Operation Sindoor: India’s Strategic Messaging: Preliminary Observations

A preliminary examination of India’s strategic messaging and the spin offs during Operation Sindoor which would require a detailed study to provide lessons for strategic communication during wars in the future.

“All warfare is deception”, said Sun Tzu. In today’s information age it could be rephrased to read, “all warfare is information and disinformation.” In fact, disinformation or false information is shared to deceive an adversary and fan own success.  This comes about as the land spectrum of short wars as that between India and Pakistan or Israel/US and Iran recedes to the background. Thus, success cannot be deterministic and varies on estimation.

While propaganda and disinformation has been a part of warfare since time immemorial, this was essentially directed more towards leaders and fighting troops to deceive or to wear down their resistance. Today as each man is his own publisher and consumer of vast array of information from social media and messaging apps such as What’s App and Telegram, the public is increasingly the target of propaganda.

Acknowledging this facet India’s Defence Minister Shri Rajnath Singh while addressing a dialogue on ‘National Security & Terrorism’, organised in Dehradun, Uttarakhand on June 10, 2025, highlighted the growing use of information warfare in the 21st century, urging the people to be aware of this phenomenon, calling them to be, “social soldiers”.

 “While data and information are the biggest power, it is also the biggest challenge. During Operation Sindoor, Pakistan conspired to break the morale of our soldiers and citizens through fake videos, manipulated news and posts. Even though military actions have been stopped, information warfare is still going on. If people share false news without thinking, they unknowingly become a weapon of the enemy. It is time that all citizens become social soldiers.,” he said. 

The Defence Minister implored the media to, ‘being most correct’ rather than ‘being ahead’. “Instead of being ‘verified’, being ‘viral’ has become the standard of journalism. There is a need to avoid this,” he added. It is unclear if Mr Singh was speaking from the direct deduction from his experience of Operation Sindoor or in general.

Against this backdrop a review of India’s strategic messaging during Operation Sindoor followed by Pakistan’s Marka-e-Haq and Operation Bunyanum Marsoos is essential. While there is a critique of India’s strategic communication campaign  but this may not be necessarily be an accurate assessment. Democracies always face a greater challenge in information ‘management,’ than the autocracies as Pakistan where the military’s media arm is literally the last word. Here are some observations on Indias strategic messaging.

Strategic Objective

At the national level there was a great clarity in the objective of Operation Sindoor as indicated by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi several times after the ghastly terrorist attack at Pahalgam on April 22, which led to the killing of 26 innocent tourists. Speaking days after the attack in this monthly call to the nation, Mr Modi said, “I once again assure the affected families that they will get justice, and justice will be done. The perpetrators and conspirators of this attack will be served with the harshest response,” 121st Episode of ‘Mann ki Baat’ on  27.04.2025

Earlier speaking at the National Panchayati Raj Day program and launch of development works in Madhubani, Bihar, the Prime Minister had said, “I want to say in very clear words, those terrorists who have carried out this attack and those who conspired for this attack will get a punishment bigger than they could have ever imagined. Now the time has come to destroy the remaining ground of the terrorists. The will power of 140 crore Indians will now break the back of the masters of terror”.  “Today, from the soil of Bihar, I say to the whole world: India will identify, track, and punish every terrorist, and their backers. We will pursue them to the ends of the earth. India’s spirit will never be broken by terrorism. Terrorism will not go unpunished. Every effort will be made to ensure that justice is done” PM Modi added. 

Raksha Mantri [Defence Minister] Shri Rajnath Singh separately reaffirmed that,  “Not just those who perpetrated the attack, but even those who conspired from behind the scenes to commit such nefarious acts on the Indian soil will soon get an appropriate response”. He was delivering  a memorial lecture on the Marshal of the Indian Air Force (IAF) Arjan Singh in New Delhi on April 23, 2025, just a day after the Pahalgam attack.

Unintended Spin Off

The strategic intent possibly also provided Pakistan an understanding that India will not target military assets thus providing an advantage in countering attacks by the Indian Air Force [IAF] on the night of May 06/07 and claiming to have downed six IAF fighter jets which has remained unproven.

