Kargil is not what this is. This is not 2019. The events taking place in South Asia since the early days of May 2025 deviate dangerously from past hostile trends. Using missiles, drones, and cyber capabilities, India and Pakistan have directly targeted each other’s military sites for the first time in decades. The conventional wisdom on participation has changed. With the possibility to drastically change the regional security architecture, we are currently seeing the start of a multidomain conflict-air, land, cyberspace, and information operations (InfoOps).
When India started Operation Sindoor, a sudden and provocative military attack aiming at areas of Pakistan under the guise of an anticipatory counter-terrorism measure, the flashpoint arrived on May 6-7, 2025. Using precision-guided missiles and drone strikes, many of which shockingly landed in civilian-populated areas of Azad Jammu and Kashmir and Punjab, the operation involved taken aback, Pakistan responded with a defensive posture, intercepting multiple drones and swarming jets to contain the problem.
Restrain, though, has limits.
Pakistan started Operation “Bunyan un Marsoos,” a well planned reprisal on May 10, 2025. Derived from the Qur’anic phrase meaning “a solidly constructed structure,” the operation reflected Pakistan’s will: measured, targeted, and unequivocal. Early in the morning, Pakistani missile and drone teams attacked three main Indian air bases in Rajasthan, Himachal Pradesh, and Jammu in concert. Strictly military targets-hangars, radar stations, airstrips-avoidance of civilian casualties and underlining of a fundamental doctrine: restraint under fire.
This moment reflects a difference of moral and strategic ethos, not only an interaction of fire. India seems to be sliding into escalatory adventurism while Pakistan’s posture has been marked by strategic discipline. There is philosophical as well as tactical contrast here. Regarding Operation Sindoor, Pakistan’s reaction has been one of measured deterrent. Targeting only military infrastructure and following international norms of proportionality, Pakistan chose to respond precisely even under direct attack, not panic. The messaging was clear: we will answer, but we will not escalate carelessly. This is an ethical pledge to stability, not only military strategy.
Targeting civilian areas deliberately, particularly in areas devoid of known militant activity, blurs the lines separating punishment from provocation
By contrast, India’s actions seem far more alarming. Targeting civilian areas deliberately, particularly in areas devoid of known militant activity, blurs the lines separating punishment from provocation. Apart from violating international humanitarian law, the elimination of the line separating military from civilian targets also denotes a rejection of strategic wisdom.
Let review the circumstances:
* India’s Operation Sindoor claimed 38 civilian casualties in Pakistan by means of 17 drone incursions and 6 missile strikes.
* Without a single civilian death recorded, Pakistan’s Operation Bunyan un Marsoos disabled three air bases, destroyed twelve fighter jets on the ground, and seriously damaged India’s northern sector radar network.
* Both sides have continuous cyber operations; attempted interference with satellite images in Pakistan and disruptions of the Punjab (India) power grid.
* Over thirty unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) from both countries active in disputed territory within the last 72 hours were confirmed by global satellite tracking systems.
This is no more a localized skirmish. The world has to pay attention since this is a strategic conflict under nuclear shadow.
A New Era, a New Responsibility
Diplomacy was often able to defuse past conflicts after first strikes. In Kargil, Balakot, and even during cross-border conflicts in 2001-02, there was an unwritten agreement to uphold the red lines. These lines are breaking apart now. This is a new era and calls fresh ideas.
Now the responsibility falls squarely on India’s leadership. Pakistan has shown that it follows military necessity and ethical engagement even under provocation. However, the situation might rapidly get out of hand if India keeps increasing by attacking non-combatants and using information warfare to support aggression.
The road forward is dangerous. Still, the decision still is escalation or containment. By means of Operation Bunyan un Marsoos, Pakistan has conveyed a message with great clarity and force. We shall defend ourselves; we will not fight war on the innocent. We advocate strategic deterrent rather than destruction. We want to define clear boundaries around the battlefield, not extend it.
India has to ask itself: Will it follow the road of reckless escalation or will it react with equal restraint?
In an area armed with nuclear weapons, moral clarity and strategic discipline are not only goals-they are absolutely vital for survival. The ancient playbook is dead. It is time to pen a fresh one grounded in stability, restraint, and the dignity of human life rather than pride or provocation.
Everybody is observing from around here. The upcoming action counts more than ever.
The writer is a freelance columnist