how weaponization trends transform the strategic calculations among great powers, what advances in technology are creating those changes, and what the long-term implications of preserving space as an arena for international peace and security are.

Militarization to Weaponization: Strategic Motivations and Great Power Rivalries

The shift from space as an ancillary domain to space as the possible battlefield is not a sudden one or an accident. Rather, it rests on longstanding strategic imperatives since the Cold War period, when the use of space-based reconnaissance and early warning came to be core components of nuclear deterrence. While the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 had tried to keep space available to peaceful uses, it created loopholes under which military applications were permitted on the condition that weapons of mass destruction were not deployed in orbit. The loopholes in the law permitted states to invest in space assets that were crucial to warfighting without actually breaking international law. These passive occupations of space throughout recent decades have become active and offensive in character, however. A case in point is the more and more reliance of the United States on satellites for its C4ISR capabilities, which provide these systems as enticing targets to enemies. This weakness created the impetus for the U.S. Space Force in 2019, formalizing the notion that space is a warfighting domain. The United States is actively pursuing doctrines of “space dominance” and “space superiority” today, reflecting a strategic shift from deterrence to being ready to fight in space.

China’s ambitions in space are equally aggressive. Its 2007 anti-satellite (ASAT) missile test, in which it shot down an old weather satellite and left behind thousands of pieces of debris, was an unambiguous demonstration of capability and intent. Thereafter, Beijing followed with a string of satellites with close proximity capabilities, indicating the development of co-orbital weapons. Beijing’s BeiDou navigation system, constructed as a substitute for the U.S. GPS, offers China autonomous positioning capabilities that can be utilized to facilitate precision strike missions.

Russia, as the inheritor of Soviet space heritage, has had an ongoing military space program. Moscow has development-tested its own direct-ascent ASATs, such as the Nudol missile, and installed suspicious maneuver capability satellites near Western space assets. The U.S. Space Command accused Russia of firing a projectile from one of its satellites in 2020—a reportedly test of an on-orbit weapon.

India’s Mission Shakti in 2019, in which a ground interceptor took out a satellite in Low Earth Orbit (LEO), was its entry into the elite club of space powers with existing kinetic ASAT capability. India stressed the responsible conduct of the test—hitting a satellite at low altitude to keep debris to a minimum—the geopolitical message was anything but ambiguous: India is looking for strategic deterrence in space, against China and Pakistan. The reasons for these developments differ but meet at one point: space assets are now an integral part of contemporary warfare, and their defense—or destruction—is regarded as key to national security. In such an environment, the weaponization of space is a logical, albeit perilous, extension of competitive strategy.

Technological Drivers and Legal Ambiguities in Space Conflict

This technological leap in space war-fighting capability extends beyond kinetic ASAT systems. There is a new and emerging spectrum of technologies that alters strategy calculus and complicates arms control. These are directed energy systems in the form of lasers and high-power microwaves, cyber-attacks on satellite systems, and co-orbital platforms that can disrupt or destroy other satellites in insidious and deniable ways. These technologies are attractive because they are precise, reversible, and most importantly, deniable—a valuable asset in the shadowy realm of space war. For instance, DEWs can blind or incapacitate satellite sensors without creating orbital debris, thus avoiding long-term damage while achieving tactical objectives. Similarly, cyber action can take over satellite command systems or attack data streams, which enables adversaries to interfere with military operations without crossing the normal thresholds of armed conflict. Such “soft-kill” technologies give strategic leverage in the gray zone of operations, where attribution is challenging to create and legal consequences are minimal.

Adding to the complexity is the reality that virtually all space technologies are dual-use. A satellite put into space for civilian use—earth observation, meteorology, or communications—is readily adaptable for military applications. This dual-use ambiguity blurs the civilian-military distinction, making it harder to discern between legitimate activities and acts of aggression. Also, private space firms like SpaceX, Blue Origin, and OneWeb are deploying thousands of commercial satellites, some of which are leased to governments or integrated into national security missions. Military utilization of these resources, either intentionally or otherwise, would increase the scope of potential targets for a war. International legal frameworks remain antiquated even as threats are emerging. The Outer Space Treaty does not explicitly ban ASAT weapons or space military uses that are not nuclear. It has no enforcement mechanisms, verification, or even precise definitions of what is a “weapon in space.” Suggestions such as the PAROS (Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space) have been stymied for lack of consensus among major powers. Western countries emphasize behavioral norms and soft codes of conduct, while Russia and China favor legally binding treaties—though their own are still developing offensive capabilities.

