Introduction

When India executed Operation Sindoor in response to the April 22, 2025, terrorist massacre in Pahalgam, its military objectives were clear and achieved with technological precision. Utilising a combination of stand-off cruise missiles, armed drones, and coordinated aerial strikes, India incapacitated critical terrorist infrastructure inside Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, without mobilising its army or issuing nuclear threats. From a tactical perspective, Sindoor was a remarkable shift toward a calibrated cost-imposition strategy that avoided full-scale escalation.

And yet, the global media narrative told a different story. In Western outlets, and even among Indian-origin commentators abroad, the emerging perception was not of Indian strategic efficacy, but of a resilient Pakistan that had not only withstood the blow but also gained diplomatic and perceptual ground. This dissonance—between battlefield realities and international reporting—reveals the contours of a conflict far more consequential than any skirmish: the battle for narrative supremacy.

Pakistan, despite suffering heavier casualties, emerged as the protagonist in much of the international press. India, despite operational restraint and surgical precision, found itself portrayed as the aggressor—militarily impulsive, diplomatically isolated, and ideologically regressive. This commentary analyses 18 articles published in international publications and Think Tanks, between 8th and 29th May (excluding Indian and Pakistani outlets), subsequent to the launch of Operation Sindoor, and establishes that Pakistan's narrative dominance was not accidental. It was shaped by a network of sympathetic scholars, ideologically aligned journalists, and a calculated use of liberal anxieties around nationalism, Kashmir, and minority rights. The failure, however, lies not just in Pakistan’s information warfare acumen but in India’s systemic neglect of narrative-building as an extension of strategic policy.

Sequence of Events

Before we proceed to the assessment of the narratives, a brief outline of sequence of events, would be in order.

April 22: Pahalgam Terror Attack: Pakistan-backed militants attacked a village in Pahalgam, Jammu & Kashmir, killing 26 civilians after identifying their religion.
April 23–26: India Diplomatic Response

• Suspended the Indus Waters Treaty with Pakistan until it halts cross-border terrorism.
• Closed the Attari-Wagah border.
• Revoked visas and expelled Pakistani nationals, including SAARC visa holders.
• Declared Pakistani military diplomats persona non grata and reduced diplomatic staff.
• Suspended visa services for all Pakistani citizens with immediate effect.

May 7: India launched Operation Sindoor with coordinated strikes across the LoC and deep into Pakistan, targeting 9 terror sites, while deliberately avoiding military facilities to keep the operation focused, restrained, and non-escalatory.
May 8-9: Pakistan launched Operation “Bunyan al-Marsus” in response to Indian strikes retaliating with Artillery barrages along the LoC and Drone strikes on Indian forward posts in Kupwara and Poonch.
May 10: Ceasefire Declared. Pakistan's Director General of Military Operations (DGMO) contacted the Indian DGMO and both sides agreed to cease all firing and military actions across land, air, and sea from 1700 hours IST. US President Trump claimed credit for brokering the ceasefire. India denied formal mediation, stating ceasefire occurred through “military channels and national decisions.”
Pakistani Claims: Pakistan’s ISPR claimed that One Indian Rafale jet was shot down by JF-17 Thunder over Jhelum sector using PL-15 air-to-air missile. Two Indian drones were also downed; wreckage allegedly shown on state TV. Visual evidence presented was later disputed by open-source intelligence analysts as inconclusive or possibly misattributed.
Indian Response to Loss Claims: Indian statements claimed that ‘all our pilots are back home safely’ and that “Combat losses are a reality in any active operation... The goals were achieved with overwhelming dominance.” India also released satellite footage showing “before and after” images of destroyed terror camps.

A Tilted Field

Of the 18 articles surveyed, ten were overtly sympathetic to Pakistan’s framing of events and only four (two by the same author) were supportive of India’s operational rationale while four could be termed as neutral or balanced (please see tabulated bias scores and article summaries below).

This pattern highlights an important point: international coverage of India-Pakistan conflicts often leans towards Pakistan, especially when the issues involve Kashmir, airstrikes, or nationalism.

