The New Geography of Indo-Pak Conflict: From the Mountains to the Metros

Dr. R K Arora | Posted on May 13, 2025 |

The recent turn of events following the heinous terrorist attack in Pahalgam has thrust South Asia once again into a dangerous spiral of military escalation. The Indian response, Operation Sindoor, targeted nine terrorist hubs deep inside Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK). These locations, Muzaffarabad, Kotli, Gulpur, Bahawalpur, Sialkot, Chak Amru, Bhimber, Muridke and were identified as longstanding bases of Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM), and other groups operating with impunity across the border.

Unlike previous retaliatory actions, such as the 2016 surgical strikes after the Uri attack or the 2019 Balakot airstrikes, which were confined largely to the Line of Control (LoC) or its immediate vicinity, Operation Sindoor marks a significant shift in India’s strategic posture. For the first time, India chose to widen the spectrum of engagement, targeting sites spread from Kashmir to the plains of Punjab, and even reaching towards sea facing establishments in southern Pakistan.

This change of tactics has altered the complexion of the conflict between the two nuclear-armed neighbours. While it did succeed in sending a strong deterrent signal, it also opened India to an unprecedented full-spectrum retaliation. Within days, Pakistan launched coordinated attacks across the entire western frontier, including missile strikes and drone offensives on multiple Indian cities and military installations like Jammu, Amritsar, Suratgarh, Jodhpur, Bikaner, Sirsa, and even up to Delhi.

This sequence of events demands deeper reflection. What exactly were India’s options after Pahalgam? Was this wide-front retaliation the most effective course? Could a more restrained but focused strategy have yielded better results?

India’s Post Pahalgam Options: A Strategic Matrix

The Pahalgam attack, both brutal in execution and symbolic in timing, shook the national conscience and provoked overwhelming public and strategic pressure for a decisive response. India stood at a complex crossroads, weighing multiple options. A limited, conventional precision strike akin to earlier surgical operations along the LoC promised controlled retaliation but lacked enduring impact.

Alternatively, India opted for an expanded and visible air and missile campaign, Operation Sindoor, targeting deep terrorist hubs across Pakistan and PoK. While tactically effective, it risked provoking a broader military confrontation across the western front. Covert operations and proxy engagements remained on the table as a less escalatory but intelligence-heavy approach, requiring time and plausible deniability.

Cyber disruption and economic warfare could have subtly undermined Pakistan’s infrastructure but demanded sustained multi-agency coordination. Finally, a robust diplomatic campaign to expose Pakistan’s complicity in terror through global forums offered a long-term path to strategic isolation. Each option carried trade-offs between immediacy, escalation, and international legitimacy.

Operation Sindoor: Tactical Win, Strategic Gamble?

India’s decision to carry out multi-sectoral strikes across depth targets can be interpreted as a bold message that no geography in Pakistan is immune to retribution. It had immediate tactical success, destroying major camps, neutralising key operatives, and exposing Pakistan’s duplicity.

However, it also gave Pakistan what it had long sought but never previously achieved, the strategic space to escalate conflict beyond the LoC. Traditionally, India kept its responses limited to mountain and forested areas, leaving the plains, and especially the industrial heartland of Punjab, Rajasthan, and Gujarat, untouched. This doctrine served to contain the battlefield and limit civilian disruption.

By expanding its engagement beyond the traditional theatres, India inadvertently enabled Pakistan to justify and implement its long-prepared hybrid war strategy, launching insurgency-linked provocations in Punjab, mobilising militancy networks dormant since the 1990s, and justifying conventional missile attacks on military and civilian targets across India’s western border.

Resultantly, Panic gripped not only border villages but also industrial hubs like Ludhiana, Bhatinda, Jodhpur and even parts of Delhi NCR, as air raid sirens and missile alerts became a daily routine. Indian Air Force bases and civilian airports had to be secured against drone swarms, and many schools and businesses shut operations temporarily.

Was There a Better Alternative?

In hindsight, the question is not whether India had the right to respond; that is unquestionable. The Pahalgam incident was not just an act of terror; it was a challenge to Indian sovereignty and national resolve. But the calculus of risk versus reward must be re-evaluated. A LoC limited precision response, with covert augmentation, may have yielded strategic effects without inviting a full-scale retaliatory campaign. Cyber and economic retaliation, though less visible, could have complemented physical strikes, affecting the deeper state machinery behind Pakistan’s proxy terror ecosystem. Importantly, India must now invest more in hybrid warfare preparedness, including information dominance, AI-supported surveillance, missile defence systems, and industrial resilience planning.

Conclusion

The real lesson from Operation Sindoor is not just about how to strike, but how to shape the conflict environment. Warfare is no longer about geography alone, it’s about narratives, technologies, and economic consequences.

India demonstrated decisive capability. But strategic prudence must guide tactical brilliance. Limiting enemy options while expanding one’s own is the hallmark of great power strategy.

“Bringing three decades of frontline experience, Dr Raj Arora is a defence and security analyst known for his deep understanding of national and international security dynamics.”

Dr. R K Arora

Border Security Professional & Prof., IIT Delhi and Advisor, IIT Bombay | + posts

Dr R K Arora is a seasoned security analyst with three decades of experience in border security, counter-terrorism, cyber security, and international peacekeeping.