In 2002, as Gujarat burnt in a majoritarian communal violence, Indian newsrooms scrambled to separate fact from fiction while the then chief minister of the state, Narendra Modi, faced searing questions about his government’s role in the violence. More than two decades later, the lines between truth and narrative have only been blurred further. Today, films, OTT shows and a chorus of media voices work overtime to recast Modi’s past and present as tales of unblemished heroism even though reality intrudes in ways propaganda cannot mask.
Last month’s Pahalgam terror attack is a stark reminder of this divide. For years, the Modi government insisted that Kashmir had become ‘normal’ and terrorism had been eliminated, a claim echoed by a loyal media and political surrogates. Yet, a single, brutal attack on tourists burst that balloon, exposing the limits of manufactured narratives and forcing India into a risky military confrontation with Pakistan. India’s airstrikes on nine sites across Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, dubbed Operation Sindoor, were a military response to the Pahalgam massacre; they were also a high-stakes manoeuvre with political, strategic, and military dimensions. They reveal as much about Modi’s politics as they do about his strategicthinking and India’s military limitations.
In popular portrayal, the military operation unfolded under Modi’s watchful eye with the prime minister personally monitoring the strikes throughout the night. This direct involvement allowed Modi to project himself as a decisive leader, living up to his image as a strongman. The Indian media played a crucial role, amplifying the narrative of swift justice and national resolve. The public relations aspect of the operation was carefully crafted; the operation’s name, Sindoor, was carefully chosen for symbolic resonance with Modi’s Hindu base. The media’s enthusiastic coverage, with headlines lauding ‘Justice is served’, helped shape the public perception, turning a complex military engagement into a political win for Modi.
The Pahalgam attack had exposed clear lapses in security and intelligence. But within a fortnight, Modi has successfully shifted the national focus to Operation Sindoor. While the government admitted to intelligence failure and faced questions about why warnings were not acted upon to protect civilians, it did not hold any senior figure responsible for those failures. If the principle of democratic accountability was pursued, the buck ought to have stopped with Modi and the Union home minister, Amit Shah. The strategic distraction allowed the government to deflect scrutiny and accountability for the original security lapses as attention turned to the success and the spectacle of Operation Sindoor instead of the failures that led to the tragedy. Instead of a focused reckoning with the failures that allowed such a deadly attack, the government has framed the missile strikes on sites in Pakistan and PoK as a sweeping response to decades of cross-border terrorism. The operation’s precision and scale have dominated headlines, with official statements emphasising the destruction of terrorist infrastructure. This reframing, which casts Sindoor not just as retaliation for Pahalgam but also justice for every major attack since 2001, fulfils no strategic purpose. As the government celebrates its ‘zero-tolerance’ stance, an essential question remains unanswered: will such strikes deter future attacks, or are they merely symbolic gestures aimed at domestic audiences? By focusing on the so-called terror infrastructure while sidestepping the real masters who direct terror strikes — the Pakistan army and the security establishment — the Modi government risks repeating the cycle of violence without addressing its root causes.
These strikes are essentially punitive in nature. Punitive strikes alone rarely achieve lasting deterrence. While they temporarily disrupt terror infrastructure and force Pakistan to reconsider its strategies, history shows that such actions have not stopped cross-border attacks in the long run. Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal still looms as a deterrent against deeper escalation and the cycle of attack and retaliation remains hard to break. In fact, the Modi government was careful to state that these strikes were “measured, non-escalatory, proportionate, and responsible”, deliberately avoiding Pakistani military facilities to minimise the risk of a full-scale war. Unless these strikes can change Pakistan’s behaviour, they would have failed in the long run.
This points to a flaw in Modi’s policy towards Pakistan. Instead of expanding its options in various domains — economic, diplomatic, people-to-people and informational — New Delhi has boxed itself into only one domain; the military one. That would provide more space for action and would not raise the risk of escalation, as has been witnessed in recent days. New Delhi can maintain open channels for regular dialogue at multiple levels (government, military, back-channel) to address issues before they escalate.
Any strategy should be a mix of carrot and stick; there should be rewards for Pakistan for doing specific things. India should jettison quick fixes by using a mix of diplomatic, economic and informational tools to gradually alter the incentives for Pakistan’s behaviour. Right now, we only have a coercive military strategy. That’s the only arrow in the quiver — to a person with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. India should have created other options but Modi has boxed himself in with only a coercive military option where every succeeding strike has to be bigger than the previous one.
Militarily, Operation Sindoor showcased India’s ability to coordinate precision strikes across multiple, widely separated targets in a short time frame. The use of advanced fighter jets, drones and specialised artillery reflected a high degree of operational sophistication. But the operation also exposed vulnerabilities. Pakistan claims to have shot down five Indian aircraft, making this potentially India’s heaviest air losses since 1971. While Indian authorities have neither denied nor confirmed any crashes, foreign media reports have claimed that India has lost a Rafale fighter jet among the aircraft it lost on the night of Operation Sindoor. The downing of advanced jets, if confirmed, would be a significant blow, raising questions about air superiority, electronic warfare, and the effectiveness of India’s suppression of enemy air defences. The military outcome thus depends heavily on the true scale of Indian losses. If several frontline fighters were lost, it could blunt the deterrence message and embolden adversaries while also raising concerns about readiness and tactics. It will also have a larger global context as it would be the first time that Chinese weaponry has succeeded against Western military platforms.
The news about the use of Indian drones against Pakistan’s air defence sites on Thursday and a failed Pakistani strike on Indian bases on Wednesday — Jammu has been targeted as well — are not encouraging for those looking at an early de-escalation. For now, there is little clarity on whether the two sides will escalate further. Miscalculations could open a front that affects nearly two billion people, with the risk of the use of nuclear weapons. The world must pay attention and diplomatic efforts must match the urgency of the moment.
Operation Sindoor was as much about shaping perceptions and sending signals as about destroying terrorist infrastructure. It met Modi’s political needs, with the Indian media amplifying the narrative of strength and unity. Strategically, it aimed to redraw the red lines and bolster deterrence, though the limits of punitive strikes remain clear. Militarily, it demonstrated capability, but at a cost that will shape future calculations on both sides. The true impact will depend not just on what was hit but on what was lost and how India and Pakistan choose to interpret those losses in the days ahead.