The absence of a shared understanding or compliant regime leaves space security in a precarious position. Imagine, for example, that a proximity operation is unwittingly perceived as an attack. Or imagine a test debris from an ASAT test inadvertently disables a third-party satellite. These are not speculative problems—these are real-world problems in an increasingly congested and contested orbital environment. Besides, the threat of the Kessler Syndrome—a chain reaction of orbital crashes rendering regions of space unusable—overshadows the problem of space weaponization. The 2007 Chinese anti-satellite test and the Russian Nudol test in 2021 both generated immense quantities of debris, threatening not just military assets but also the globe’s commercial and civilian space infrastructure. Under worst-case circumstances, a pair of irresponsible incidents would seal entire orbital regimes for decades, if not centuries.

The broader strategic consequence is that space is no longer a sanctuary. The erosion of norms, combined with technology possibility and geopolitical distrust, is pushing the world toward a more perilous and volatile space environment. Space can become a catalyst for, rather than a stabilizer of, future conflict unless drastic and unified action occurs.

Conclusion

The path to space militarization has irresistibly moved in the direction of weaponization, motivated by the convergence of geopolitical competition, technological innovation, and strategic vision that regards space as an offshoot of ground warfare. As the technology underpinnings of contemporary life more and more depend on space assets, the weaponization of space threatens far more than war. It threatens economic stability, civilian infrastructure, and the long-term sustainability of the space environment itself. As yet, however, general acknowledgment has not been followed by matching efforts in arms control and law reform. The consequence has been an alarming vacuum—one of uncertainty, where deterrence is frail and escalation more probable and less contained. Our path, unchanged, will take us to the future in which space is not a realm of cooperation and progress, but an invisible battlefield where the seeds of war to come are planted.

In order to avoid this result, a multi-dimensional strategy has to be adopted. There has to be return and consolidation of international legal architecture to investment in confidence and trust-building measures and incorporation of new space powers and non-state actors into the global governance structure. Above all, the world needs to understand that it is not an option to keep outer space openness and stability—it is a sine qua non of peace on Earth.

By: C Shraddha

On April 22, 2025, the serene valleys of Pahalgam, a tourist destination 50 km from Srinagar, were jeopardized when a group of Pakistan-armed and trained men in camouflage clothing emerged from an adjacent forest and fired upon tourists. As per officials, “the attackers opened indiscriminate fire at Baisaran Meadow, a scenic uphill area accessible only by foot or pony rides.” 25 Indians and a Nepali citizen lost their lives, with several others sustaining injuries while running away from the vicious attack. Following the brutality, The Resistance Front, a subsidiary of the infamous Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba, claimed responsibility for the attack twice within a span of hours. 

While the Government of Pakistan refused to acknowledge the barbarity of the attack or the presence of terror networks within its territory, the Government of India promptly responded, showcasing its diplomatic, military and strategic prowess. On April 23, 2025, Prime Minister Narendra Modi held a high-stakes strategic meeting with Defence Minister Rajnath Singh, National Security Advisor Ajith Doval, Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) General Anil Chauhan, Army Chief General Upendra Dwivedi, Air Force Chief Air Marshal AP Singh, and Navy Chief Admiral Dinesh Tripathi. What followed was an onslaught of diplomatic measures isolating Pakistan, including the handing of persona non grata to Pakistani diplomats in India. Additionally, the visas of Pakistani nationals in India were cancelled, with Union Minister Amit Shah contacting Chief Ministers of the respective states to orchestrate the identification and removal process of these individuals from the Indian territory. Furthermore, India paused the Indus Water Treaty of 1960 and closed the Attari-land transit point.

