Testing Doctrine In Action: Operation Sindoor And India’s Military Calculus – Analysis

By Rahul Rawat

To rephrase Clausewitzian wisdom, the domain of military operations is characterised by uncertainty. How a military operates and pursues its objectives remains the prime indicator of its success or failure on the battlefield and beyond.

Operation Sindoor was initially launched as a measured and calibrated non-escalatory military response against terrorist outfits in Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir (PoJK) and deep within the territory of their sponsor, Pakistan. Pakistan’s subsequent retaliatory aerial attack, through a combination of missiles and drones targeting civilian and military infrastructure, constituted an act of reckless escalation. In response, India made the conscious choice of deliberate escalation by targeting high-value military assets, including air radars and air force bases in Pakistan. The calibrated and proportionate escalation led to the successful fulfilment of objectives and the establishment of new redlines by India.

From an operations perspective, a closer scrutiny of how the Indian military emulated the principles of warfare holds important lessons for New Delhi in managing future conflicts.

Principles of Warfare as a Framework

To gauge the effectiveness of military strategy and subsequent operations, military thinkers have identified nine key principles and their alignment with the means, ways and ends to measure their success or failure.

The nine fundamental principles of warfare act as a checklist for the armed forces to translate the conceptual aspects of military power into operational tactics: objective─outlining the goals of military action; manoeuvre─to gain positional advantage through the use of force and other non-kinetic means; surprise─targeting the adversary in an unexpected manner; mass─concentrating military power for superiority; economy of force─ensuring all efforts are calibrated; offensive─to seize and exploit the initiative; security─to safeguard one’s own forces; simplicity─in communications and information; and unity of command─by placing the operations under the right balance of political-military authority.

The subsequent section assesses each element to evaluate Operation Sindoor’s effectiveness in aligning objectives with outcomes.

Evaluating Operational Effectiveness

The objective of India’s precision-based strikes was clear: hit the terror targets based in PoJK and inside the Pakistani territory. It was intended to signal that no matter where, terrorist infrastructure will not go unpunished. Later, following  Islamabad’s escalation through drone and missile attacks on India’s military and civilian bases, New Delhi’s recalibration of objectives was demonstrable. The IAF conducted precise and measured strikes targeting Pakistan’s military infrastructure, which dealt a blow to the command and control of the Pakistan military.

The tempo of operations, which unfolded deliberately and gradually, supported the manoeuvre against the Pakistani response. The indirect approach targeting physical and psychological vulnerabilities sent a strong message to both terrorist outfits and the Pakistan military and was supported by coercive diplomacy in the form of the abeyance of the Indus Water Treaty. As a surpriseelement, Operation Abhyaas saw mock drills for civilian emergency preparedness being conducted across various parts of the country. The mock drills were meant to signal India’s readiness and resolve and were synchronised with Operation Sindoor.

The Airport Authority of India (AAI) issued Notices to Airmen(NOTAM) along the border states on India’s western front. The Indian Air Force (IAF) used the NOTAM to conduct readiness exercises and employed it as a cover to conduct precision strikes on the intervening night of May 7-8, 2025. In addition, the use of stand-off weapons without entering Pakistani airspace introduced an element of deception, leading to the successful targeting of multiple terror training camps.

The mass, economy, offence and security elements were intertwined in the mission objective. India’s deployment of precision-guided munitions along with its layered air defence system imposed significant costs while simultaneously denying advantages to the adversary. In the process, the Indian military achieved the suppression of the enemy’s air defence (SEAD),  facilitating the IAF’s precision strikes on multiple assets belonging to the Pakistan Air Force (PAF). Meanwhile, the security of India’s civilian and military infrastructure remained intact, with almost negligible damage caused. However, ceasefire violations by the Pakistan army resulted in several civilian casualties.

The simplicity of operations was maintained through a channelised and coordinated structure of communications about ongoing developments, catering to both domestic and international audiences. This helped to mitigate the fog of disinformation and fake news peddled by Pakistan through multimedia platforms. The briefings by India’s Foreign Secretary and representatives from three services of the military, i.e., the army, the navy and the air force, laid out clear details of movement and momentum of operational plans and their execution.

Finally, the unity of command was evident from the planning phase, with the strategic direction led by the prime minister in consultation with the Cabinet Committee on Security and subsequently with the defence minister, national security advisor, chief of defence staff, and the three service chiefs setting the military response in motion. The free hand granted to the forces to determine the operational level of warfare and the subsequent response to Pakistani aggression demonstrated an integrated approach among the three services. The army maintained ground defence and operational readiness on the western front. The air force conducted precise strikes using advanced technology, and the army and air force air defence units neutralised incoming missile and drone attacks from Pakistan.

The Indian Navy acted as a deterrent in the Arabian Sea, tracking and limiting Pakistan’s so-called multi-domain mobilisation of military capabilities. The readiness and mobilisation of the naval fleet and submarines mitigated the risk of any adversarial response from Pakistan in the maritime domain. Overall, the joint planning, resource sharing, coordinated tempo of operations across respective domains, along with the provision of support elements to other services, underscored a well-synchronised and integrated military effort.

When these principles of warfare are inverted, India’s losses at the operational and strategic levels have remained limited, largely due to the expansive, tri-services-based, multi-domain military operations. New Delhi’s strategic objectives were achieved despite the structural constraints of a nuclear environment and a series of deliberate escalatory responses from Pakistan. 

Conclusion

In sum, the Indian military has established a new normal and instituted a transformation in the conduct of military operations against the menace of cross-border terrorism and its sponsor, Pakistan. Strategic pragmatism in the face of the unpredictability of warfare has helped India maintain its defences and target the adversary in both the physical and cognitive domains of strategy. The information domain remains a vital theatre of engagement, and India must continue to shape the narrative to ensure a lasting psychological impact on the adversary. Operation Sindoor also underscores the centrality of technology in modern warfare to achieve precision strikes and superiority against the adversary. The role of military technology given the changing character of warfare will only become more critical in a future conflict scenario. Accordingly, Pakistan’s evolving capabilities must be continuously assessed by New Delhi, as it holds the potential to disrupt the currently favourable conventional military balance. Ultimately, the long-term impact of Operation Sindoor in imposing heavy costs on Pakistan’s sponsorship of terrorism and instituting a change in Islamabad’s approach will remain subject to the test of time.

• About the author: Rahul Rawat is a Research Assistant with the Strategic Studies Programme at the Observer Research Foundation
• Source: This article was published by the Observer Research Foundation