Operation Sindoor: How India's fight against terrorism has Changed

-

In April 2025, a deadly terrorist attack in Kathua, Jammu and Kashmir, shook the country. But this time, India’s reply was quick, sharp, and different. Within days, Operation Sindoor was launched—an air and ground strike across the Line of Control (LoC) targeting terrorist camps.

This was not just a military response. It marked a new chapter in how India deals with terrorism—moving from waiting and reacting to quick, planned action using technology and force.


India’s Old Way of Responding to Terrorism

For many years, India followed a policy of strategic restraint. Even after big attacks like the 2001 Parliament attack or Mumbai 26/11, India avoided cross-border strikes. It focused more on diplomacy and global pressure on Pakistan rather than direct military action. 

But things started to change after:

The Surgical Strikes in 2016 (after the Uri attack), and

The Balakot Air Strikes in 2019 (after Pulwama).


Now, with Operation Sindoor, India has shown that it is ready to act immediately and decisively.


What Happened in Operation Sindoor

After the Kathua attack, intelligence agencies found out where the attackers came from. Within a few days, Indian forces used:

Airstrikes to hit terror launch pads across the LoC

Drones and satellite images to guide the strikes

Precise weapons to avoid civilian harm


Sources suggest that at least 6–8 terror facilities were hit (The Hindu, 2025). The operation was kept limited, focused, and fast—avoiding wider war but sending a strong message.


What Made Operation Sindoor Different

1. Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

India used AI-powered surveillance to track movement and identify targets. Drones and satellites had systems that could recognize buildings, heat signatures, and vehicles linked to terrorist groups.

2. Smart Weapons and Drones

Reports suggest the use of loitering munitions (like kamikaze drones) and smart bombs that can guide themselves to targets without needing human help mid-air.

3. Cyber and Electronic Warfare

Indian forces may have used signal jamming to block communication in the terror camps before the strikes (Indian Defence Review, 2025).

4. Speed and Planning

The operation happened just days after the attack. It shows that India now has pre-approved plans for such cases. It didn’t wait for global support—it acted first and explained later.

Why It Matters: A New Anti-Terror Policy

Operation Sindoor shows four big changes in India's approach:

Quick Response: India will not wait weeks to act—it may respond within hours or days.

Striking Across the Border: Even if the attackers are “non-state actors,” India will hit terror bases wherever they are.

Technology-Driven Warfare: AI, drones, smart weapons, and cyber tools are now part of India’s toolkit.

Focus on Deterrence: This was not revenge—it was a warning: attacks on India will not go unanswered.

International Reaction

Unlike past responses, the world did not strongly criticize India. Countries like the U.S. and France said that terrorism must be punished. This shows India is now able to defend itself without facing global pressure—as long as the strike is limited and well-explained.


Risks and Responsibility

Of course, such actions have risks:

Strikes can cause mistakes or hit civilians.

There is always a chance of escalation with Pakistan.

Terror groups might try to attack again to provoke conflict.

That’s why India has to balance force with careful planning, good intelligence, and strong diplomacy.

Conclusion

Operation Sindoor is a turning point. It shows that India’s counter-terror policy is now fast, high-tech, and assertive. It’s no longer just about defending after an attack. It’s about preventing the next one by raising the cost of terrorism.

India is saying: You cross the red line, and we’ll respond—with speed, with precision, and with purpose.

📚 Sources

Ministry of Defence Press Briefing, April 2025

“India Responds to Kathua Attack with Operation Sindoor,” The Hindu, April 2025

ORF Commentary on India’s AI-Enabled Military Doctrine, May 2025

Indian Defence Review, “Emerging Role of Smart Weapons in India’s Border Strategy,” May 2025

IDSA Brief, “Post-Balakot Doctrine and Its Evolution,” June 2024




Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Iran–Israel Proxy Conflict: A Shadow War in the Middle East

-
The Iran–Israel conflict, often dubbed a "shadow war", is not a conventional war marked by direct military confrontations, but a long-running geopolitical rivalry played out through proxies, covert operations, cyber warfare, and regional influence. At the heart of this conflict lies a deep ideological, religious, and strategic antagonism that has shaped the modern Middle East for decades. Historical Roots and Ideological Divide: Iran and Israel were once allies during the reign of the Shah. However, the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran radically altered the political landscape. The new Islamic Republic, under Ayatollah Khomeini, adopted a fiercely anti-Zionist stance, branding Israel as an illegitimate entity and a "cancerous tumor" in the Muslim world. This ideological enmity—rooted in Iran’s theocratic identity and support for the Palestinian cause—has since defined Iran’s foreign policy. Israel, for its part, views Iran’s regional ambitions and nuclear program as ...
Read more

Donald Trump’s Tariffs : Intentions, Impacts, and Implications

-
During his presidency from 2017 to 2021, Donald J. Trump introduced a series of aggressive trade policies aimed at reducing the United States’ trade deficits and reviving domestic manufacturing. Central to his strategy were tariffs,taxes on imported goods, particularly targeting China, as well as allies like Canada, Mexico, and the European Union. These tariffs represented a dramatic shift from the U.S.'s longstanding commitment to free trade and sparked significant economic, political, and diplomatic reactions. The Rationale Behind Trump’s Tariffs Trump’s administration justified tariffs primarily on three grounds: 1. Reducing Trade Deficits: The U.S. had long run trade deficits with many countries, particularly China. Trump argued that these deficits were a sign of the U.S. being exploited in trade deals and that tariffs would correct the imbalance. 2. Protecting American Jobs and Industry: The loss of manufacturing jobs in states like Michigan and Pennsylvania was politically se...
Read more