History reveals that a nation’s true character emerges not through loud declarations but wise actions.
In the May 2025 India-Pakistan flare-up, India’s launch of Operation Sindoor — a cross-border assault violating Pakistan’s international borders — reflected not strategy but Hindutva-driven recklessness and a refusal to learn from the past.
In contrast, Pakistan’s response through Operation Bayan al-Marsus was marked by restraint, precision, and maturity, affirming its commitment to regional stability.
Rather than mirroring India’s provocation, Pakistan chose a disciplined and deliberate path, avoiding escalation while upholding sovereignty.
This episode highlighted not just India’s strategic stubbornness but also Pakistan’s evolving capacity to respond with clarity and composure under pressure.
The contrasting approaches revealed divergent visions for South Asia: one steeped in ideological rigidity, the other striving for responsible engagement and long-term peace.
India’s actions, cloaked in the language of national security, were less about neutralising threats and more about projecting regional dominance.
This time, New Delhi dispensed with even the pretense of plausible deniability.
The operation crossed not just a military thresh-old, but a moral and legal one.
In doing so, India sought to blur the line between response and provocation, offense and defense.
What they termed a necessary action was, in fact, a calculated incursion — one that breached established norms and left little room for misin terpretation.
It wasn’t about counterterrorism; it was about imposing strategic diktats through brute force.
Pakistan’s reaction could have mirrored the recklessness it faced.
Instead, Bayan al-Marsus unfolded with surgical precision and unmistakable deliberateness.
It was a message not just to India, but to the region and the wider world: Pakistan would not tolerate violations of its sovereignty, but nor would it descend into reckless retaliation.
The response was forceful yet disciplined, defensive yet demonstrative, and above all, calibrated to avoid civilian casualties and diplomatic isolation.
In every sense, it reflected a national security posture matured by history, caution, and growing geopolitical awareness.
India, by contrast, continues to allow domestic political expediency to override regional rationality.
The ruling BJP government has repeatedly conflated national pride with military adventurism, often using confrontation with Pakistan as a convenient tool to galvanize its base.
Operation Sindoor followed a familiar pattern — a manufactured sense of siege, a media-fueled call for retaliation, and a dismissive stance toward international mediation.
This cycle of provocation and self-congratulation is no longer a strategic doctrine; it is a dangerous addiction.
What makes this pattern more alarming is the uniformity of silence within India itself.
The military executes, the media amplifies, and the public applauds — with few questioning the wisdom of turning South Asia into a theatre of unending hostility.
There was no soul-searching in Indian editorial pages, no reckoning in the parliamentary benches, and no pro-test in the streets.
The civic and institutional checks that once anchored Indian democracy now seem paralyzed, complicit, or cowed.
In stark contrast, Pakistan’s political and military institutions worked in tandem to present a united yet restrained front, winning domestic support not through bluster but through strategic discipline.
This divergence is not accidental.
It reflects two opposing visions for South Asia’s future.
India’s Hindutva-centric outlook increasingly isolates it from its neighbors and burdens it with the hubris of imagined supremacy.
From its aggressive posturing in Ladakh to its diminishing goodwill in Bangladesh and the Maldives, India’s neighborhood first rhetoric has collapsed under the weight of its own actions.
Pakistan, despite internal challenges, has made consistent efforts to normalize relations, de-escalate tensions, and advocate for diplomatic channels.
That this approach is often met with silence or suspicion from New Delhi is telling — and troubling.
The international community should take note of this episode not just for the immediate military exchanges, but for what it reveals about India’s long-term trajectory.
A regional power that repeatedly violates international norms, ignores mediation efforts, and thrives on brinkmanship cannot be seen as a responsible stakeholder.
Pakistan, in contrast, chose diplomacy over demagoguery, presenting evidence to the world, activating multilateral mechanisms, and seeking dialogue instead of unilateralism.
This contrast matters, and it should inform how global powers engage with South Asia going forward.
India’s refusal to change course — its strategic stubbornness — may earn domestic applause, but it carries a mounting cost.
It alienates neighbours, weakens democratic checks, and entrenches a siege mentality increasingly detached from reality.
The illusion of strength masks a deeper fragility rooted in an unwillingness to reflect, reform, or reconcile.
The real danger lies not in today’s actions, but in what India may become if this path remains unchecked.
The choice is clear: persist in ideological rigidity and regional confrontation, or em-brace dialogue, cooperation, and mutual respect.
For South Asia to prosper, it needs not just economic integration but emotional intelligence — strength in compromise and vision in restraint.
Pakistan, this time, chose the harder but wiser path.
It opted for discipline over drama and, in doing so, didn’t just respond — it redefined the regional conversation.
—The Writer is Assistant Professor at the National University of Science and Technology (NUST), Islamabad. (guleayeshabhatti@gmail.com)