However, India’s response was not only limited to diplomatic avenues. In the early hours of May 7, 2025, the first phase of Operation Sindoor was afoot. The Indian Armed Forces targeted nine sites consisting of terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan as well as Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri confirmed the gravity of the attack by stating, “Our actions have been focused, measured and non-escalatory in nature. No Pakistani military facilities have been targeted. India has demonstrated considerable restraint in selection of targets and methods of execution.” The deployment of BrahMos supersonic missiles and SCALP missiles ensured the death of 100 militants, including senior leaders of Jaish-e-Mohammed and Lashkar-e-Taiba. However, the following day, Pakistan showcased an escalated response by dispersing coordinated missile and drone strikes across military installations in Jammu, Pathankot, Amritsar, Srinagar, Ludhiana, Bhuj and Bathinda. What followed was four days of aerial combat between the two countries. Continuous and unprovoked targeting of civilians by Pakistan through heavy-calibre artillery fire in the Line of Control further provoked the conflict when approximately sixteen innocent lives were taken. 

Finally, after the four-day-long military confrontation, the neighbouring nuclear states agreed to a ceasefire. However, within a few hours, as the bordering cities witnessed explosions, India accused Pakistan of violating the ceasefire. Mr Misri condemned Pakistani actions in a press briefing: “We call upon Pakistan to take appropriate steps to address these violations and deal with the situations with seriousness and responsibility.” In response, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) of Pakistan criticised India for violating the ceasefire. “Our forces are handling this situation with responsibility and restraint,” retorted MOFA. 

Although the actions of the Indian government and the defence forces were lauded by the citizens both at home and abroad, the operation and its reactions have elicited critical responses. Questions have arisen about the reasons behind the lapse in security measures in Pahalgam. The lack of preparedness and foresight of the security forces and the government proved to present the terrorists with an opportunity to attack Baisaran Meadow. The Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) camp was located 7 km away, while the camp of Rashtriya Rifles of the Army was 5 km away. Despite this, the heavily touristed area had no security forces present, letting the terrorists continue their savagery uninterrupted for approximately half an hour. Furthermore, it is shocking how neither the Research and Analysis Wing (R&AW) nor the Intelligence Bureau (IB) had any clue regarding the impending attack in Pahalgam. In an Union Territory that is heavily under the protection of armed forces, such a lapse in judgement and prescience unveils the gaps in Indian security. 

Despite claiming responsibility for the attack, TRF is not formally declared as a terrorist organisation by the United Nations (UN). While the UN condemned the attack in “the strongest terms”, it left out naming TRF as the perpetrator. The non-inclusion of the network in the list removes it from under the purview of UN counter-terrorism efforts, which include sanctions, travel bans and enhanced surveillance of funding efforts. Furthermore, this provides Pakistan with a degree of plausible deniability, making it more difficult for countries to block possible misuse of financial aid or to implement counter-terrorism measures. Thus, the efforts of the Indian delegates in securing the addition of the TRF to the UNSC 1267 Sanction list would strengthen counter-terrorism measures in the long run. 

The international responses to Operation Sindoor made one thing apparent- India is largely alone in matters of national security. While nations presented their support verbally, none of it altered India’s strategic position. This demonstrates the ability of India to chart its own course in the strategic and military domain and not fall in line with global power ambition. As retired Secretary to the Government of India, Guruchran Gollerkeri rightfully noted, “India’s conduct marks a departure from the reactive posture of the previous decades. It is a mature, independent stance- one that signals our refusal to be a geopolitical pawn.” It is important to acknowledge that while India has the capacity to maintain an independent stance, its nuclear neighbour has resorted to external support from states such as Turkey, Azerbaijan and China. As General Chauhan expressed during the Shangri-La dialogue, “India operated without foreign assistance during Operation Sindoor while Pakistan likely leaned on Chinese sources.” Though India has showcased its self-reliance capability, it is of utmost importance that the country maintains formidable international partnerships to ensure its readiness in the event of a broader military escalation.

Amongst international alliances, the discourse around the involvement of President Trump in stabilising the conflict has proved that India cannot perceive the US as a viable partner. Initially, the Trump administration feigned indifference. Vice President JD Vance made it clear that the US is “not going to get involved in the middle of a war that is fundamentally none of our business.” The actions of the Trump administration and the subsequent credit-mongering pursuits undertaken by the administration depict a modern interpretation of the white man’s burden. The administration boasted about brokering the ceasefire while simultaneously supporting the IMF bailout package of US$ 2.3 billion to Pakistan. Indian National Congress MP Shashi Tharoor has repeatedly and vehemently opposed President Trump’s “helped settle” tensions claim. During the multi-party delegation on Operation Sindoor, Tharoor expressed, “Mediation is not a term that we are particularly willing to entertain. The fact is that this implies… an equivalence which simply doesn’t exist.”