A close look at the authors driving these narratives reveals that the majority are of Pakistani origin. While some may act independently, this concentration cannot be seen as entirely organic. It is plausible—if not provable—that such sustained influence may be part of a long-term information strategy orchestrated or encouraged by Pakistan’s intelligence services or military establishment, particularly the ISI.

Pakistan has been able to present itself as a victim on the global stage while avoiding blame for its support of terrorism. It does this by using language that appeals to Western liberal values—such as human rights, religious freedom, colonial history, and fears of authoritarianism.

Further compounding the issue is that several international publications that hosted these pro-Pakistan commentaries have a history of biased reporting against India. For example, The New York Times published a controversial cartoon in 2014 mocking India’s Mars mission and questioned India’s NSG membership in 2016. The BBC has frequently been criticised for its Kashmir coverage, including its portrayal of the Manipur violence as nearing civil war. CNN's framing of the Ayodhya verdict and broader narratives around 'authoritarianism' in India often lack balance. The Washington Post has repeatedly called for downgrading India’s democratic status and framed India's actions in Kashmir as incompatible with democracy. Al Jazeera routinely emphasises India’s alleged repression in Kashmir while downplaying cross-border terrorism. Even The Guardian has questioned why India's pollution is 'worse' than China's and reported simplistically on the Ayodhya verdict. These patterns point toward a systemic editorial bias that aligns easily with Pakistan’s narrative framing in the global media.

The Bias of the Familiar: Indian-Origin Voices Abroad

A particularly nuanced challenge for India is the role played by Indian-origin journalists and commentators who, from their international perches, reinforce the Pakistan-favouring narrative under the guise of neutral critique. One of the most telling examples is Leela Jacinto, an editor at France 24, who authored a report praising the performance of Chinese arms used by Pakistan in the Operation Sindoor.

While ostensibly technical in focus, the tone of Jacinto’s article downplayed India's precision-strike achievements and emphasised instead that Pakistan’s Chinese-supplied J-10C fighters and PL-15 missiles "passed the combat test with flying colours." The narrative, bolstered by expert quotes from Western analysts, subtly undercut India’s retribution as a technologically superior military power.

This was not Jacinto's first brush with criticism for anti-India leanings. In earlier reports during the 2019 Pulwama-Balakot episode, she questioned the veracity of Indian claims and amplified narratives about civilian casualties in Pakistan. In her writings on Kashmir, she has repeatedly echoed language around “Hindu majoritarianism” and “military occupation,” while rarely acknowledging Pakistan’s systemic use of terror as state policy. Her framing aligns consistently with postcolonial and identity-based critiques of India’s actions, particularly those linked to the Modi government, and rarely incorporates a security lens shaped by terrorism or insurgency containment.

Jacinto represents a wider trend: journalists of Indian descent who, operating from liberal newsrooms in Paris, New York, or London, deploy their insider knowledge of Indian politics to deliver critiques that appear informed but are often partial and ideologically motivated. The Western media treats these voices as more “authentic” than Indian government officials or strategic experts. This credibility, however, is often wielded in service of narratives that are deeply sceptical of the Indian state but curiously forgiving of its most belligerent adversary.

Consistent Patterns of Bias: The Pro-Pakistan Bloc

Several other authors featured in the post-Sindoor media coverage exhibit a consistent track record of writing favourably about Pakistan or critically about India.

Aqil Shah(Foreign Affairs) has long framed India as a destabilising force in South Asia. In his previous writings, he criticised the growing India-US strategic alignment and characterised Indian counter-terror strikes as reckless symbolism. His piece on Sindoor suggested India handed Pakistan a “symbolic victory,” thus implicitly absolving Pakistan of provocation and aggression.
Yousuf Nazar(Al Jazeera), a former investment banker, portrayed Sindoor as a political stunt engineered by the Modi government. His earlier writings have similarly emphasised the economic and political “weaknesses” of India, while glossing over Pakistan’s chronic terrorism sponsorship and governance dysfunction.
Umair Jamal(The Diplomat) regularly publishes articles that frame Pakistan as a misunderstood actor, strategically prudent and diplomatically savvy. In his Sindoor commentary, he claimed Pakistan came out emboldened, having “boosted national unity” and gained international sympathy. Jamal’s work has rarely if ever engaged with Pakistan’s use of non-state actors as proxies.
Imran Khalid(Newsweek), a regular commentator on Kashmir and India-Pakistan affairs, suggested that Sindoor was premeditated and designed to divert attention from domestic issues. Khalid’s tone often mirrors Pakistan’s official stance, particularly in justifying Pakistan’s counter-actions and questioning the legitimacy of India’s responses.

