Pakistan: Weak or Strong? Operation Sindoor and the Limits of Power
The recently announced ceasefire between India and Pakistan, brokered by US President Donald Trump, is a welcome development, though potentially unstable. While retaliation after the Pahalgam terror attack was justified, the dangerous cycle of escalation could have led to catastrophic consequences, especially if either side had suffered major civilian losses or had misjudged missile capabilities.
India’s Operation Sindoor was a measured and necessary response, but it hasn't significantly altered Pakistan's military threat or its strategic posture. Despite targeting terror infrastructure and facilities in Pakistan's interior, the operation didn’t achieve the kind of decisive military edge that could ensure long-term deterrence. Moreover, Pakistan’s use of drones indicates a shift in warfare dynamics, showing both countries have limited ability to inflict lasting damage on each other without risking broader conflict.
More crucially, any military action without a clearly defined political aim faces inherent limitations. Was the goal to punish Pakistan, deter future attacks, or weaken its internal structure? The reality is, even if Pakistan were hypothetically weakened, the chaos that might follow isn’t something India or any other nation could easily manage.
Terrorism, unfortunately, is a tool available to both the strong and the weak—and often more accessible to the weak. While India has succeeded in establishing that terrorist attacks will be treated as acts of war, this alone doesn't push Pakistan toward real accountability or dialogue.
Ultimately, lasting peace in the region demands a political process—something the current situation neither compels nor fosters. India, despite its military strength, finds itself once again entangled in a conflict without resolution, with reduced strategic independence and re-hyphenation with Pakistan in global perception. The challenge now is navigating diplomacy in a world that views South Asian conflict through the lens of nuclear risk, not moral clarity.