Operation Sindoor and its retaliation witnessed the unrestricted usage of drones. On May 7, over 600 drones were deployed by Pakistani forces to overwhelm India’s AD radar network, obtain real-time intelligence, target civilians and deplete India’s ammunition. “Drones emerged as the primary weapon of choice for both sides,” writes expert Amoha Basrur. Founder of Johnnette Technologies, John Livingstone, agrees with Basrur when he predicts that “Swarm drones will be the future of warfare.” However, Livingstone argues that India needs to enhance its drone capabilities and scale up drone inventory, wherein “10 million swarm drones” may be required for modern-day conflicts. Furthermore, he notes the need for the development of multiple drone technologies in the immediate future. “It’s not just one type of swarm drone; we need multiple types,” he says. Livingstone has advocated for a balanced approach wherein drones complement fighter jets in aerial combat. 

Though military innovation is of paramount importance, it is economic development that enables such progress. It is sustained investments in technology, infrastructure, intelligence and military that enabled India to overpower Pakistan during Operation Sindoor. Furthermore, it must be noted that a better economic position not only enables military transformation, it amplifies the position of India on the global stage. Pakistan was able to secure the IMF bail package due to the support of stronger economies, as voting quotas of the executive board of the IMF are based upon the size of the individual economies. Currently, India’s voting share is a mere 2.5 per cent, which resulted in Pakistan procuring the bailout despite India’s strong disapproval. Economic competence, combined with military advancements, remains the predominant strategy for India to realise its aspirations of leading the Global South while ensuring self-reliance and measured alignment.

The swarm of drones was not the only weapon shot down by Indian forces. Disinformation was another ammunition used by Pakistan, which was promptly debunked through comprehensive media briefings. According to General Chauhan, 15 percent of the time of the armed forces went into combating disinformation during the Operation. Throughout the four days, Pakistan actively engaged in propagating false narratives through social media and news broadcasts. On May 7, 2025, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (I&B) expressed that “Pro-Pakistan social media handles and even influential political figures” were “spreading fake news, fabricating stories of military victories and heroic retaliation that simply did not exist.” As per the I&B Ministry, the Pakistan state-affiliated media houses and social media accounts invented evidence by using outdated images and purposefully misinterpreting past videos. Fake videos depicting the surrender of the Indian Army at Chora Post were “amplified By Pakistan’s Minister Attaullah Tarar, who publicly endorsed the claim without a shred of evidence”, stated the I&B ministry. 

While Pakistan was on a smear campaign against the Indian armed forces through social media, the Indian cyberspace and computer networks were also vulnerable to cyberattacks from Pakistani actors. This reiterates the transformation of traditional warfare, which is now leaving its marks over cyberspaces and social media. Pakistani hackers engaged in website defacements while primarily targeting Indian armed forces and local government portals. Computer Emergency Response Team-India (CERT-IN) warned critical sectors and financial institutions of impending cyber-attacks. Additionally, Tamil Nadu Police and Himachal Pradesh Police reported higher risks of “phishing attempts from Pakistan-linked threat actors.” As Pakistan utilised the modern-day battlefield, Indian authorities responded with gusto. The Press Information Bureaus (PIB) Fact Check Unit debunked the false claims while additional measures were undertaken to restore the sanctity of cyberspace.  

Although Operation Sindoor marks a pivotal moment in India’s national security doctrine, it also sheds light on those areas which require careful recalibration. Cybersecurity, economic development, strategic partnerships and calculated deployment of forces must remain at the top of the priority list for India, as long as the country faces spiteful nuclear-armed neighbours. Despite the vicious Pahalgam attack exposing the vulnerabilities of India’s domestic intelligence, the attempt of the Pakistani forces to polarise the country remained largely uneventful. India’s non-escalatory, precise, isolated, and targeted attacks illustrated the country’s vehement opposition to terrorism and its state sponsorship. As the country moves ahead in its aspirations to lead the Global South, it must ensure to adequately combat its existing military vulnerabilities while simultaneously strengthening its economy and diplomacy. India’s path forward lies in careful considerations, not just in neutralising threats but in alertness, aim and alliance. 