Framing India Through the Lens of Ideology

Beyond the geopolitical, many of these authors tapped into ideological framings that have become dominant in Western coverage of India. Andrew Latham, for example, in E-International Relations, cast Operation Sindoor as a manifestation of “Hindutva politics.” In this view, India’s military actions are less about national security and more about asserting majoritarian identity. This framing, while intellectually popular, ignores the specific tactical, legal, and operational context of Sindoor—especially its targeted strikes on terror camps and air defence systems.

Azad Essa (Middle East Eye) went even further, calling India’s actions “communal and expansionist,” and accusing the Indian military of attacking mosques and madrassas. Such incendiary language—without independent verification—positions India alongside Israel and other so-called “settler colonial states.” It delegitimises India's strategic agency and casts even its defensive actions as ideologically driven aggression.

Pro-India and Neutral Coverage: Outnumbered but Not Absent

While the international media space was largely dominated by pro-Pakistan narratives in the immediate aftermath of Operation Sindoor, a few notable exceptions stood out for their analytical clarity and factual grounding. Importantly, early coverage (from May 8 to May 14) was heavily skewed in Pakistan's favour—with 6 out of the first 7 published articles scoring a neutrality index of 1–3—framing India as the aggressor or projecting its response as a political stunt. This early imbalance played a critical role in shaping global perception, allowing Pakistan to front-load its version of the conflict while India remained on the back foot.

However, as the days progressed and India began presenting satellite imagery, open-source intelligence, and operational summaries, the nature of coverage began to shift. Pro-India articles increased from May 14 onwards, coinciding with India’s release of visual evidence and strategic briefings. It was during this second phase that analysts began scrutinising Pakistan's claims more closely, and inconsistencies in its narrative became harder to sustain.

Among the most prominent voices correcting the imbalance was John Spencer, Chair of Urban Warfare Studies at the Modern War Institute, whose articles on May 14 and May 29 offered robust endorsements of India's conduct and strategic outcomes.

In his May 14 article, Spencer called Operation Sindoor a “massive victory” that exceeded its goals by striking key terror camps and air bases while showcasing India’s doctrine of controlled, calibrated response. Spencer praised India’s use of indigenous weapons, its decision not to target Pakistani military installations, and its success in asserting deterrence without escalating to general war. He lauded India's restraint as “maturity, not weakness.”

In his follow-up May 29 analysis, Spencer sharpened his focus, arguing that Operation Sindoor demonstrated not just tactical superiority but technological independence. He contrasted India’s self-reliant arsenal—featuring the BrahMos, Akash SAMs, and Harop drones—against Pakistan’s Chinese-supplied export-grade equipment, which he said "failed under combat conditions." Spencer portrayed the conflict as a clash between a sovereign military power and a proxy military, framing India as the clear winner in both battlefield outcomes and strategic messaging. Both articles received a neutrality score of 9, the highest in the survey.

Other important voices in the neutral-to-pro-India spectrum included Brahma Chellaney (Japan Times), Arzan Tarapore (War on the Rocks), and Walter Ladwig (RUSI). Tarapore and Ladwig focused on doctrinal evolution, highlighting India's shift to cost-imposition strategies and the restrained use of standoff munitions. Chellaney critically examined the performance of Chinese weapons used by Pakistan, concluding that India had crippled major Pakistani airbases with no confirmed combat losses.

On the neutral front, experts like Christopher Clary (Stimson Center) and Joshua T. White (Brookings) offered data-driven and context-aware accounts. Clary catalogued the sequence of strikes and noted that while both sides made claims, only India provided verifiable imagery. White highlighted the intensifying role of information warfare and cautioned that expectations of immediate retaliation may pressure Indian policymakers in future crises.

