Opinion | Operation Sindoor: Not Just A Victory, But A New Warfighting Philosophy

By :Maj Gen Ashok Kumar, VSM (R)

India chose to unveil a new strategy of modern-day warfighting before the world, one that involves defeating the adversary in every event and on every day

It is natural that various aspects of Operation Sindoor are being analysed — including how India achieved its operational aim despite the adversary being a nuclear nation, and how this marked a first-of-its-kind action globally. However, another significant strategic leap has been taken — one that will shortly be recognised by the world and likely emulated in future conflicts. The manner in which this war has been fought has become a new normal, wherein Multi-Domain Operations (MDOs) are being conducted using predominantly technology-infused combat systems.

The notion of victory in such conflicts has also evolved. The adage ‘One may lose battles but must win the war’ defined victory during the world wars and earlier periods. It remained relevant for much later, as the winning side in a war could determine the timing and terms of its conclusion. A few losses along the way were not considered significant compared to achieving a decisive end state. Countries, accordingly, shaped their strategies around this idea.

advertisement

Recommended Stories

• Opinion | India’s Mind Games: How Information Warfare Shook Up A Stressed Pakistan
• At 4 Days, What This The Shortest Conflict Between India And Pakistan?
• Amid Calls For Boycott, A Look At India’s Trade Relations With Turkey, Azerbaijan
• LeT Operatives, Linked To Several Kashmir Attacks: Who Were The 3 Terrorists Killed In Shopian?

While focusing on the end state seemed logical, a large number of countries also began placing emphasis on not losing even an inch of territory, however temporarily — as such losses were perceived as infringements on sovereignty. Military practitioners found this shift challenging, yet had little choice. Thus, ‘not losing ground even temporarily’ became the new notion of victory, in contrast to making substantial gains by the end of the war. This concept persisted through the end of the 20th century and perhaps continues to exist, albeit to a lesser extent, today.

Warfare subsequently shifted into a different domain, where the parties involved no longer had full control over the timing of a war’s termination. This was due to external factors such as interventions by international organisations, powerful nations, or other unforeseen circumstances. In such situations, the old concept of losing battles but ultimately winning the war became less relevant, as conflicts could end abruptly — even at a point when the side poised to win in the long run happened to be temporarily losing a battle. In such cases, that temporary loss could become the final outcome.

You May Like

She Found THIS Chat on Her Husband’s Phone and Vanished OvernightmedalmeritLearn More

by Taboola

Sponsored Links

Consequently, countries adopted a different concept of victory: to be in an advantageous position at the end of every operational cycle. For those unfamiliar with the term ‘operational cycle’, it refers to a 3–5 day time period during which a specific phase of military operations is executed. Typically, there is a brief pause in activity before the next cycle begins. Each operational cycle has a clearly defined military objective.

Given that a war could end abruptly at any moment, countries began aiming to secure success at the conclusion of each operational cycle — ensuring that, even in the event of an unplanned termination, they would be seen as being on the winning side. This is the prevailing belief and is actively practised by many nations today.

The new era of conflict, characterised by Multi-Domain Operations (MDOs) and technology-infused weapons and tactics, has now disrupted even the concept of an ‘operational cycle’-based approach to victory. This shift came into sharp focus when India struck Pakistan, decimating nine terror camps — including four located in Pakistan’s Punjab province — and eliminating over 100 terrorists, including several high-profile operatives and associated infrastructure.

Advertisement

India made a categorical statement that it had no intention of escalating the situation further, effectively placing the ball in Pakistan’s court after achieving an ‘Event-Based Win’. Unfortunately, Pakistan responded by launching nearly 500 drones on the night of 7–8 May 2025. India not only neutralised all incoming aerial threats but also launched retaliatory strikes, securing yet another ‘Event-Based Win’.

India again reiterated its position that it would not escalate further. However, Pakistan continued its provocative actions the following night. While India successfully thwarted all of Pakistan’s efforts, it also carried out targeted strikes on Pakistan’s air defence radars, air defence systems, and airfields spread across the length and breadth of the country on the morning of 10 May 2025 — thereby maintaining its ‘Event-Based Win’ strategy.

India emerged on the winning side after every escalation and on each day, culminating in Pakistan’s request for a ceasefire on 10 May, which India accepted.

advertisement

India, therefore, chose to unveil a new strategy of modern-day warfighting before the world — one that involves defeating the adversary in every event and on every day. The erstwhile concepts of ‘losing battles to win the war’ or merely staying ahead at the end of each operational cycle were set aside. Instead, a new doctrine of winning every day and at every event was conceptualised, operationalised, and demonstrated.

top videos

View all

Israel names 4 IRGC’s intel chief, senior Iranian intelligence officials killed in IDF strikes

Executing such a strategy demands a higher degree of preparedness from all three armed forces, including the integrated application of their capabilities. These developments have now come to the fore, and India continues to move forward on this path in mission mode.

The writer is a Kargil War Veteran. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely that of the author.