By: Lt Col JS Sodhi (Retd), Editor, GSDN

In the early-1980s as a school student whenever the author visited his maternal grandparents in Mohali, Punjab, there was an uneasy feeling amongst all family members and acquaintances as terrorism was at the peak in this border state of India. The fear would get accentuated as the dusk fell and after last light there was virtually no movement on the roads of Punjab.

The terrorism in Punjab was the first testbed of Pakistan’s military doctrine “Bleed India with a Thousand Cuts”. The terrorism which lasted in Punjab for the 15-year period from 1980 to 1995, resulted in the death of 13,442 civilians and security forces personnel.

In the end-1980s as terrorism started waning in Punjab, another border state of India, Jammu & Kashmir saw the onset of terrorism. This time too, Pakistan aided and abetted terrorism and for the 36-year period that terrorism has been ongoing in Jammu & Kashmir since end-1989, it has resulted in the death of 42,143 civilians and security forces personnel in the period 1989-2024.

Why is it that terrorism ended in Punjab in 15 years and for over 36 years this menace is not ending in Jammu & Kashmir, though in both the cases Pakistan is the main abettor and both the Indian states border Pakistan?

Two main reasons explain the above predicament. One, local support in Jammu & Kashmir. Two, the two-front war that China & Pakistan will wage on India in 2035, for which Jammu & Kashmir will be used as the inflection point by Pakistan to initiate the war.

Local Support for Terrorism in Jammu & Kashmir

As for a person to remain alive, oxygen is vital, similarly for terrorism to thrive, local support is of paramount importance. Without local support, terrorists can’t operate for a single day.

A miniscule population of Jammu & Kashmir still support terrorism. Though these supporters often called as Over Ground Workers (OGWs) are very less in number of the 13.5 million population residing in Jammu & Kashmir, but is significant enough to ensure that terrorism still continues for over 36 years.

Sample this. After the horrendous Pahalgam terrorist attack in Jammu & Kashmir on April 22, 2025 in which four Pakistan-armed and trained terrorists killed 26 male tourists on basis of religious profiling, 15 OGWs were arrested in Jammu & Kashmir for facilitating the Pahalgam carnage.

The OGWs support the terrorists for two main reasons – money and religious indoctrination.

OGWs & Money

The going rate for monetary renumeration given by the terrorists to the OGWs is Rs 500 (US$ 5.83) for a meal eaten by the terrorists in an OGW’s residence and Rs 1000 (US$ 11.67) for a night spent by the terrorists in an OGW’s house.

For these measly sums of money an OGW puts his/her nation in jeopardy which has disastrous consequences. It is not that all the OGWs are poor and hence they succumb to these monetary temptations. Some of the OGWs are financially fine, with few of them being in government jobs. Clearly, the dazzle of few extra bucks blinds these OGWs.

OGWs & Religious Indoctrination

The terrorists operating in Jammu & Kashmir are either locals or Foreign Terrorists (FTs). Either way, they are recruited by Pakistan based on their religion Islam. As Pakistan is a Muslim-majority nation with 96% of its population being Muslims, it uses Islam to indoctrinate and recruit locals of Jammu & Kashmir for terrorism and cultivating OGWs.

Jammu & Kashmir has 68.8% Muslims and 11 out of the 20 districts of Jammu & Kashmir are Muslim-majority. With the advent of technology and the use of the social media in a big way, Pakistan uses these platforms to subvert the youth using Islam as the main-stay for luring the youth to terrorism, either overtly or covertly.

What can be done?

In a report on how terrorist groups end published by the RAND Corporation, a highly-credible US global policy think-tank, on June 30, 2008 highlighted that only 7% of the terrorists’ groups ended by using military force whereas 43% ended through political dialogues, 40% through effective policing and 10% after the objectives of the terrorist organisations had been achieved.

For over 36 years, the military and police have performed beyond the call of duty to contain and combat terrorism.

Certainly, after the abrogation of Article 370 and 35A on August 05, 2019, Jammu & Kashmir has seen increased peace and prosperity. From the year 2018 witnessing 146 civilians and security forces personnel being killed in terrorist incidents, the year 2024 saw the numbers slumping down to 58. Where 0.85 million tourists visited Jammu & Kashmir in 2018, the numbers surged to 20.35 million in 2024.