Crucially, while Pakistan initially succeeded in manipulating the media narrative through exaggerated claims and coordinated disinformation, many of these assertions began to unravel once open-source satellite imagery and military assessments exposed the extent of Pakistani infrastructure damage. Indian official briefings, though delayed, provided credible counter-evidence that shifted parts of the global narrative away from Pakistan's initial propaganda victories.

In sum, while pro-India and neutral narratives were outnumbered, they gained ground in the second half of the coverage period (May 14–29) as facts became harder to deny. This shift underscores the value of timely, evidence-based strategic communication, which India failed to deploy at the outset but recovered partially through credible third-party validation.

India’s Missed Moment: Narrative Deficit as Strategic Weakness

India’s restraint in narrative building stands in stark contrast to Pakistan’s hyperactive media outreach. While Indian missiles hit their targets, Pakistan’s narrative missiles struck international opinion. Indian official briefings responded reactively, often too late and too cryptically. Key Indian military achievements—crippling Pakistani air defences, neutralising terrorist camps, demonstrating standoff strike precision—remained underreported in global outlets.

Part of this failure stems from institutional design. India has no integrated strategic communication agency capable of real-time coordination between its military, external affairs, and intelligence agencies. Nor has it cultivated a bench of international-facing Indian analysts with consistent access to global media platforms.

Toward a Narrative Doctrine: Recommendations

If India is to match its battlefield prowess with narrative success, it must undertake the following strategic reforms:

Establish a Strategic Communications Wing within the National Security Council Secretariat, linking MEA, MoD, and intelligence inputs to provide real-time, media-ready outputs.
Invest in Battlefield Media Capability, including declassified satellite footage, embedded journalists, and drone visuals to refute false claims promptly.
Create Fellowships and Global Publishing Pathways for Indian strategic thinkers and journalists in platforms like Foreign Affairs, Atlantic Council, Chatham House, etc.
Build Diaspora Media Networks to proactively engage Indian-origin scholars and commentators abroad and counter bias through informed, balanced perspectives.
Leverage Multilingual Digital Diplomacy, using X (formerly Twitter), YouTube, LinkedIn, and Instagram to amplify key messages with global reach and narrative coherence.

Invest in a Credible, Homegrown International Media Platform

In the long term, India must establish a globally credible, homegrown media platform that can rival established Western outlets in both reach and respectability. This platform should operate in English and other global languages, publishing high-quality reportage, commentary, and investigative journalism on South Asia and global affairs. Crucially, it must develop editorial independence and professional standards that allow it to gain credibility across ideological lines.

Examples of this model already exist in other contexts. Al Jazeera, funded by the Qatari state, has positioned itself as a major international voice on Middle Eastern issues and is widely cited in Western discourse. Similarly, Russia Today (RT) and China Global Television Network (CGTN)—despite being state-funded—have built sophisticated global operations with varying degrees of influence. Turkey's TRT World is another example of a soft power project aimed at shaping global narratives through international media.

India currently lacks such a large-scale, international-facing media voice that can set the agenda, rather than merely respond to it. Existing outlets like WION have made commendable starts but remain relatively limited in global reach and influence. A strategically funded, editorially robust, and professionally staffed media institution—rooted in Indian perspectives but fluent in global discourse—is essential if India hopes to match narrative power with geopolitical weight in the coming decades.

Conclusion

Operation Sindoor was a tactical and operational success for India, but initially, it appeared to be a strategic communications setback. In the first week following the strikes, Pakistan effectively captured the global narrative, positioning itself as a resilient actor and a victim of Indian aggression. This narrative dominance was enabled by a sympathetic ecosystem of diaspora commentators, ideologically aligned journalists, and Western editorial biases—particularly around Kashmir, nationalism, and civil liberties in India.

However, this advantage proved temporal, not structural. As India began to release satellite imagery, combat footage, and technical briefings, and as independent open-source intelligence validated Indian claims about destroyed terror infrastructure and minimal collateral damage, the credibility of Pakistan’s exaggerated assertions began to erode. By mid-to-late May, pro-India narratives—particularly those authored by analysts like John Spencer, Brahma Chellaney, and Arzan Tarapore—gained traction. These voices reframed Sindoor as a calibrated and restrained military response that showcased India’s evolving doctrine and indigenous capabilities.

