India did not try to completely control the airspace, and it did not keep up the pressure forever.

The crisis between India and Pakistan in May 2025, which has its lineage to the Pahalgam terror attacks that happened in April 2025, has a lot to say about escalation matrix, post-operation results and most importantly of all, how not to make it a protracted conflict. The Indian side has consistently maintained that it has been swift in its actions and achieved its targets on the first day of the strike.

However, as Pakistan climbed the escalation ladder on the second day, the Indian Armed Forces also upped the stakes. As the world at that time was grappling with protracted conflict from Russia-Ukraine to Israel-Gaza, the international community was fearing there were high chances of India-Pakistan getting into the clutches of prolonged conflict.

In the light of newer evidence, such as the one recently released Swiss Air Power related Think Tank report and as the fog of war is settling, two things remain clear: one, India has achieved what it wanted from those precision strikes; also, it did not up the ante unnecessarily and gave Pakistan an off-ramp as asked by Pakistan once achieving its goals.

What makes Operation Sindoor stand out is not that India attacked Pakistan. In 2019, that limit had already been reached. It’s not even the fact that two air forces are fighting in the air. What makes this episode different is that later revelations slowly broke down the initial story frame, making analysts rethink how escalation happened, how it was handled, and why it ended when it did.

After the air battles on May 7, it seemed like Pakistan had the upper hand because they were faster in media briefings. Early reports were shaped by statements from military officials, along with diagrams and confident briefings. In contrast, India didn’t say much. It didn’t say whether or not it had lost any planes, and it only said again that its strikes were aimed at terrorist infrastructure. This difference was important. Without verified information, initial claims spread quickly.

At that point, many people and different nations saw the crisis in a limited way: Pakistan had struck initially, India had taken the harm, and things had calmed down mostly because both sides were being careful. At the time, that reading wasn’t unreasonable. It wasn’t finished either.

As more information came to light, especially from sources that weren’t directly involved in either side’s story, a different picture began to emerge. A Swiss military think tank that studies air warfare wrote a long report on the war that focused less on claims of individual kills and more on how the air campaign changed over the course of four days. It came to a conclusion that was measured but important.

The report said that the Indian Air Force quickly adapted, weakened parts of Pakistan’s air defence network, and gained air superiority over large areas of Pakistani airspace, even though it acknowledged Pakistan’s early tactical successes. It suggested that this change changed the balance of power and was a big reason why Islamabad asked for a ceasefire by May 10.

At first, that conclusion didn’t get as much attention as it should have, maybe because it didn’t fit into the main story that the media was telling. But over time, a number of admissions that are hard to ignore have made it stronger. One of these times was when Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar said in public that Indian strikes had hit Nur Khan Air Base. This was not an arbitrary place. Nur Khan is close to Rawalpindi and is closely linked to Pakistan’s air mobility and command infrastructure.

Governments don’t usually want to admit that damage has been done to these kinds of facilities, especially when doing so goes against their earlier claims of strong defence. The admission didn’t say how much damage was done, but it quietly answered a bigger question: Indian strikes had gone far beyond their intended targets.

That recognition also helped make sense of how Pakistan acted diplomatically during the crisis. The US Foreign Agents Registration Act showed that Pakistan asked US officials more than sixty times to step in and stop India’s strikes. These were not one-time actions. They required diplomats and registered lobbyists to stay involved by meeting with each other, calling each other, and writing to each other.

When looked at on its own, this kind of outreach might seem normal. In total, it points to something more urgent: a growing worry that the path of escalation was going too far for Islamabad to handle.

States facing military pressure frequently pursue external stabilisers, especially when nuclear deterrence complicates bilateral signalling. But the size of Pakistan’s outreach does show that they thought that continuing to escalate would be expensive, not just dangerous. In this light, the Swiss assessment’s claim that India had gained coercive leverage through air power starts to look less like a guess.

But the most telling confirmations may have come from actors who usually stay out of official discussions. Hafiz Abdul Rauf, the commander of Lashkar-e-Taiba, said in public that the Indian attack on Muridke was a “very big attack” that destroyed a major training facility.

Masood Ilyas, the commander of Jaish-e-Mohammad, said that their headquarters in Bahawalpur was badly damaged and many people died. These statements didn’t get as much attention over time as military briefings, but they are still important for analysis. Militant groups don’t usually talk about their own losses unless they can’t deny them anymore, even to themselves.