More employment opportunities need to be created in Jammu & Kashmir as is more investment required. Though the unemployment has decreased in Jammu & Kashmir to 6.1% in 2023-24 from 6.7% in 2019-20, it is higher than the national unemployment rate of 4.9% in 2023-24.

After the abrogation of Article 370 & 35A in 2019, Jammu & Kashmir has attracted more investments with US$ 1.229 billion being invested till 2024 in the six-year period. 

The more the prosperity comes in, the lesser will the youth get entrapped in terrorism.

China & Pakistan’s two-front war on India in 2035

According to the 2024 Annual Threat Assessment released on February 05, 2024 by the Director of National Intelligence, USA, since the relations of India with both China and Pakistan are fragile, it is likely to result in a war between these three nations.

On March 17, 2025, General Upendra Dwivedi, the Chief of the Army Staff, Indian Army stated that the two-front war on India isn’t a possibility, but a reality.

All timelines in the public domain point to the year 2035 when China and Pakistan will jointly wage the two-front war on India. The details have been explained in the book authored by the author “China’s War Clouds: The Great Chinese Checkmate”.

In 2035, Pakistan will use the ongoing terrorism in Jammu & Kashmir as the inflection point to initiate the war for India, who will then be joined by China which will attack India for Arunachal Pradesh. Till 2035, Pakistan will do everything possible to keep terrorism alive in Jammu & Kashmir.

Consequent to the Pahalgam terrorist attack in April 2025, India and Pakistan were locked in the 88-hour military conflict called Operation Sindoor by India and Operation Bunyan um-Marsoos by Pakistan. In this 88-hour India-Pakistan Conflict, China openly aided Pakistan militarily, economically and diplomatically.

As always, India won another round of war/conflict against Pakistan with ease. The earlier four military duels between the two nuclear-armed neighbours of South Asia in 1947-49, 1965, 1971 and 1999, have always resulted in clear military victories of India over Pakistan.

The next big military challenge for India will be the two-front war with China and Pakistan in 2025.

On August 07, 2023, General MM Naravane (Retd), the 28^th Chief of the Army Staff of the Indian Army wrote in The Print that the two-front war will pose difficulties for India.

What should be done?

Centuries back, Chanakya the noted Indian military strategist had remarked that from the strength of the treasury, increases the military power.

India needs to do three things on priority. First is to increase the defence budget to 3% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Steadily, India’s defence budget has been decreasing over the years as percentage of the GDP. In 2019, India’s defence budget was 2.5% of the GDP which has reduced to 1.9% of the GDP in 2025. With increased defence budget, the state of art weapon systems can be manufactured or procured.

Secondly, to decrease the timelines for defence procurement and direct the Integrated Financial Advisors (IFAs) to expedite the clearances for defence purchases by various military formations.

Thirdly, utmost importance should be given for developing Artificial Intelligence (AI) and integrating it in the defence formations and weapon systems, for AI will play a pivotal role in the future wars to be waged by China. Russian President Vladimir Putin on September 01, 2017 remarked that the nation which will lead in AI will rule the world. China is well on its track to become the global leader in AI by 2030.

Conclusion

While terrorism in Punjab could be crushed in 15 years, the ongoing terrorism for over 36 years in Jammu & Kashmir has acquired huge strategic implications which will culminate in the two-front war in 2035.

Methods and measures have to be adopted on a war-footing to counter terrorism as well as prepare for the two-front war. 2035 is just a decade way. One way to look at 2035 is that there is ample time of one decade, the other way is that the time duration of one decade is less.

Either way, the challenge confronting India is too serious to ignore.

By: Chethana Enugula

When the Russia-Ukraine War began on February 24th, 2022, many countries were alarmed by what is turning out to be one of the top armed conflicts seen in Europe since World War II. Even after three years of the war, its effects continue to alter the global political situation, economy, and security arrangements. Many people have faced terrible outcomes, with many killed, numerous displaced, and cities reduced to ruins. Since the war continues and peace negotiations have not shown many results, questions emerge whether the United States of America (USA) can bring about a ceasefire in this situation. This piece analyses the prospects for the USA to act as an intermediary for peace, including past background, the difficulties of such efforts, relations with the world, and reasons for getting involved.