Thus, while Pakistan had the early advantage in the media war, India's narrative recovered ground as verifiable evidence emerged and the fog of disinformation lifted. The trajectory of coverage underscores a vital lesson: timing matters in narrative-building—but so does truth, especially when reinforced by credible visuals and analytical clarity.

To correct the asymmetry in future conflicts, India must accept that narrative is not a postscript to strategy—it is its parallel theatre. Strategic outcomes on the battlefield must be matched by precision messaging in the information domain. The next time India strikes, the world should not just see the truth—it should believe it from New Delhi, not interpret it through Doha, London, or Washington.

Aryan Pandey, currently interning at the Vivekananda International Foundation, assisted the author in compilation, tabulation and summarisation of the articles.

Analysis of the Articles Related to Operation Sindoor in Foreign Media

Objective: The purpose of this exercise is to evaluate the narrative which has emerged after April 22 Pahalgam attack and subsequent Indian strikes on Pakistan’s terrorist targets.
Neutrality Rating Scale (1-9):

1. 5 = Neutral
2. 1–4 = Tilted towards Pakistan (with 1 being the most tilted, and 4 less so)
3. 6–9 = Tilted towards India (with 6 being mildly tilted, and 9 the most)

Note: Ratings are subjective and have been determined after analysing each article individually.

Summary of the Articles:

1. India’s strike on Pakistan isn’t about terrorism: Kashmir (Opinion): Journalist Imran Khalid contends Modi’s strikes were politically engineered. He claims the confrontation “is not a spontaneous response to terrorism, but rather a premeditated manoeuvre by Prime Minister Modi…rooted in domestic politics”. In his view, Operation Sindoor was intended to redirect public attention away from the government’s problems and toward a familiar enemy (Pakistan). The tone is sceptical and critical, depicting the military action as cynical election-year strategy rather than a purely security-driven retaliation.
2. Opinion: Kashmir Is the Fuse, but Hindutva Is the Fire: Andrew Latham view’s the conflict through an ideological lens. He argues Sindoor was not just retaliation or electioneering but a symptom of India’s turn toward hardline Hindutva politics. He traces how Modi’s BJP has institutionalized Hindu-majoritarian policies (e.g. revoking Kashmir’s autonomy, citizenship laws). In this view, Sindoor’s timing and ferocity were a political signal that a Hindutva-defined Indian state will defend its “sovereignty…with absolute force”. The piece is critical of the government, warning that such ideology-driven responses (similar to rising ethno-nationalism globally) worsen communal divides.
3. Does India still have an airpower advantage over Pakistan?: Fabian Hoffmann examines India’s claimed success with scepticism. He highlights that “several Indian losses have been verified, casting serious doubt on the success of the operation”. Hoffmann notes India fired advanced standoff weapons (SCALP-EG, AASM, BrahMos) at Pakistan, but images of debris (e.g. a BrahMos booster) suggest Pakistani defences held some intercepts. The tone is analytical and restrained, implying Pakistan’s air defences challenged India’s assumed air superiority and that the outcome may not be as one-sided as India portrayed.
4. India attacks Pakistan declaration Israel-style expansionism: Azad Essa strongly condemns India’s actions as communal and expansionist. He reports Indian air strikes hit civilian targets – “mosques and madrassas” – killing at least 31 people. He notes the Indian media invoked “final solution”-style rhetoric, which sparked hate crimes against Muslims and a harsh crackdown in Kashmir (mass detentions, home demolitions, etc. Essa likens Sindoor to an “Israel-style” campaign of aggression. The tone is outraged and alarmist, framing India’s response as ideological violence against Muslims and warning of dangerous parallels with other nationalist campaigns.
5. India tried to project strength but ended up showing weakness | India-Pakistan Tensions | Al Jazeera : Opinion columnist Yousuf Nazar argues Sindoor backfired on India. He contends Modi’s aim of projecting strength instead “boosted Pakistan’s regional standing and left Modi diplomatically weakened”. Nazar highlights Pakistan’s successful defence: Islamabad claims to have shot down multiple Indian jets (including three Rafales), a claim backed by U.S. sources who said Chinese-made J-10s downed at least two Rafales. He also notes that Indian media’s boastful claims (e.g. Karachi port hit) were false. The tone is critical of India and sympathetic to Pakistan’s view. He warns that Delhi “overestimated its Rafale jets and underestimated Pakistan’s Chinese-backed ISR systems.
6. Pakistan comes out emboldened after clashes with India: Umair Jamal argues the conflict strengthened Pakistan. He claims India’s decision to strike “has backfired” by uniting Pakistan and boosting confidence. Jamal outlines how Pakistani society rallied behind its military, which responded to India’s “new normal” of strikes with its own “new normal plus” – massive retaliatory strikes on Indian cities and bases. He also notes Pakistan won diplomatic points (international sympathy, U.S. mediation offers). The tone is emphatically ro-Pakistan, portraying Islamabad as having turned India’s aggression into a strategic and diplomatic victory.
7. Lessons for the next India-Pakistan war: Joshua White outlines four emerging dynamics: (1) Attribution has shifted in India’s favour (terror attacks are now readily pinned on Pakistan), which may increase political pressure for immediate retaliation. (2) Both militaries have set new precedents in target selection; (3) Information warfare has become central (particularly Pakistani propaganda); (4) Widespread use of drones/loitering munitions is blurring escalation ladders. He warns these could make future crises more unpredictable. Notably, White observes that India’s friends now assume Pakistan’s guilt, so Indian leaders must manage public expectations that “the first order reaction” to terror is not just investigating but retaliating. The tone is analytical and forward-looking, cautioning about domestic and strategic pressures in future conflicts.
8. Operation Sindoor: A Decisive Victory in Modern Warfare: Spencer hails Operation Sindoor as a “massive victory” that surpassed its strategic goals. It neutralised nine major terror camps, struck multiple Pakistani air bases, and asserted India’s military dominance, marking a shift in its national security doctrine. He commends the operation's precision and restraint, describing it as “decisive and controlled.” India’s intent, he emphasises, was deterrence—not vengeance. Calls for full-scale escalation “miss the point,” as the strikes were designed to impose costs and redefine red lines. Spencer argues this restraint reflects “maturity, not weakness,” and that India’s swift response “changed the strategic equation.”

