Shattered illusions: Operation Sindoor exposes Pakistan's expensive force projection amidst a crumbling economy

In the aftermath of Operation Sindoor, Pakistan’s military establishment clung to a carefully curated narrative of deterrence success. From naval press briefings to televised strategic maps, the story painted was one of maritime vigilance, submarine tracking, and strategic restraint that supposedly “deterred” India’s aggression. But behind this narrative lies a bleak and inconvenient truth: Pakistan’s maritime posture is a theatrical display sustained by external bailouts and internal decay.

The economic realities are devastating. Pakistan's currency has depreciated by over 35% in the last year. Inflation remains out of control, foreign exchange reserves are critically low, and industrial production has stagnated. Widespread energy shortages disrupt not only civilian life but also critical military operations. Amid this disarray, Pakistan continues expensive naval deployments primarily for optics, backed by concessional loans and foreign assistance, largely from China.

In contrast, India’s defence spending is underwritten by sustained economic growth and indigenous capability. The Indian Navy’s modernisation is built on sovereign resources. India’s blue-water capability is credible because it is structurally sound. Pakistan’s, by contrast, is a strategic theatre grand on paper, fragile in reality.

Precision Over Provocation

Operation Sindoor marked a new chapter in India’s strategic doctrine. It was not a knee-jerk reaction but a calibrated, multi-domain response that blended precision with restraint. The Indian Navy was forward-deployed and combat-ready throughout the episode. As Vice Admiral A.N. Pramod confirmed, India had the full capacity to strike land and sea targets, including Karachi, but deliberately chose restraint.

This signalled a significant evolution from earlier kinetic responses like Balakot or the surgical strikes post-Uri. Op Sindoor employed symbolic targeting, airpower superiority, and real-time intelligence to neutralise threats without breaching thresholds of escalation. Rafale jets, SCALP cruise missiles, and S-400 air defence systems were showcased not to provoke, but to affirm capability. Pakistan’s response, labelled “Operation Bunyan Marsoos” attempted aerial interception but failed to cause material damage. It merely reinforced the asymmetry in capability and intent.

Mirage of Maritime Might and Dependency on Doles

Pakistan’s naval narrative depends heavily on imagery of submarine acquisitions, fleet parades, and participation in multinational exercises like AMAN. But beneath the surface lies a fleet overwhelmingly dependent on Chinese hardware, concessional financing, and limited domestic integration. Modern platforms like the Type 054A frigates or the Hangor-class submarines offer symbolic parity but little operational autonomy. Maintenance challenges, interoperability issues, and a lack of doctrinal clarity hamper effectiveness. There is little meaningful technology transfer or domestic shipbuilding capability.

India, in contrast, has invested in indigenous platforms (Scorpene, Kamorta, Vikrant), strategic interoperability through Quad and Indian Ocean Rim collaborations, and blue-water deployment reach. Humanitarian operations such as Samudra Setu and SAGAR further enhance its credibility as a maritime security provider.

Strategic Hypocrisy of the Global Order

Pakistan’s ability to project power beyond its means is not self-derived; it is underwritten by decades of indulgence from Western powers. From Cold War alignments to post-9/11 security arrangements, Islamabad has consistently positioned itself as a ‘strategic pivot.’ Even today, institutions like the IMF and World Bank continue to release tranches of financial support despite little accountability in public expenditure, especially on defence. The contradiction is striking: a state that diverts funds from healthcare and education to buy frigates continues to get lenient global treatment.

India, by contrast, despite being a functioning democracy and growing economy, often faces tighter global scrutiny for legitimate defence actions. This double standard reflects a deeper problem, one of selective morality in international politics.

Deconstructing the Parity Illusion

Operation Sindoor decisively shattered the myth of parity. Pakistan’s narrative relied on ambiguous submarine tracks, vague maps, and televised press statements. India relied on operational readiness, global diplomatic outreach, and silent deterrence.

The Indian Navy did not need to cross thresholds to establish dominance. The mere posture of forward deployment, paired with calibrated air and land operations, was sufficient to assert deterrence. The world noticed. Thirteen UNSC members were briefed ahead of time. Key global partners supported India's right to self-defence. Pakistan’s counter-narratives, in contrast, found little traction.

The symbolic naming of the operation “Sindoor” evoked a deeply Indian sentiment of justice and loss, especially for women. It was a subtle reminder that India’s military

actions were not just strategic but moral. However, this framing also highlights the intersection between strategic necessity and emotional narratives in South Asia’s contested landscape.

Strategic Integrity vs Symbolic Projection

The fundamental difference in maritime posture is this: India’s Navy projects strength with responsibility. Pakistan’s Navy projects imagery with fragility.

India’s doctrine centres on securing sea lanes, humanitarian outreach, and cooperative regional presence. Pakistan’s naval imagination remains confined to achieving symbolic parity with India, even as its economy buckles and infrastructure collapses. India has showcased how restraint, deterrence, and readiness can coexist. Pakistan continues to rely on grandstanding, maps, and borrowed ships. The contrast is not just strategic, it is civilizational.

The world must recognise this dichotomy. Strategic illusions from failing states must no longer be indulged. Accountability, not appeasement, is the true currency of international credibility.

A Call for Strategic Realism

Operation Sindoor was more than a military episode; it was a doctrinal message. India does not seek escalation, but it will not hesitate to act with precision and credibility. Op Sindoor exposed the fragility of Pakistan’s force projection and the limits of its maritime bluff. It also reaffirmed India’s ability to defend its sovereignty without theatrics. India leads with capability. Pakistan responds with choreography.

The global order must take note. Strategic illusions are unsustainable. As India continues to grow into a responsible regional and global power, it will act with clarity, composure, and calibrated resolve. The time has come to see Pakistan’s grand naval posturing for what it is: a hollow projection sustained by borrowed power and fading legitimacy.