The United States has played an Important Role in dealing with Global Conflicts

For many years, the United States has worked to solve global conflicts as a leading country. After the Second World War, the U.S. took on the role of forming the liberal international order by building groups such as the United Nations, NATO, the IMF, and the World Bank that worked for global peace and economic growth. Although most of the Cold War featured proxy wars, the United States, at times, helped settle many disputes. Because of the Camp David Accords (1978), President Jimmy Carter helped Israel and Egypt end their long-standing and deadly wars. In the same way, the Dayton Accords (1995), arranged by President Clinton’s team, ended the Bosnian War and started building peace in the Balkans.

American diplomacy has been successful when the country acted as a major mediator, supported by many powerful nations. Still, they point out that no two conflicts are the same. History, regional relationships, politics within the countries, and power all over the world are important in determining American influence on wars.

The Involvement of the USA in the Russia-Ukraine War

During the Russia-Ukraine conflict, the United States has made it clear to the world that it supports Ukraine. From the time the Russian invasion started in February 2022, the USA declared that the actions were both illegal and against Ukraine’s national sovereignty. Thanks to NATO and other Western countries, Russia was dealt with sanctions, and significant assistance in various forms was given to Kyiv. Because of this, Ukraine is not giving up and is able to keep fighting back.

For this reason, Moscow thinks of the USA as a debated subject in its foreign policy affairs. In Russia’s opinion, the USA’s main goal is to weaken Russian authority on important matters, including the economy and security. Due to this situation, Russia does not agree to any negotiations organized by the U.S. So, even though the USA has much influence over Ukraine, its role as a mediator with Russia has been severely damaged.

The state of the war at the Moment

Nowadays, the war has grown into a protracted struggle involving many casualties. Nobody has achieved total control over the region. Even though Ukraine, supported by the West, fights hard and can sometimes push back, Russia still possesses large areas in eastern Ukraine, for example, Crimea, which was annexed by Moscow in 2014. Many lives in the military have been lost on both sides. Ukrainian citizens are being displaced in significant numbers, and the country’s infrastructure has suffered huge damage.

It is important to note that Ukraine still depends mainly on help from the West in terms of money and arms. If the U.S. and NATO allies failed to support Ukraine with funds and equipment continuously, its strength would weaken significantly. Even so, Russian sanctions have been tough, but selling energy to China and India has helped them steadily improve the state of their economy. On the other hand, spending on war and being shut off from the world add to the country’s problems. However, neither government is ready to give up anything, which means it is very tough for them to reach a ceasefire agreement.

Problems with the American Mediation

Relations between the USA and Russia are now lower than they were during the Cold War. Ever since 2022, they have both exchanged ambassadors, stopped official conversations, and ended most joint activities. Negotiations about reducing arms and common concerns between the countries are no longer happening. Sanctions imposed by the USA are hitting some of Russia’s main areas of importance, and American-made weapons are fighting the Russian army in Ukraine.

In Russia’s opinion, the USA’s actions turn it into a participant in the war instead of a passive witness. Supporters of Russia treat any American peace offer as unfair. On top of that, America’s strong actions in both financial, military, and diplomatic areas exclude it from the role of neutral peace broker.

The USA has experienced political disagreements within its borders.

To begin with, Biden got support from both Democrats and Republicans for backing Ukraine. With time, U.S. politics is seeing more division as the war goes on. Certain members of the Republicans, mainly those on the far right, are arguing that the nation is giving out billions abroad when its domestic issues are not addressed. With time, more members of the public want the United States to focus on diplomacy and seek less involvement in world affairs.

The mixed determination of American leaders makes other countries question America’s position in the world. If there are changes in Congress or a new president, and the U.S. seems uncertain to help, it might undermine Ukraine’s trust and Russia’s spirit for negotiation. Therefore, politics inside the U.S. have direct effects on the country’s reputation in international affairs.

Is peace considered an interest or a result of international policies?

The country’s main strategy in Europe is to stop Russian growth, protect NATO’s solidarity, and reinforce the liberal rules-based system. In some instances, working for a lasting peace goes against some of these main goals. If the USA urges a truce before Ukraine agrees, it could look like abandoning a friend or allowing Russia to keep anything that it has occupied.

