On May 7, 2025, India launched Operation Sindoor, a series of precision strikes targeting nine terrorist camps in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir (PoJK) in response to the April 22, 2025, Pahalgam terror attack that killed 26 civilians, mostly Indian tourists from India. The operation, which neutralized key terror infrastructure linked to Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), and Hizbul Mujahideen, not only underscored India’s commitment to combating terrorism but also brought renewed global attention to the Pakistan Army’s long-standing nexus with jihadist groups. This article explores the strikes, their strategic execution, and the evidence of Pakistan’s military complicity in fostering terrorism, which continues to destabilize the region.
The Pahalgam Attack: A Catalyst for Action
The Pahalgam attack, one of the deadliest civilian-targeted assaults in Indian-administered Kashmir in over a decade, was attributed to Pakistan-based militant groups, specifically LeT and its affiliate, The Resistance Front (TRF). Indian intelligence identified two Pakistani nationals among the perpetrators, amplifying accusations of cross-border terrorism. Pakistan’s denial of involvement and its call for an international probe did little to assuage India, which cited a pattern of attacks, like Pulwama (2019) and Nagrota, linked to groups operating from Pakistani soil.
In the weeks following the attack, India pursued diplomatic measures, including suspending the Indus Water Treaty and briefing UN Security Council envoys on Pakistan’s role in harboring UN-proscribed terrorists like JeM leader Masood Azhar. These steps set the stage for Operation Sindoor, a calculated response aimed at dismantling terror networks while exposing the Pakistan Army’s complicity.
Operation Sindoor: Precision Strikes with a Message
Operation Sindoor targeted nine terror camps—four in mainland Pakistan (Bahawalpur, Muridke, Sialkot, and others) and five in PoJK, including the Abbas Terrorist Camp in Kotli. Using loitering munitions, kamikaze drones, and precision-guided missiles, the Indian Armed Forces neutralized over 100 terrorists, including high-value targets like Mudassar Khadian Khas (LeT) and Mohammad Yusuf Azhar (JeM). Satellite imagery from Maxar Technologies confirmed significant damage to these sites, with minimal civilian impact, validating India’s claim of “focused, measured, and non-escalatory” strikes.
The operation avoided Pakistani military targets and ensured Indian aircraft did not cross into Pakistani airspace, signaling restraint. Indian officials, including National Security Advisor Ajit Doval, emphasized that the strikes were based on precise intelligence, likely from India’s intelligence agencies, pinpointing terror hubs masquerading as civilian sites like mosques and madrasas.
The Pakistan Army’s Nexus with Jihadists: A Persistent Threat
India’s strikes reignited scrutiny of the Pakistan Army’s deep ties with jihadist groups, a relationship dating back to the 1980s Afghan jihad and the Kashmir insurgency. The Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), the Pakistani army’s intelligence wing, has long been accused of providing logistical, financial, and operational support to groups like LeT, JeM, and Hizbul Mujahideen. This nexus serves Pakistan’s strategic objectives, including sustaining low-intensity conflict in Kashmir and countering India’s regional influence.
Evidence of this complicity emerged starkly during Operation Sindoor. Indian intelligence sources reported Pakistan Army personnel attending the funerals of slain terrorists, including Hafiz Muhammed Jameel (JeM), suggesting official sanction. The targeted camps, such as LeT’s Muridke headquarters and JeM’s Bahawalpur facility, are located in heavily militarized areas, raising questions about how such large-scale terror infrastructure operates without army patronage and oversight. Historical precedents, like the 2011 discovery of Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad near a military academy, further bolster India’s claims of state complicity.
Pakistan’s designation on the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) grey list from 2018 to 2022 for terror financing lapses reflects international concerns about its failure to curb militant funding. Reports from the U.S. State Department and UN Security Council have documented the ISI’s role in training and arming LeT and JeM operatives, with figures like LeT founder Hafiz Saeed operating openly in Pakistan despite UN sanctions. The Pahalgam attack’s Pakistani perpetrators, allegedly trained in PoJK camps under ISI supervision, underscore this ongoing threat.
Pakistan’s denials, including claims that the struck sites were civilian facilities like the Subhan Mosque in Bahawalpur, lack credibility given the army’s history of shielding militants. Indian Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar countered these claims, citing open-source intelligence and satellite imagery that exposed terrorist training facilities at these locations. The presence of dual-use sites—madrasas doubling as terror hubs—further complicates Pakistan’s narrative, as these are often protected by military patronage.
Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif vowed retaliation, while Defense Minister Khawaja Asif emphasized targeting only Indian military sites. However, Pakistan’s economic constraints—a $350 billion economy reliant on a $7 billion IMF loan—limit its capacity for sustained conflict. The army’s domestic political influence, bolstered by its anti-India stance and jihadist proxies, may nonetheless push for a response to save face, risking a broader confrontation.
Diplomatic and International Fallout
India’s proactive diplomacy mitigated international backlash. Briefings to G20 and UNSC envoys framed the strikes as anti-terrorism measures, not aggression against Pakistan. The U.S., EU, and UN urged restraint, with President Donald Trump claiming mediation in the May 10 ceasefire, a role India disputed. China, Pakistan’s ally, called the strikes “regrettable” but avoided strong condemnation, reflecting its concerns about regional stability.
Domestically, Operation Sindoor unified India, with leaders like Rajnath Singh and opposition figures praising the armed forces. The operation’s transparency, backed by satellite imagery, strengthened India’s global narrative, while Pakistan’s credibility suffered due to its history of denying militant presence, as seen in the 2008 Mumbai attacks and 2019 Balakot strikes.
Strategic Implications and the Way Forward
Operation Sindoor builds on India’s 2016 surgical strikes and 2019 Balakot operation, signaling a zero-tolerance policy toward terrorism. By targeting multiple groups simultaneously, it disrupted terror networks while exposing the Pakistan Army’s role. However, experts like Happymon Jacob caution that strikes alone cannot dismantle the army-jihadist nexus, as Pakistan may escalate to deflect domestic pressure.
The ceasefire, though fragile, offers a de-escalation opportunity. India must sustain diplomatic pressure, leveraging forums like the UN and FATF to hold Pakistan accountable. Long-term stability requires addressing the Kashmir dispute, but Pakistan’s reliance on jihadist proxies remains the primary obstacle.
Footnotes:
Reuters. (2025, May 8). Pakistan vows retaliation after Indian strike over tourist deaths.
The Times of India. (2025, May 9). Operation Sindoor: Who are the 5 key Pakistani terrorists killed in precision strikes?
NDTV. (2025, May 8). Operation Sindoor Highlights.
ANI. (2025, May 6–11). Posts on Operation Sindoor and related developments. X Platform.
U.S. State Department. (2020). Country Reports on Terrorism 2019: Pakistan.
United Nations Security Council. (2020). Analytical Support and Sanctions Monitoring Team Report on Al-Qaida and Associated Groups.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Voice of Hindus. Any content provided by our contributors or authors is their opinion.
About Author
