War and conflicts worldwide result in destruction and loss to both warring sides. This is the nature of war, all pervasive for its gory and destruction. But at times, wars are fought for a longer peace to subdue the evil – Pakistan, the Terroristan. Op Sindoor was India’s strategically assertive response to state-sponsored terrorism by Pakistan. It achieved its objective by being strategically calibrated.
Yet the aftermath triggered a flurry of public discourse on matters myopic. Some of the discourse was measured and informed till the number game of battle losses began as a figment of imagination by those who don’t understand war. More often than not, statements on it were misinterpreted out of context for political gains or TRP by media houses. It shows myopic stupidity, not macro maturity of understanding the larger picture.
What should have been a moment to assess the operation’s strategic effect and future discourse has instead become an exercise in numerical bean-counting, with sections of the media and political class fixated on losses—real, perceived, and often speculative. The obsession with immediate figures has not only clouded public understanding but, more worryingly, questioned the strategic success achieved. It’s a classic case of missing the woods for the trees by armchair analysts or those greedy for political power.
Strategic Outcomes, Not Casualty Counts
The key question to be asked is – Did India achieve its strategic aim? Did Pakistan realise the cost of any future misadventure? It is not the weapons used, tactics adopted and casualties which are best left to the professional military. Operation Sindoor was an inflexion point in India’s military annals of multi-domain warfare to signal deterrence, disrupt enemy calculus, and reaffirm India’s political will. It was also a display of 21st-century statecraft. It did all of that in under four days, without triggering a wider war. This alone places it in the category of a strategic success.
Yet, instead of recognising the balance achieved between force application and escalation control, the discourse has been diverted into counting aircraft and missiles. In doing so, we reduce the art of modern warfare to a grotesque scoreboard—an approach not just flawed but dangerous.
Why Immediate Numbers Are Not Shared: The Professional Rationale
In a vibrant democracy, it is fair for the people to demand transparency. But timing and context matter. A professional military does not release figures in haste or for appeasement. There are three sound reasons for that, rooted not in secrecy but in safeguarding national interest.
- First, in today’s battlefield, technology blurs the line between what is real and what is a decoy. Adversaries deliberately use fake signatures, dummy assets, and deception tactics. Publicly disclosing exactly what was hit, what was lost, or what survived gives away our ability—or inability to tell the difference. That information is gold to any adversary.
- Second, losses in combat often reflect technological differential, the fog of war, or emergent threats. These cannot be assessed or explained in isolation or without after-action reviews. Releasing incomplete or premature data invites speculation and misinformation, neither of which helps a nation prepare for the next battle.
- Third, some losses or setbacks may stem from tactical decisions that hold operational lessons. Making those public before the military has digested and adapted to them serves no purpose other than handing an advantage to the enemy. Wars are dynamic. Learning in silence is a strength, not a weakness.
Professional militaries around the world operate on this logic. India, a responsible and battle-hardened military power, follows the same.
The Danger of Politicising Military Action
What’s more worrying than the numerical obsession is the creeping politicisation of military operations. Instead of treating Operation Sindoor as a matter of national resolve, political actors and their media amplifiers have converted it into a tool of domestic point-scoring. That is not just unfortunate—it is corrosive.
Military operations are born out of necessity, not ambition. They are planned with strategic precision and risk-calculated clarity. They deserve bipartisan respect, not opportunistic scrutiny. When political narratives begin to second-guess or trivialise such operations, it does two things: one, it lowers the morale of the armed forces, and two, it emboldens the adversary’s narrative play.
The nation must recognise that the armed forces are the ultimate saviours of the nation, and that comes at a cost to the soldier and his family. They do not fight for politics but have allegiance to the constitution of the country and the Supreme Commander – The President of India. They fight for the Tricolour, for national interest, and for keeping the country safe and united. A phrase called Nation Above All, albeit even at the cost of their lives.
