-
CENTRES
Progammes & Centres
Location
India’s response to cross-border terror has changed the playbook: restraint with readiness, deterrence with consequence—it is no longer business as usual.
Image Source: Getty
In chess, the queen is sacrificed only when checkmate is inevitable. In geopolitics, states do not sacrifice; they signal. And India, through ‘Operation Sindoor’ and its calibrated response to cross-border terrorism, has sent an unmistakable message— the board game has changed, and so have the rules.
For decades, Pakistan’s strategic thinking has rested on the assumption that its nuclear capability offers it a shield behind which it can safely nurture and deploy proxy actors across the Line of Control (LoC). This doctrine of nuclear blackmail implied retaliation, as deterrence has allowed Rawalpindi to sponsor asymmetric warfare while avoiding conventional consequences. However, that era is nearing its end. India’s recent military and diplomatic posture, especially in light of Operation Sindoor, signals a paradigm shift: that the nuclear threshold is not an inviolable wall, but a calculated boundary. India has demonstrated that deterrence is a two-way street.
India’s recent military and diplomatic posture, especially in light of Operation Sindoor, signals a paradigm shift: that the nuclear threshold is not an inviolable wall, but a calculated boundary.
Rather than allowing the fear of escalation to paralyse its strategic options, India has developed a limited, precise, and pacroportionate toolkit to neutralise threats without triggering wider conflict. This posture complicates Pakistan’s traditional calculus. India has moved from strategic patience to strategic signalling, which is calm, deliberate, and backed by action. The balance of power in South Asia is no longer static. It is dynamic, technologically informed, and increasingly governed by India’s ability to act swiftly without crossing red lines recklessly.
The message is not one of belligerence but of resolve. New Delhi is not interested in a perpetual state of hostility; it is invested in security. However, it will not let the spectre of nuclear war be used to constrain its sovereign right to respond to terrorism. The strikes under Operation Sindoor were a case in point executed with tactical precision, minimal collateral damage, and complete control over escalation. This is not a reactive India but one that chooses its response on its own terms.
Today, India’s military posture is not just defined by troop mobilisations and air power, but by technology, coordination, and narrative control. The recent operations demonstrated India’s ability to integrate real-time intelligence with advanced targeting systems, neutralising high-value terror infrastructure while consciously avoiding civilian casualties. This was a display of strength and strategic discipline. In doing so, India underscored that the target is not the Pakistani populace, but the terrorist syndicates allowed to operate under the state's patronage.
Moreover, India’s approach extends beyond the battlefield. Prime Minister (PM) Narendra Modi, in his address on 12 May 2025, stated that “blood and water cannot flow together”, bringing the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) into geopolitical focus once again. This six-decade-old agreement, which has survived wars and political upheavals, now appears less untouchable. While India has not revoked the treaty, the signalling is clear— foundational agreements cannot remain insulated amid a worsening security environment. If terrorism continues to flow downstream, water may not continue to flow upstream. The strategic use of hydro-politics does not violate international norms; it asserts that cooperation must be reciprocal, and cannot be sustained in a one-sided security architecture.
While India has not revoked the treaty, the signalling is clear— foundational agreements cannot remain insulated amid a worsening security environment.
At the heart of this shift lies India’s articulated zero-tolerance policy on terrorism. The era of accepting ceasefires as routine de-escalation tools, only to face renewed provocations months later, is over. This is not a ceasefire for dialogue, but one for accountability. Pakistan’s political and military establishment must now demonstrate a fundamental break from its old strategy of sponsoring jihadist proxies while simultaneously engaging in formal diplomacy.
For decades, global interlocutors have encouraged India to exercise ‘strategic restraint’ while extending Islamabad the benefit of doubt. However, the framework has proven unworkable. India has now defined a new one: deterrence that is not about mere reaction, but about resetting the equilibrium. This requires more than military strikes; it requires long-term institutional memory, clear red lines, and the political will to act again, if necessary.
There is, nonetheless, a need for measured reflection. The nuclear overhang in South Asia has not disappeared. The danger of miscalculation in a high-speed conflict environment remains utterly real. While India has thus far managed to walk the razor’s edge with prudence, escalation ladders must be constantly reviewed and recalibrated. Backchannel communications, command discipline, and narrative coherence are not luxuries, they are necessities. The challenge will be to ensure that tactical brilliance does not outpace strategic stability.
The burden of responsibility now rests with Pakistan. Its economic collapse, internal political disorder, and increasing international isolation leave little room for manoeuvre. If it continues to outsource its foreign policy to non-state actors while relying on old patterns of denial and delay, it will find itself facing an India which is no longer willing to play by outdated norms.
The burden of responsibility now rests with Pakistan. Its economic collapse, internal political disorder, and increasing international isolation leave little room for manoeuvre.
This ceasefire, if it can be called one—is not a return to the status quo. It is a message that the next violation will not be tolerated as a one-off. It will be met with calibrated, perhaps even escalatory, consequences. India's security doctrine has matured, combining readiness with restraint, capability with clarity, and retaliation with rules.
As PM Modi’s tone, coupled with India’s military actions together makes clear that peace remains a preferred goal but not at the cost of principle. India will choose when and how it engages. Unless Islamabad fundamentally rethinks its state policy of sponsoring terrorism, every future breach will meet a proportionate, deliberate, and technologically advanced response. The space for ambiguity has shrunk. The era of strategic inertia is over, and the world must now recalibrate its expectations of how India secures peace, not through compromise but consequence.
Manish Dabhade is an Associate Professor at the Centre for International Politics, Organisation and Disarmament, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. He is also the Founder of The Indian Futures, New Delhi.
Tarun Agarwal is a Doctoral Candidate at the Centre for International Politics, Organisation and Disarmament, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. He is also an Associate Fellow at Center of Policy Research and Governance, New Delhi.
The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.
Manish Dabhade teaches at Jawaharlal Nehru University and is the Founder of The Indian Futures a New Delhi-based think tank.
Read More +
Tarun Agarwal is a Doctoral Candidate at the Centre for International Politics, Organisation and Disarmament, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. He ...
Read More +
PREV
.jpg)