Yet there is an entire narrative that has been spun around it now with the Indian military as well as civilian officials being in, ‘non-denial denial,’ mode playing upon words rather than providing clear answers  It is believed that the IAF may have lost a few fighters. Responding to reports that Rafale fighter jets were downed during Operation Sindoor, Air Marshal AK Bharti did not confirm or deny the claims in a media briefing during the Operation stating instead that “losses are a part of any combat scenario.” "We are in a combat scenario and losses are a part of it. Questionishave we achieved our objective? Answer is a thumping yes. As for details, at this time I would not like to comment on that as we are still in combat and give advantage to adversary. All our pilots are back home,” he said. 

On the loss of fighters, Chief of Defence Staff General Anil Chauhan said that India lost fighter jets on the opening day of the recent military confrontation with Pakistan due to tactical mistakes. In an interview to Bloomberg TV in Singapore in end of May, General Chauhan said: “What is important is not the jet being down, but why they were being downed. What mistakes were made --- those are important. Numbers are not important. The good part is that we were able to understand the tactical mistake which we made, remedy it, rectify it, and then implement it again after two days and flew our jets again, targeting at long range.”

What we know till there is official confirmation is that the number of losses of the French made Rafale may narrow down to one given that India’s Defence Secretary Mr Rajesh Kumar Singh vehemently countered in a media programme that the plural term Rafales was incorrect.  “You have used the term Rafales in the plural, I can assure you that is absolutely not correct,” Singh told CNBC‑TV18. Yet such statements without a clear denial have added to the overall mystique.

Hindustan Times has now reported that, French Air Force chief General Jérôme Bellanger told the Associated Press that data pointed to three Indian losses—a Rafale, a Su‑30MKI and a Mirage 2000 which may gel with Singh’s statement above.

India too claimed several Pakistan Air Force kills of combat aircraft and other aerial assets such as the Airborne Early Warning systems the exact numbers of which is unclear.  Again, Defence Secretary Rajesh Kumar Singh revealed that the Pakistani military faced “manifold” losses in terms of both men and material compared to India. “In terms of both assets, material and casualties, the losses on their side are manifold, anything that we have suffered,” he said.  “Pakistan suffered losses many times over India in both human and material terms and more than 100 terrorists.”

A related information dynamic flowing out of the losses has emerged with claims that there were restrictions on targeting of military assets by the government on the IAF thus it could not suppress Pakistan air defence, which is a preliminary maneouvre for any aerial operation on an adversary having compatible military capability. The controversy flared after a June 10 seminar in Jakarta, Indonesia where India’s defence attaché to Indonesia, Captain Shiv Kumar linked the Indian losses to restrictions on the armed forces only to hit terror camps across the border at a seminar on Analysis of the Pakistan-India Air Battle and Indonesia’s Anticipatory Strategies from the Perspective of Air Power in Jakarta.

Kumar said, “Suppression of enemy air defences and destruction of enemy air defences is very very important. I may not agree that India lost so many aircraft, but I do agree we did lose some aircraft. And that happened only because of the constraint given by the political leadership to not attack the military establishment or [Pakistani] air defences.” Kumar also said that the tactics were changed after the loss and “we went for their military installations. After the loss, we changed our tactics and went for their military installations. We first achieved suppression of enemy air defences and destruction of enemy air defences (known as SEAD and DEAD in military parlance) and that’s why all our attacks could easily go through using surface-to-air missiles and surface-to-surface missiles…On May 8, 9 and 10, there was complete air superiority by India,” Shiv Kumar said. 

The statement by the officer only surfaced on June 28 with the Indian embassy in Jakarta stating that the officer had been quoted out of context and was only stressing civilian control over the military. India’s Defence Secretary Mr Rajesh Kumar Singh denied the constraints again in response to CNBC TV 18 interview and said, “No political constraints on our armed forces and they have full operational freedom in conflict.”

