Operation Sindoor vs. Operation Bunyan Ul Marsoos: A Strategic Analysis

By Anupam Srivastava

In the evolving landscape of Global geopolitics, the recent military engagements between India and Pakistan have marked a significant shift in regional dynamics. Operation Sindoor, launched by India, and Pakistan's retaliatory Operation Bunyan Ul Marsoos have not only redefined military strategies but also highlighted the changing contours of international diplomacy, economic considerations, and societal impacts.

Strategic Autonomy and Diplomatic Realignment

Traditionally, India has sought international support through forums like the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) when responding to cross-border terrorism. Even an intrusion by tribals and the Pakistani army was taken to the UN by the then highly rated prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru in 1948.

However, Operation Sindoor signaled a departure from this approach. India chose to act decisively without seeking validation from the global powers, demonstrating a newfound strategic autonomy. This move reflects India's growing confidence in its military capabilities and a shift towards a more assertive foreign policy stance.

In contrast, Pakistan's response, Operation Bunyan Ul Marsoos, was marked by a series of retaliatory strikes. Pakistan took the matter to the UN. While these actions were framed as a defense of sovereignty, they also underscored Pakistan's reliance on international diplomatic channels, as evidenced by its appeals to countries like the US, Saudi Arabia,Iran and China for mediation. This juxtaposition highlights the differing diplomatic approaches of the two nations in addressing regional security concerns.

Targeting Terrorist Infrastructure and State Sponsorship

Operation Sindoor was characterized by precision strikes on terrorist infrastructure, including camps associated with groups like Jaish-e-Mohammed and Lashkar-e-Taiba. The operation aimed to dismantle the operational capabilities of these groups and send a clear message about India's commitment to countering terrorism. The presence of terrorism infrastructure inside Pakistan will remain a concern if not addressed by international powers unitedly. Today, India is fighting against this infrastructure of terrorism alone, but when other countries of the world feel the heat, they would be forced to act decisively against such infrastructure sheltered by the government of Pakistan, abolishing the distinction between state and non-state actors.

Pakistan's Operation Bunyan Ul Marsoos, while  targeting  military sites, faced criticism for alleged civilian casualties and damage to non-military infrastructure. The international community expressed concern over the humanitarian impact of these strikes, emphasizing the need for adherence to international humanitarian law during military operations.

Economic Considerations Amid Military Engagements

An intriguing aspect of the conflict was Pakistan's simultaneous negotiation for an IMF loan during the military escalations. This development raised questions about the economic stability of a nation engaged in active military operations. The juxtaposition of seeking financial assistance while conducting military strikes highlighted the complex interplay between economic vulnerabilities and military ambitions. The world powers rallied behind Pakistan to grant the loan so that they could dissuade Pakistan from escalating the situation. This attitude of world powers shows that they are getting blackmailed by nuclear rhetoric of rogue country and West have not learned their lessons to act against terrorism and terrorists and their backers. If this continues, soon Europe would see acts of terrorism more than anywhere else. Britain has started feeling the heat of Islamic terrorism. However, this operation showed the double standards practiced by the West when it comes to terrorism in their country and in other countries.

India, on the other hand, demonstrated economic resilience, with its defense expenditures supported by a growing economy. The ability to finance military operations without significant external assistance underscored India's strengthened economic position in the region.

Societal Impacts and International Reactions

The societal impact of these operations was profound. In India, the strikes were met with nationalistic fervor, with public support for the government's actions. The naming of the operation, "Sindoor," symbolized the targeting of newlywed Hindu couples in the Pahalgam attack, resonating deeply with the Indian populace. Everyone connected with families of those who lost their beloved in the dastardly act of terrorism on April 22.

In Pakistan, the retaliatory strikes led to casualties, sparking protests and calls for accountability. Just to satisfy ego, General Asif Munir was ready to force Pakistan into a war. The Pakistanis knew it well. The common Pakistani was worried about his daily bread rather than fighting a war. Then, the international community expressed concern over the escalation of violence and the potential for further destabilization in the region. Humanitarian organizations called for restraint and adherence to international norms to protect civilian lives.

Military Capabilities and Technological Advancements

Both operations showcased advancements in military technology. India employed precision-guided munitions, including SCALP and Hammer missiles, launched from Rafale jets, to execute targeted strikes. The use of advanced technology highlighted India's growing defense capabilities and its ability to conduct precise military operations. The way Indian missiles destroyed seven airbases, including that of Rahimyar Khan and Sargodha, sent shockwaves through Pakistan. No military installation was out of reach of India. The Indians demonstrated pinpoint strike capabilities to the world, which left defense analysts baffled because it was the first time a non-Western country was demonstrating such pinpoint precision strikes with mostly indigenous weapons. The way India downed more than 700 drones and five aircraft of Pakistan was remarkable. It was despite the fact that Pakistan was operating its drones and aircraft internationally without closing its airspace.

Pakistan's response involved missile and drone attacks on Indian cities, mainly coming from equipment supplied by China and Turkey. While these strikes demonstrated Pakistan's drone capabilities, the lack of significant impact raised questions about the effectiveness of its military strategy. The absence of substantial damage to critical infrastructure suggested limitations in Pakistan's technological advancements compared to India. The downing of five JF-17 planes by India has forced Pakistan to think about trusting Chinese technology. The failure of all drone attacks by Pakistan also put a question mark on the capabilities and quality of Turkish drones. However, the AkashTir Air Defense system performed better than the Iron Dome. In the days to come, this system would be in huge demand internationally.

Media Narratives and Information Warfare

The role of media in shaping public perception during these operations was significant. In India, media coverage largely supported the government's actions, portraying the strikes as a necessary response to terrorism. The portrayal of the operations in the media reinforced nationalistic sentiments and bolstered public support.

In Pakistan, media coverage was more critical, focusing on the Islamic rhetoric against the humanitarian impact of the strikes and questioning the legitimacy of the targets. The differing media narratives in both countries underscored the role of information warfare in modern conflicts, where controlling the narrative can influence domestic and international opinions. The Pakistani narrative was mainly based on playing the victim card and approaching the Muslim Ummah and the West for financial help.

The Role of International Diplomacy and Future Prospects

The escalation of hostilities between India and Pakistan drew the attention of the international community. Diplomatic efforts, led by countries like the United States, sought to mediate and de-escalate tensions. The eventual ceasefire agreement highlighted the importance of international diplomacy in managing conflicts between nuclear-armed nations.

Looking ahead, Operation Sindoor has set a bold precedent in India’s counterterrorism strategy, showcasing a clear resolve to not just eliminate terrorists but also dismantle their infrastructure, target their backers, and expose their sympathizers—whether state or non-state actors. It represents a doctrinal shift toward proactive defense and strategic clarity. In contrast, Operation Bunyan Ul Marsoos reflects Pakistan’s reliance on Islamic rhetoric and emotional appeals to the Muslim Ummah, while simultaneously leveraging its nuclear arsenal as a tool of blackmail to secure economic bailouts from the West. This operation, rather than showcasing military prowess, revealed Pakistan’s deep economic vulnerabilities and its waning credibility on the global stage. The divergence between the two operations marks a new phase in South Asian security—one where India asserts hard power backed by economic resilience, while Pakistan struggles to sustain influence through outdated strategies of fear and faith-based diplomacy.

Anupam Srivastava is a  Special Correspondent with Hindustan Times with special interest in defense analysis with expertise in South Asian security affairs,  military strategy and international relations in the region.