All of these admissions make it harder to believe that Operation Sindoor was mostly a symbol. They imply that the strikes produced significant impacts on infrastructure previously considered to be beneath India’s escalation threshold. More importantly, they made it harder to separate militant activity from the consequences at the state level by blurring the line between non-state actors and the strategic environment that supports them.

It’s interesting how air power was used to make this happen. India did not try to completely control the airspace, and it did not keep up the pressure forever. Instead, it looks like it had a more limited goal: to show that it could get through defended airspace, damage high-value assets, and then stop. This is a different way of escalating things. It sees air superiority as a short-term goal rather than a long-term one. In places where escalation ladders are short and nuclear signalling is always there, this kind of time is important.

From Pakistan’s point of view, the maths got harder and harder. Success in air-to-air combat did not protect infrastructure from being weak. Early narrative advantage didn’t stop later revelations from changing how people thought. By May 10, the costs of continuing the fight, especially with some Indian air superiority, probably outweighed the benefits of keeping it going.

At that point, asking for a ceasefire kept escalation under control and limited the further exposure of important assets. This has detrimental implications for South Asia. Nuclear deterrence still stops full-scale war, but it no longer protects you from heavy conventional pressure.

Denial strategies are still useful in the short term, but they are becoming less effective as more and more open-source intelligence, regulatory transparency, and delayed admissions become available. And the space for managing escalation through proxies seems to be getting smaller as infrastructure that was once off-limits becomes more and more contested.

Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not reflect Milli Chronicle’s point-of-view.

Umar Shareef

We do not seek war. We desire peace. But peace cannot come at the cost of silence against terror.

The recent Pahalgam terror attack has once again tested the patience and resolve of the Indian nation. The aftermath has taken us to the brink of yet another war-like situation between India and Pakistan. In response to the brutal killing of 26 Indian civilians, the Indian government launched Operation Sindoor, a precise military strike aimed at dismantling Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) terror infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK).

According to reports, the Indian Air Force targeted 14 locations, including the JeM camps in Bahawalpur—reportedly killing 13 individuals associated with the terror outfit, some of them family members of the group’s chief, Masood Azhar. This decisive retaliation is a reflection of India’s zero-tolerance policy toward terrorism, particularly those sponsored or sheltered across the border.

But what followed was telling.

In retaliation, Pakistan shelled the border town of Poonch in Jammu & Kashmir. The victims were not military targets—they were civilians. Among the dead were Kashmiri Muslim children and women. These were our own people. This act by the Pakistani army reflects not strength, but a moral bankruptcy that has long plagued its strategic outlook. Instead of countering India’s military moves tactically, Pakistan chose to engage in indiscriminate shelling, targeting those who had no weapons, no uniforms, and no role in the military operations—just ordinary Indian Muslims.

This isn’t the first time Pakistan has committed such atrocities. If history teaches us anything, it’s that we’ve seen this script before. During the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War, the Pakistani army reportedly killed over 300,000 Bengalis, according to the Bangladesh Genocide Archive. Most were Muslims. Many women were raped. Entire villages were wiped out. And yet, Pakistan continues to cloak itself in the garb of Islamic righteousness while violating every ethical and humanitarian code Islam prescribes.

This duality is not just deceptive—it is dangerous.

To the leaders of the Islamic world, I pose some hard questions:

Is Pakistan’s retaliation to India’s Operation Sindoor consistent with Islamic ethics?

Can the killing of Muslim children in Poonch be justified under any circumstances?

Is this the conduct of an “Islamic Republic”?

As an Indian Muslim, I say this with clarity and conviction: India is my homeland. It is a sovereign, pluralistic, democratic country that upholds the rights of all its citizens—Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, and others. Our Constitution protects us, and our armed forces include us.

I was deeply moved watching a recent press conference where Colonel Sophia Qureshi, Wing Commander Vyomika Singh, and Ambassador Vikram Misri stood united, explaining the strategic aims of Operation Sindhoor. It was a portrait of unity: a Muslim woman in uniform, a Sikh diplomat, and a Hindu officer—this is the India we live in, and this is the India we love.

Let no one tell us we do not belong.

The Qur’an commands us clearly: “And if two groups among the believers should fight, then make peace between them. But if one oppresses the other, then fight against the one that oppresses until it returns to the command of Allah…” – Surah Al-Hujurat (49:9)

This is not a call to bloodshed—it is a call to justice. We fight oppression, not people. We fight terrorists, not civilians. And when peace is offered, Islam commands us to accept it. But if one side continues to shelter groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba or The Resistance Front, who actively undermine regional stability, then standing by and doing nothing is not an option.