Overall, he presents Sindoor as a model of limited, modern warfare: India absorbed an attack, retaliated with precision using indigenous technology, and halted on its own terms. The campaign, he concludes, redefined India’s strategic posture—terror from Pakistan now invites calibrated military retaliation. Under the shadow of nuclear risks, Spencer sees the operation as both a “strategic success” and a “decisive Indian victory.”

9. Chinese weapons pass combat test in India-Pakistan clash – with flying colours: This report quotes analysts who say Chinese arms acquitted themselves well. Yun Sun (Stimson Center) observes that Indian systems “are not as effective as a lot of people thought they would be”, and Dr. Carlotta Rinaudo notes the old bias that “Chinese weapons are inferior” is now “not the case anymore”. The coverage, relaying expert opinion that Pakistan’s Chinese-supplied fighters and missiles performed strongly in the clash, contrary to many expectations. The tone is matter-of-fact and somewhat surprising, crediting China’s hardware for proving its mettle in combat.
10. Operation Sindoor and the Evolution of India’s Military Strategy Against Pakistan - War on the Rocks : Arzan Tarapore frames Sindoor as the latest step in India’s shift to a cost-imposition strategy. He notes India struck a larger array of targets with greater force (cruise missiles, drones, etc.) than before. The article emphasises India’s use of stand-off weapons (BrahMos, Spice/SCALP missiles, Israeli Harops) to hit terror-linked infrastructure quickly and without mobilizing ground forces. It calls Sindoor an “important evolution” from mere warnings to directly punishing militants. The tone is analytic and balanced: it praises India’s calibrated, flexible use of strikes, but also cautions that ratcheting up escalations is “difficult and risky”.
11. Calibrated Force: Operation Sindoor and the Future of Indian Deterrence | Royal United Services Institute : Walter Ladwig commends India’s restrained execution of Sindoor. He notes that despite much focus on aircraft losses, India “largely achieved its stated objectives,” using precise stand-off strikes against terrorist. Crucially, India’s pilots accepted the risk of confronting Pakistani air defences but were ordered not to initiate combat with Pakistani aircraft, a choice that shows intent to limit the war’s scope. The piece portrays Sindoor as a “lesson in restraint”: India struck hard only at militants, and even hit Pakistan’s air-defence radars at bases, yet issued no nuclear threats nor full mobilization. The tone is measured and somewhat positive about India’s new “calibrated” approach.
12. Flawless Kill Chain: Pakistan’s Networked Strike Took Down Indian Fighter, Says U.S. Analyst - Defence Security Asia This report (citing U.S. analysts) praises Pakistan’s integrated air-defence “kill chain.” It contends that a networked Pakistani strike fusing Chinese radars, J-10C fighters, PL-15 missiles, and AWACS – successfully shot down an Indian Rafale. Experts quoted say Pakistan’s networked targeting was “more important than the capabilities of the specific fighters”. The article underscores Pakistan’s doctrinal edge: Chinese-origin systems gave its Air Force an “80-nm engagement”. The tone is admiring of PAF’s performance, implying India’s alleged technical edge was offset by Pakistan’s superior integration.
13. The Next War Between India and Pakistan | Foreign Affairs : Aqil Shah’s Foreign Affairs piece warns that India’s recent strikes did little to deter Pakistan and may instead fuel future violence. He argues that Delhi’s punitive raids were largely symbolic – effectively handing Islamabad “a symbolic victory” – and thus risk triggering a new cycle of retaliation. The tone is cautionary, emphasising that without credible deterrence India could provoke a larger conflict. Overall, Shah suggests that Delhi’s strategy backfired, underlining the limits of coercion and the danger of escalation if Pakistan’s resolve is underestimated.