Equally, suppose the U.S. cannot negotiate or ends up giving military help for a long time without progress. In that case, the risks include making the war go on, suffering more injuries, and driving patience thin worldwide. Thus, the USA must manage its strategy, ethics, and diplomacy together, and this calls for both careful thinking and a long-range approach.

The need for unity among various countries

Since Russia is not fully open to U.S. engagement, working with other countries could be the best idea. Among Russia and Ukraine, Turkey, India, and China keep up friendly relations and are recognized for being more neutral. Certainly, Turkey arranged the deal that allowed millions of tons of grain to move out of the Black Sea region in 2022. Neighbours of Russia, such as India and China, are worried about the effects of the war on human lives.

The USA could support such efforts by giving diplomatic support, supplying money for reconstruction, or acting as a co-signer of agreements. The UN, OSCE, or G20 platforms allow the international community to host ceasefire talks in which all interested parties feel respected. The strategy would boost the legitimacy of the community and decrease claims that Western countries are controlling it.

Possible Ways for a Ceasefire to Happen

Sometimes, there are imagined situations in which resuming negotiations could make sense. If the fighting becomes too much for either side and they can’t keep up, they could agree to settle the conflict through talks. Yet, another situation could come up if war and economic sanctions create an internal crisis for either nation, since this could give rise to leaders who do not share the same beliefs.

Another danger is that the situation might get worse. If the war goes outside Ukraine, with an attack on one of the NATO nations, then all countries involved must do their best to prevent a wider war. As energy shortages, not having enough food, and inflation affect many, the international community may put more importance on ensuring peace. The USA can still get involved in these scenarios, regardless of taking the lead in the talks.

Ukraine’s Precarious Position and the Looming NATO Summit

Today’s geopolitical situation is characterized by various past influences and recent urgent crises that go above and beyond what has happened in the past. Due to the influence of the Trump administration, the relationship between the United States and Russia is still unstable. Nearly no economic trade takes place between the powers; instead, there is a strong sanctions regime that is the major foundation for their ties. It is most noticeable with regard to the Ukraine crisis. A confirmed event took place in early March 2025, showing that the U.S. paused military aid to Ukraine, making many people quite concerned. A deal was reached after important discussions between U.S. and Ukrainian officials that took place in Saudi Arabia, making the Kingdom very important for restoring the arms to Ukraine.

The documentary reveals that Ukraine’s situation is in great danger since it has not yet joined NATO. Even though some statements of support have been made, there is still no official invitation, and doubts about this alliance remain. Meanwhile, Russia holds firm in saying it considers Ukraine’s membership a serious security risk for its nation. Because of the situation, the NATO summit on June 24th has become very important. Choices taken at the summit will control how long the alliance will help Kyiv and how its policy will form toward Russia, both being crucial for worldwide security.

The U.S.’s Concern about Fairness

Having a strong international role, the United States is obligated to act morally. The conflict has caused as many as 14 million people to move away, left cities in ruins, and killed lots of civilians. The more time the war goes on, the greater its negative impact, mainly on the weakest people. With its resources and worldwide power, the USA ought to help stop the hardships that people face.

While it may not be able to make peace directly, the USA can help by assisting groups providing humanitarian aid, fixing basic services, and using reliable people to guide talks. An agreement that honours national boundaries and laws would keep America known as a U.S. nation for good.

Even though the U.S. plays an important part in seeking peace in the Russia–Ukraine conflict, it is a role filled with difficulties. The USA’s influence has made sure the country remains involved in helping Ukraine and leading responses at the international level. On the other hand, this deep loyalty to Ukraine makes the USA look like it is against Russia, which doesn’t want to involve the USA in settlement talks. Furthermore, disagreements in the United States create worries about their dedication in the long run, considering that the public and representatives are showing increasing apathy and resistance.

Therefore, the USA might not be the ideal choice for carrying out direct mediation. It should rather focus on giving support, using countries such as Turkey, India, or China to mediate between different nations. Getting involved in negotiations between countries by using the UN or OSCE and co-guaranteeing the agreements allows the USA to be significant without taking control.

It is not possible to achieve lasting peace if only one nation uses power. Everyone involved should be willing to cooperate, trust international law, and be ready to make compromises. America should keep its goals in check, as it should put effort into supporting peace, diplomacy, aid, and worldwide teamwork. A fair and steady end to the conflict can only be achieved after the monopolizing force.