Operation SINDOOR has brought to light the evolving dynamics of military conflict in South Asia. Beyond the traditional aspects of warfare, the operation has underscored a crucial area that India’s strategic playbook needs to address: strategic messaging. While the operational goals may have been partially achieved, the battle for narratives has slipped from our grasp. The lessons from this engagement extend beyond the battlefield and into the realms of perception, intent, and the importance of clear strategic communication.
Clarity of Intent: The Missing Ingredient
The first casualty of poor messaging is always strategic clarity. For any military intervention to succeed, the political and military objectives must be aligned and explicitly communicated. The intent—Niyat—must be unmistakable, not only to the armed forces but also to the adversary and the public. In OP SINDOOR, this alignment seemed absent or muddled. As a result, military actions, no matter how well-executed, floated without anchorage in the broader strategic context.
The Vote-Gain vs. Strategic Pain Paradox
Between 22 April and the night of May 6/7, political rallies were not just about gaining domestic support. They inadvertently exposed our understanding of the adversary’s posture and intentions. When political leaders speak in public forums on intended operations, the messaging must be coordinated, precise, and well-thought-out to avoid unintended consequences. Unfortunately, in this case, we inadvertently provided the adversary with insight into our strategic calculations.
Tactical Success, Strategic Failure
While strategic targets were neutralized by the night of May 6/7, the more significant battle was lost—the struggle for narrative supremacy. The adversary walked away with a moral win, framing India as the aggressor and itself as the victim. In the digital age, where perception is weaponized, kinetic victories mean little if not accompanied by a compelling and convincing narrative.
Who Judges Victory?
The old boxing analogy applies: both sides get hit, but a referee declares the winner. In geopolitics, who is that referee? The global public, international institutions, media conglomerates, and foreign governments all play a role. Unfortunately, India found itself outmaneuvered in this ring, with narratives spun faster and more convincingly by our adversaries.
Marketing without Strategy
Each tactical success turned into a short-lived media blitz. But there was no coherence in the messaging. The decision to hold the Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance was made public without calculating the downstream effects. China, observing quietly, responded by raising implications for the Sutlej and Brahmaputra. We escalated, they counter-escalated. The difference? They shaped the narrative. This lack of strategic alignment in our messaging allowed our adversaries to dictate the narrative.
Military Doctrine vs. Political Expediency
India’s military leadership is world-class in training, operational skill, and experience. However, OP SINDOOR revealed how strategic fundamentals, such as SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defences) and DEAD (Destruction of Enemy Air Defences), were either overlooked or inadequately executed. The choice of weapon systems and platforms did not match the mission profiles. Was it an oversight, or were political constraints at play?
The Dangers of the “Yes Sir” Syndrome
When military leadership becomes an echo chamber for political diktats, logic gives way to compliance. The “Yes Sir” culture inhibits critical thinking and fosters operational decisions that may achieve momentary gains but at unacceptable costs. Celebrating ambiguous victories masks the harsh truth: the adversary rebuilds, donors replenish resources, and radicalization deepens.
Is Military Action Cost-Effective?
We must confront a tricky question: Does military action yield strategic dividends proportionate to its costs? A Pakistani general noted that OP SINDOOR has expanded the battlefield beyond the Line of Control, now covering the entire subcontinent. If true, the risk matrix has widened, making restraint and sharp messaging even more vital.
Diplomatic Disconnect
Amidst all this, one glaring failure has been diplomatic outreach. None of the political delegations ventured into neighboring countries that hold sway in regional politics. Instead, attention was misdirected to Panama, Colombia, and Guyana—states irrelevant to our fight against terrorism. This raises questions about who is driving our diplomatic strategy and with what priorities.
POTUS and the Narrative Coup
When the U.S. President publicly claims credit for the cessation of hostilities by threatening India with tariffs, it doesn’t matter what we call it—ceasefire or pause. The world believes the American version. Trump’s narrative dominance has undermined Modi’s attempts to craft a narrative of decisive victory. Worse still, when India’s own Chief of Defence Staff confirms key operational facts in foreign media, strategic coherence unravels.
Intelligence without Insight
Having intelligence is not the same as understanding. While we had precise information, our failure was in anticipating the adversary’s operational patterns. As a result, counter-air operations were successful only after suffering avoidable losses. This highlights the need for superior intelligence to be combined with strategic foresight, rather than being used as a crutch for reactive action. Proactive planning and strategic foresight are crucial in military operations.
From Air Superiority to Aerospace Superiority
Traditional air dominance is no longer sufficient. The battle space now includes low Earth orbit. Chinese satellites and spy ships in the Indian Ocean Region (IOR) keep a real-time tab on our movements. They operate with precision, leveraging data from AWACS and satellite relays to coordinate attacks. India must invest aggressively in space situational awareness and develop counter-space capabilities to enhance its national security.
When Missiles Chase Shadows
As per Western and Chinese media reports, the PL-15 missile launch underscores the threat of high-tech integration in warfare. Indian jets, upon activating radar for launch, became targets themselves. Chinese platforms, aided by passive radar, AWACS, and satellite tracking, reversed the hunter-hunted dynamic. This wasn’t just technological superiority—it was strategic preparation. Our responses need to evolve accordingly.
Tactical Evolution: OEMs Take Note
OEMs (Original Equipment Manufacturers) and defense planners now realize that engagements like these, even lasting less than four days, expose significant doctrinal and hardware gaps. From electronic warfare to real-time decision-making, there are clear areas for evolution. The future battlefield will not be defined by steel and firepower alone but by data, stealth, and speed of adaptation.
The Coming War in Space
The next theatre of war is not the desert or the mountain, but space. Satellites providing ISR (Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance) must be considered legitimate targets in a full-spectrum war scenario. India’s anti-satellite capability, demonstrated in Mission Shakti, serves as a starting point. But capability without doctrine is like a missile without guidance.
Conclusion: A Call for Strategic Realignment
OP SINDOOR teaches us that modern warfare is not just about tanks, jets, and missiles. It is about who controls the story, who reads the battlefield better, and who prepares not just for today’s fight but tomorrow’s. Strategic messaging is not an auxiliary function; it is a force multiplier. It can either elevate a tactical operation to a moral victory or reduce a military success to a footnote in a better-spun narrative.
India must invest in coherent, calibrated, and credible communication, both domestically and internationally. Clarity of purpose, unity of voice, and anticipation of perception must become central to our national security doctrine. Otherwise, we risk fighting brilliant battles and still losing the war that matters: the one for hearts, minds, and the strategic high ground.