14. Lessons from India-Pakistan war: Were China’s arms overrated?: Brahma Chellaney analyses Sindoor as a real-world trial of Chinese weaponry and finds them wanting. He notes that Pakistan’s Chinese-supplied J-10C jets (armed with PL-15 missiles) and HQ-9 SAMs saw combat but scored “no independent verification of successful hits,” while India’s layered air defences held firm. By contrast, Indian cruise missiles (BrahMos) struck deep into Pakistan – “crippling major Pakistani air bases” – without suffering confirmed losses. Chellaney highlights India’s use of precision standoff weapons (especially BrahMos) as highly effective. The stance is analytical and somewhat sceptical of Chinese kit, portraying Sindoor as a lesson in both the strengths of India’s arsenal and the limits of Chinese exports on Pakistan’s side.
15. Four Days in May: The India-Pakistan Crisis of 2025 • Stimson Center : Christopher Clary’s working paper offers a factual, balanced narrative of May 7–10. It catalogues several firsts (India’s first use of BrahMos and SCALP missiles; Pakistan’s use of Fatah ballistic missiles; first combat drone use by both sides) and notes that both nations claimed victory amid rampant disinformation. India, it finds, repeatedly launched precise standoff strikes deep into Pakistan, showing Pakistani air defences vulnerable. It also confirms India lost multiple aircraft on May 7 (likely to Pakistan’s air defences), but thereafter Pakistan’s subsequent drone and mssile attacks did little damage to Indian forces. Nuclear posturing was muted. The tone is objective and data-driven, stressing that despite heated claims, the real damage on each side remains hard to verify.
16. Squabbling Siblings: India, Pakistan And Operation Sindoor – OpEd – Eurasia Review : Binoy Kampmark’s op-ed takes a cynical, sarcastic view of Sindoor. He notes India’s narrative (precision strikes killed 31 terrorists) versus Pakistan’s (civilian casualties) implying both are propagandistic. Kampmark mocks the nationalist posturing: India boasted “strategic proficiency,” while Pakistan celebrated shooting down five Indian jets with Chinese hardware and even promoted its army chief to Field Marshal for “restoring pride”. He calls the conflict a “lovely little spilling of blood” between immature siblings. The tone is derisive toward both governments, highlighting political symbolism (water treaties suspended, gendered operation name) and noting how ordinary Kashmiris are ignored.
17. Indo-Pak Air Superiority Claims – OpEd – Eurasia Review : Altaf Moti defends Pakistan’s claims and criticizes the Indian spin. He points out that some Indian commentators recast Sindoor as a proxy conflict with China, whereas Pakistan insists its own PAF downed six Indian jets (including Rafales) with Chinese-supplied weapons. Moti argues the Pakistani narrative – crediting the PAF’s skill and systems – is “more accurate and compelling”. He suggests India’s effort to shift blame to China raises more questions than it answers. The tone is pro-Pakistan and critical of the Indian framing, highlighting Pakistan’s view of itself as the true victor and India’s use of China as a convenient scapegoat.
18. India’s Operation Sindoor: A Battlefield Verdict on Chinese Weapons – And India’s Victory: John Spencer argues that Operation Sindoor was not just a military retaliation but a test of military-industrial independence. India’s use of indigenous systems like BrahMos, Akash, and Harop drones decisively outperformed Pakistan’s Chinese-supplied weapons. He frames the clash as “sovereign power vs. proxy,” with India fighting independently and Pakistan relying on export-grade Chinese arms. According to Spencer, Pakistan systems failed under combat conditions. The operation validated India’s push for defence self-reliance. He concludes that India won both the battlefield and the technological contest and that Operation Sindoor validated India’s decades-long push for self-reliance by demonstrating its arsenal’s superiority over imported Chinese equipment.