Yes, Operation Sindoor may have caused some collateral damage. No life lost is ever trivial. But the mission had a clear objective: dismantle terror networks—not harm civilians. India’s action was measured and targeted. Pakistan’s was indiscriminate and vengeful.

As Indian Muslims, we draw our strength from both faith and patriotism. We are heirs to the legacy of Brigadier Muhammad Usman, the “Lion of Nowshera,” who laid down his life defending Kashmir in 1948. We remember Captain Haneefuddin, who fought bravely in the 1999 Kargil War. These are our heroes, our martyrs—Muslims who defended India against Pakistani aggression.

It is critical to understand that Islam encourages peaceful coexistence. When the Prophet Mohammed established the state of Madinah, he created a pluralistic charter involving Muslims, Jews, and pagans. He taught that alliances with non-Muslims are not just permissible, but necessary in the cause of justice and societal harmony. The story of Ja’far ibn Abi Talib, who sought refuge with the Christian King of Abyssinia, is a powerful reminder that justice transcends religion.

We Indian Muslims face many challenges—from Pakistani propaganda to the rise of far-right elements at home. Yet, we stand firm. We will not be pawns in foreign agendas. We will not be deceived by narratives that seek to divide us.

We say with dignity: Inqilab Zindabad. Hindustan Zindabad. Victory to India.

We may critique our government or hold differing political opinions, especially with regard to the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). That is our democratic right. But our nation is not defined by any one party. India is defined by its people, its Constitution, and its unity in diversity.

We do not seek war. We desire peace. But peace cannot come at the cost of silence against terror. And peace cannot be preserved if Pakistan continues to target civilians and shelter jihadist outfits.

India reserves the right to protect itself. Under Public International Law, every sovereign nation has the right to eliminate threats to its people. That is what Operation Sindoor was about—and that is what justice demands.

Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not reflect Milli Chronicle’s point-of-view.

The classified assessment, first reported by The New Indian in an exclusive by Emaad Makhdoomi, reveals that this nexus was formalized during a high-level rally held in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) on February 5, 2025.

The rally, provocatively titled the “Kashmir Solidarity and Hamas Operation Al-Aqsa Flood Conference”, took place at Shaheed Sabir Stadium in PoK. Sources confirm that operatives involved in planning the Pahalgam attack were present at the event.

In a declaration that shocked security circles, a Jaish operative reportedly thundered from the stage: “The fighters of Palestine and Kashmir now march as one. Blood will be spilled in Delhi, and Kashmir shall be torn from India.”

Among those in attendance were top-ranking commanders: Talha Saif, brother of JeM chief Masood Azhar; senior field commanders Asghar Khan Kashmiri and Masood Ilyas; and key Lashkar-e-Taiba figures.

Most notably, Hamas made its first known formal appearance in PoK, represented by Dr. Khalid Al-Qadoumi, its Iran-based envoy. Several Palestinian figures were also seen aligning ideologically and logistically with Pakistani terror outfits.

According to intelligence analysts, this summit marked more than just rhetoric—it established a collaborative framework for future joint operations, modeled on Hamas’s asymmetric warfare tactics in Gaza.

“Pakistan-backed terrorist outfits are now consciously emulating Hamas’s blueprint,” a senior Indian intelligence official told The New Indian. “These groups are manipulating religious ideologies to provoke violence and foster deep-seated communal discord within Jammu and Kashmir.”

A Multimedia Propaganda Surge

Days ahead of the February summit, a provocative eight-minute propaganda video was circulated by the Pakistan Markazi Muslim League, glorifying Islamist separatists such as Syed Ali Shah Geelani, Yasin Malik, and Masrat Alam Bhat. The video lauded slain terrorists including Burhan Wani and Manan Wani, showing funeral footage while drawing incendiary parallels between Gaza and Kashmir.

“Pak ki Azadi, Kashmir ki Azadi” blared throughout the production, openly inciting Kashmiri youth to rebel against Indian sovereignty.

Security experts warn that this blend of emotional imagery and militant messaging represents a dangerous evolution in hybrid propaganda, designed to radicalize young minds and fuel communal tensions.

“The aim is to internationalize the Kashmir issue by tying it to the globally resonant Palestine-Israel conflict,” said a counterterrorism analyst. “It’s a strategic pivot designed to rally global sympathy while accelerating internal destabilization.”