Understanding the Acme of Victory
Victory in modern warfare is not about raising a flag on captured ground or leaving behind a trail of destroyed assets. It is a victory by attaining military objectives at the least cost and in the minimum time. It’s about the cost-benefit ratio. Make the cost high for the enemy as compared to its benefit. India did that exactly. Making Pakistan’s low-cost, high-benefit proxy war a high-cost, low-benefit misadventure. Thus, Operation Sindoor was tactically focused, operationally bold and strategically sound. It dominated each escalatory ladder without strategic outreach. It demonstrated capability without provocation but a powerful response. It attained physical, psychological and technological dislocation of Pakistan.
In a theatre where the nuclear overhang looms large and geopolitical flashpoints are tightly wound, this ability to calibrate and deliver effect without crossing thresholds is no small feat. It reflects the evolution of Indian military doctrine from reactive posturing to proactive deterrence.
Moving Away from a World War II Mindset
One of the structural gaps revealed by this discourse is our collective hangover from World War II paradigms. Much of our public understanding of war is still stuck in an era where success meant mass mobilisation, land captured, and body counts. But the battlefield has changed. So has the character of warfare. Kinetic and non-kinetic effects are now complementary as much as bytes and bullets. It’s an era of multidomain operations including cyber, information, space, and the grey zone between peace and war. Victory is no longer about battlefield triumphs—it’s about dominating the mind, the message, the messenger, and a multi-domain fight.
Operation Sindoor reflected that shift. It was less about the destruction of enemy assets and more about strategic signalling. Less about attrition, more about effect. Those who judge it by yesterday’s metrics fail to appreciate the doctrinal evolution India is undergoing.
Role of the Media and Commentariat
A word also needs to be said about the media and the strategic commentariat. In a free society, the press plays a vital role. But with freedom comes responsibility. Reporting military actions requires nuance, not noise. It demands context, not clickbait.
Casual use of terms like “botched,” “massive losses,” or “failed strike” without understanding the ground realities does enormous harm. It feeds into adversary propaganda, distorts public perception, and creates political tremors that the enemy is only too happy to exploit.
Strategic commentary, too, must be anchored in professional understanding. War is not a weekend debate show. Those who have not planned, commanded, or executed operations would do well to tread with humility. Civilian critique is healthy. Civilian hype is not.
A Moment for Strategic Maturity
Operation Sindoor offers India an opportunity, not just to learn militarily, but to grow strategically. It should be seen as a pivot point in our security discourse. One that pushes us to:
- Move from attrition-based metrics to effect-based manoeuvre outcomes. Key remains operational art in grey zone warfare.
- Shift from politicised narratives to professional appreciation of strategic outcomes.
- Mature from a reactive stance to a proactive and pre-emptive strategy. Deterrence is based on denial and domination.
- Strengthen jointness across services and political-military synergy.
- Build a national security culture that understands modern warfare. The need is for a National Security Strategy and a National Citizens’ Security Culture.
Focus on the Forest
Military operations must be judged by the forest, not the fallen trees. Tactical losses are real, and every soldier’s life is irreplaceable. But they are not the measure of failure. They are the cost of defending sovereignty with sacrifice for the nation in a volatile world.
Let us not fall into the trap of sensationalism or short-termism. Let us rise instead to the level of strategic maturity that a rising India demands. Operation Sindoor delivered a message of resolve. It is time our national discourse matched that resolve with wisdom.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Lieutenant General A B Shivane, is the former Strike Corps Commander and Director General of Mechanised Forces. As a scholar warrior, he has authored over 200 publications on national security and matters defence, besides four books and is an internationally renowned keynote speaker. The General was a Consultant to the Ministry of Defence (Ordnance Factory Board) post-superannuation. He was the Distinguished Fellow and held COAS Chair of Excellence at the Centre for Land Warfare Studies 2021 2022. He is also the Senior Advisor Board Member to several organisations and Think Tanks.