Bibliography

• Shah, A. (2025, May 23). The Next War Between India and Pakistan Foreign Affairs
• Chellaney, B. (2025, May 27). Lessons from India-Pakistan war: Were China’s arms overrated? The Japan Times.
• Jacinto, L. (2025, May 14). Chinese weapons pass combat test in India-Pakistan clash – with flying colours. France 24.
• Nazar, Y. (2025, May 11). India tried to project strength but ended up showing weakness | India-Pakistan Tensions | Al Jazeera. Al Jazeera.
• Latham, A. (2025, May 8). Kashmir Is the Fuse, but Hindutva Is the Fire. E-International Relations.
• Essa, A. (2025, May 9). India attacks Pakistan declaration Israel-style expansionism. Middle East Eye.
• Tarapore, A. (2025, May 19). Operation Sindoor and the Evolution of India’s Military Strategy Against Pakistan War on the Rocks.
• Christopher, C. (2025, May 28). Four Days in May: The India-Pakistan Crisis of 2025 Stimson Center
• (2025, May 22) Flawless Kill Chain: Pakistan’s Networked Strike Took Down Indian Fighter, Says U.S. Analyst - Defence Security Asia
• (2025, May 21) Calibrated Force: Operation Sindoor and the Future of Indian Deterrence | Royal United Services Institute
• White, Joshu T. (2025, May 14) Lessons for the next India-Pakistan war
• Kampmark, B. (2025, May 28) Squabbling Siblings: India, Pakistan And Operation Sindoor – OpEd – Eurasia Review
• Moti, A.(2025, May 28) Beyond The Haze Of War: Unpacking The Indo-Pak Air Superiority Claims – OpEd Eurasia Review
• Khalid, I. (2025, May 8) India’s strike on Pakistan isn’t about terrorism: Kashmir (Opinion), Newsweek
• Hoffmann, F. (2025, May 8) Does India still have an airpower advantage over Pakistan? ,The Spectator
• Jamal, U. (2025, May 13) Pakistan comes out emboldened after clashes with India, The Diplomat.
• Spencer, J (2025, May 29), India’s Operation Sindoor: A Battlefield Verdict on Chinese Weapons – And India’s Victory , X @Spencerguard
• Spencer, J (2025, May 14) Operation Sindoor: A Decisive Victory in Modern Warfare, X @Spencerguard

(The paper is the author’s individual scholastic articulation. The author certifies that the article/paper is original in content, unpublished and it has not been submitted for publication/web upload elsewhere, and that the facts and figures quoted are duly referenced, as needed, and are believed to be correct). (The paper does not necessarily represent the organisational stance... More >>

---

Image source: https://m.sakshipost.com/sites/default/files/styles/cinema_main/public/article_images/2025/05/12/20250512252-1747058401.JPG?itok=wTbZrJ44