Whether there were constraints or not will possibly never be known, the initial Indian statement denotes that the targets were exclusively terrorist infrastructure. In a cryptic press release on 07 May 2025, India’s Ministry of Defence stated, that, “Indian Armed Forces launched ‘OPERATION SINDOOR’, hitting terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir from where terrorist attacks against India have been planned and directed. Altogether, nine (9) sites have been targeted. Our actions have been focused, measured and non-escalatory in nature. No Pakistani military facilities have been targeted. India has demonstrated considerable restraint in selection of targets and method of execution”. Separately India’s External Affairs Minister Dr S Jaishankar also indicated that India had restricted to terrorist targets only on 07 June.

.

Mediating the Cease Fire

During the operation and beyond Pakistan attempted to convey that India’s aggression was biased and had no basis as it had not provided any proof of involvement of the Pak state or terrorist groups supported by it in the attack. Moreover, Pakistan repeatedly raised the bogey of nuclear escalation with a view to bring in the United States to intervene and mediate a cease fire. While India and Pakistan agreed to the cease fire implemented on May 10 evening it remained a bilateral decision and has been emphasised in multiple forums including by Prime Minister Narendra Modi to the US President Donald Trump in a telephone conversation post the G 7 Summit in Canada. However President Donald Trump has insisted that he had mediated the cease fire. Pakistan was prompt in recommending Mr Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize for 2026 for this success in defusing a crisis between two nuclear powers.

India on the other hand has repeated that American pressure did not lead to the decision for cease fire. To emphasise the same India’s External Affairs Minister Dr S Jaishankar outlined the conversation between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and US President J D Vance of May 9. Dr Jaishankar states, “And in this particular case, I can tell you that I was in the room when Vice President (JD) Vance spoke to Prime Minister (Narendra) Modi on the night of May 9, saying that the Pakistanis would launch a very massive assault on India if we did not accept certain things". “And the Prime Minister was impervious to what the Pakistanis were threatening to do. On the contrary, he indicated that there would be a response from us. This was the night before and the Pakistanis did attack us massively that night, we responded very quickly thereafter," Jaishankar added. "And the next morning, Mr (Secretary of State Marco) Rubio called me up and said the Pakistanis were ready to talk. So I can only tell you from my personal experience what happened. The rest I leave to you," he said.

.

Pak Nuclear Bluff

Another consistent theme in Pakistan’s narrative has been the bogey of nuclear escalation.  “When India fired BrahMos at Nur Khan airbase, Pakistan's military had only seconds to determine if it was nuclear. That’s a dangerous situation,” Rana Sanaullah, special assistant to Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, said in a recent interview. 

Pakistan's military had just 30 to 45 seconds to assess whether a BrahMos cruise missile launched by India carried a nuclear warhead he claimed. While there is always a concern of dual use missiles which is the Pakistan’s concept, India has separate arsenal for nuclear and conventional warheads. It's often unclear whether a launched missile carries a nuclear or conventional payload, increasing the risk of miscalculation. In a tense conflict, a state might assume the worst and retaliate with nuclear force, even if the incoming missile is conventional. Pakistan military was well aware that India’s BrahMos missile was not nuclear armed and thus the crisis if any was possibly only created to highlight the nuclear bogey particularly when India also has a No First Use declaratory policy.

Clear Messaging Operation Sindoor II

Against this backdrop,  India’s clear messaging on a possible follow up was stated bythe Prime Minister Mr. Modi providing strategic clarity. The Prime Minister said, First, “if there is a terrorist attack on India, a fitting reply will be given. We will give a benefiting response on our terms only. We will take strict action at every place where the roots of terrorism emerge.

Secondly, India will not tolerate any nuclear blackmail. India will strike precisely and decisively at the terrorist hideouts developing under the cover of nuclear blackmail.

Thirdly, we will not differentiate between the government sponsoring terrorism and the masterminds of terrorism. During Operation Sindoor the world has again seen the ugly face of Pakistan, when top Pakistani army officers came to bid farewell to the slain terrorists. This is strong evidence of state-sponsored terrorism.”

The last parameter clearly denotes that the strike will be not only against the terrorist infrastructure by also on the Pakistan military that sponsors such attacks unlike possibly during Operation Sindoor.