Pahalgam Attack: Pre-Meditated and Communally Driven

On March 24, the idyllic town of Pahalgam—a hub for tourists and Hindu pilgrims—was shattered by a brutal terrorist ambush. Sources have confirmed the attack was orchestrated from across the Line of Control (LoC) by banned outfits including Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JuD), Lashkar-e-Taiba, and Jammu and Kashmir United Mujahideen (JKUM). The strike bore the hallmarks of meticulous premeditation, with execution carried out by highly trained Pakistani terrorists.

Three key individuals have been identified as the architects of the attack:

• Saifullah Kasuri (aka Saifullah Khalid), a senior LeT commander with close ties to LeT founder Hafiz Saeed. Designated by the U.S. Treasury Department, Kasuri has served as LeT’s Peshawar operations head and was instrumental in mobilizing the political front Milli Muslim League (MML), widely seen as a civilian mask for LeT’s agenda.
• Abu Musa (aka Musa Kashmiri), formerly affiliated with ISIS, is known for plotting attacks against foreign nationals in India. He was found with jihadist literature and reportedly attempted lone-wolf attacks before realigning with LeT to target non-locals and Indian security personnel.
• Rizwan Hanif, a senior JKUM operative based in Rawalakot, PoK. Intelligence sources say Hanif oversaw the logistics of the Pahalgam strike, including infiltration routes and arms procurement.

Perhaps most disturbing was the revelation that the attackers reportedly interrogated victims about their religion before executing them—pointing to a targeted communal intent. “This wasn’t just a terror attack—it was a message,” said a senior Indian intelligence official. “It signals a dangerous shift from generalized violence to targeted, faith-based executions.”

ISI and Military Involvement

The role of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and its military in coordinating this growing alliance is under sharp scrutiny. According to multiple sources, the ISI is driving efforts to reposition Kashmir on the global stage by deliberately echoing the Palestine narrative, hoping to energize pan-Islamist sentiments and draw international scrutiny toward India’s internal affairs.

“The ISI is effectively weaponizing the Palestinian cause to export jihad to South Asia,” said a former Indian military officer. “Their goal is twofold: to globalize the Kashmir issue and to create a new generation of radicalized youth who see themselves not just as Kashmiris, but as soldiers in a broader global jihad.”

A Cross-Continental Threat Matrix

This emerging Hamas-LeT nexus signals a dangerous cross-continental collaboration that may reshape the operational dynamics of Islamist terrorism in the region. Indian officials believe this could mark the beginning of a new era of hybrid warfare—fusing militant Islamist ideology with advanced propaganda and asymmetric guerrilla tactics.

As India grapples with the fallout of the Pahalgam massacre, and as global attention continues to focus on the Middle East, security experts are calling for a recalibration of counterterrorism strategies. “We’re witnessing the globalization of local conflicts,” said an Indian intelligence official. “And that’s a warning the world can’t afford to ignore.”

During Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s ongoing visit to Saudi Arabia, a high-level meeting took place between PM Modi and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. The Crown Prince conveyed his heartfelt condolences and unwavering support to India in the aftermath of the brutal attack.

“As I said, the recent terror attacks in Kashmir were discussed and His Royal Highness Crown Prince conveyed his condolences. The leaders strongly condemned this terror attack,” said Dr. Suhel Ajaz Khan, India’s Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, during a media briefing in Jeddah.

In addition to expressing sympathy, the Crown Prince offered any necessary assistance to India, underscoring the strengthening security cooperation between the two countries as they jointly confront the menace of terrorism.

At the same time, the United Arab Emirates issued a firm statement condemning the heinous attack that targeted tourists in Pahalgam. The UAE Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MoFA) declared its strong rejection of all forms of violence and terrorism, emphasizing that such acts undermine security and stability, violating international law.

The Ministry expressed its sincere condolences and sympathy to the government and people of India, and to the families of the victims affected by this senseless violence. It also wished a swift recovery to those injured in the attack.

UAE’s Ambassador to India, Abdulnasser Alshaali posted, “My most sincere condolences to the victims of the terrorist attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir. My thoughts are with the people of India. I pray for the swift and full recovery of the injured.”

The joint condemnation by Saudi Arabia and the UAE highlights the growing consensus among Gulf nations against Pakistan-backed terrorism and their firm stance in support of India’s sovereignty and security. These developments come amid broader efforts to enhance regional cooperation in counterterrorism, investment, and diplomatic ties.

PM Modi’s visit to Saudi Arabia, focusing on strengthening bilateral ties, comes at a critical time when collaboration against terrorism has become a top priority for both nations.