Nation at War

Amplifying the Prime Minister statement, the Defence Minister stated, “India’s fight against terrorism is not just a matter of security, it has now become a part of the national defence doctrine, and we will root out this hybrid & proxy warfare.” He was addressing the air warriors at the Bhuj Air Force Station in Gujarat on May 16, 2025.

“Our actions were just a trailer, we will show the full picture, if need be. ‘Attacking and eliminating terrorism’ is the new normal of New India,” he said.

Raksha Mantri Shri Rajnath Singh addressing the Controllers’ Conference of the Defence Accounts Department (DAD) in New Delhi on July 07, 2025, emphasised the department’s critical role in strengthening the operational readiness and financial agility of the Armed Forces as the nation continued to be at war.

. “Peace time is nothing but an illusion. Even during periods of relative calm, we must prepare for uncertainty. Sudden developments can force a complete shift in our financial and operational posture. Whether it's stepping up equipment production or adapting financial processes, we must be ready with innovative techniques and responsive systems at all times,” Raksha Mantri stated. 

China Pak Fusion

While initially India was coy over involvement of Chinese support to Pakistan, Indian Army's Deputy Chief Lt Gen Rahul R Singh's assertion that Beijing provided active military support to Pakistan recently attempted to possibly bell the cat. Addressing a seminar in Delhi, Gen. Singh said while Pakistan was the "front face", with China extending support to its all-weather. He claimed that China used its satellites to monitor Indian military deployment as the Pakistani military was getting live inputs on it during the DGMO (Director General of Military Operations)-level phone talks.  “Even when the DGMO-level talks were going on, Pakistan was mentioning, ‘We know that your such-and-such vector is primed and ready for action,” he said Pakistan told the Indian side at the time that “we would request you to perhaps pull it back”. This, he termed, were “live inputs that [Pakistan] was getting from China”.

The Statement by the Army Deputy Chief was the first direct official statement of China Pak military fusion in the aerospace domain a fact that was well known to analysts. It is not clear if the Deputy Chief was cleared to speak out on the issue or volunteered the information given the impact that this would have on India China relations which as per Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs Spokesperson is on the path of progression after five years of standoff on the Line of Actual Control in Eastern Ladakh.

Why India opted for Short War

The Chief of Defence Staff (CDS), General Anil Chauhan delivered a lecture on “Future War and Warfare” at Savitribai Phule University, in Pune, Maharashtra, on June 3. General Anil Chauhan made several explicit statements about India’s aversion to a prolonged conflict during his recent remarks in Pune and in other related interviews in recent days. In response to a question at Pune, he said, “From our side, we didn’t want to get into a long-drawn kind of a conflict. We’ve seen our experience in Operation Parakram. We had been there for almost about nine months. It involves a lot of expenditure, disrupts everything.”

Earlier in his talk, the CDS said, “Our vision is entirely different (from our adversary), and our march of progress should not be stopped. It should be short kind of a war”. He also emphasised the economic and developmental costs of extended wars in Singapore the week prior: “We do not seek prolonged wars because they slow national development – a goal some adversaries may want to hinder.” “From an economic standpoint, prolonged mobilisations impose a huge financial burden. India has remained mobilised for months without actual combat, and that is unsustainable. We disengage swiftly once an operation concludes,” Chauhan said.

“Professional military forces are not affected by setbacks and losses in a war. What is important is that the morale needs to remain high even if there are setbacks,” CDS Chauhan said. “Adaptability is an important constituent of a very professional force. You should be able to understand what went wrong, need to rectify your mistake and go again. You cannot sit down in fear.”

Conclusion

The four day India Pakistan war is far too recent to provide lessons for the future, thus here an attempt is made to analyse the Indian use of the information spectrum.

India stated the strategic objective of Operation Sindoor and now possibly even Operation Sindoor II very clearly which was also followed up by the military perhaps too literally.

Yet as it happens in war, no encounter proceeds as per plan after the first shot is fired and the information dynamics followed this trend creating a maze through which has been only partially unravelled.

Only a detailed study of Operation Sindoor and Pakistan’s counters could provide us lessons for strategic communication in the future.