If only Pak had succeeded on May 7-10…
Between May 7 and 10, 2025, Pakistan attempted one of its most coordinated and lethal strikes against India in recent years.
Had it succeeded, the consequences for India would have been catastrophic.
Fortunately, India not only foiled the attacks but also responded strategically, demonstrating both military preparedness and restraint.
This article examines:
- What India would have lost had Pakistan succeeded
- What India has actually achieved through its limited offensive
And most importantly, the moral and strategic contrast between the two countries’ intention: a message that needs to be communicated clearly to the world.
What if Pakistan had succeeded?
Had Pakistan’s attacks succeeded, India would have faced:
A. Military devastation
- Strikes on key airbases: Ambala, Pathankot, Srinagar, Awantipur, Gwalior
- Loss of advanced aircraft (Rafale, Mirage, Sukhoi), Command Centers, and Radar Stations
- Hundreds of military casualties
B. Civilian and symbolic catastrophe
- Delhi: Possible hits on Parliament, IGI Airport, and strategic ministries
- Golden Temple, Amritsar: Aimed at igniting communal unrest in Punjab
- J&K towns: Shelling and drone strikes on civilian border areas like Poonch and Rajouri
- National infrastructure: Power grids, dams, IT hubs, and transport systems
C. Economic collapse
- Stock market crash, currency devaluation, energy crisis
- Withdrawal of foreign investments, credit downgrades
- Possible temporary shutdown of major cities
D. Social unrest
- Civilian panic, mass migrations
- Revival of dormant separatist sentiments
- Long-term trauma and anger demanding vengeance
In fact, there is no guarantee they would have stopped the operations after May 10; they would probably have pressed home their advantage.
The fact that all these didn’t happen was because of Indian military and government preparedness.
The success of India’s defense does not diminish the evil intentions of the Pakistani military and political establishments.
What Op Sindoor success has actually achieved
In stark contrast, India:
- Foiled multiple attacks using coordinated intelligence, early detection, and proactive air defence
- Responded with calibrated strikes on Pakistan’s launch platforms, terror training camps, and logistical hubs
- Maintained civilian safety by avoiding non-military targets
- Sent a clear message to Pakistan: “We will not allow your terror factories to thrive.”
These operations were not just tactical military victories but also strategic signaling, reinforcing deterrence without recklessness.
A tale of two intentions: India vs Pakistan
Pakistan’s failed attack:
- Intent: To cause maximum civilian and military casualties
- Targets: Religious sites, cities, civilian areas, and strategic airbases
- Impact aim: To inflict strategic and psychological collapse across India
- Moral posture: Aggressor, violating international law and global norms
India’s calibrated response:
- Intent: To deter attacks, not destroy or escalate unnecessarily
- Targets: Initially, only terror launch pads, depots, and camps were targeted. Pakistani military infrastructure was only targeted after Pakistan attacked Indian military and civilian targets.
- Impact aim: To dismantle terror networks and send a strategic warning
- Moral posture: Defender, acting with restraint, responsibility, and legality.
Even after the Pahalgam attack, where Pakistani-backed terrorists struck with civilian targets in mind, India chose deterrence over vengeance. This was out of moral and strategic clarity.
What the global community must take note
India’s restrained but firm response is rooted in the principle of responsible power behavior. But restraint should not be misunderstood as indecision.
The international community, esp global powers like the US, UK, France, Russia, and the UN Security Council, must take serious note of the following:
- Pakistan was willing to destabilize an entire region through mass-scale attacks, including religious and civilian targets.
- India acted within the bounds of international norms, with proportionate and specific responses.
If Pakistan provokes again, India may justifiably escalate its response to ensure permanent deterrence.
India must now launch a strategic diplomatic communication drive:
- Brief foreign embassies with evidence of Pakistan’s targets and India’s restraint
- Share intelligence with key allies and neutral nations
- Lead the narrative in global media to pre-empt criticism and establish legitimacy for stronger future action
Conclusion: The world must know the difference
There is a world of difference between what Pakistan tried to do and what India actually did.
Had Pakistan succeeded, the Indian subcontinent could have plunged into large-scale war, civil unrest, and economic chaos.
Instead, India upheld peace through power, proving once again that it seeks stability, not conquest, but may not be as restrained if provoked again.
The world must recognize:
- Should Pakistan cross the red line again, India’s response may not be as restrained.
- And if that happens, India must not be judged by the same yardstick as the aggressor.
- It must be understood and supported, not mediated or sermonized.
Note:
1. Text in Blue points to additional data on the topic.
2. The views expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of PGurus.
For all the latest updates, download PGurus App.
- Behind India Today’s C-Voter survey: Some hidden insights - September 5, 2025
- Bihar’s tired choices: Why it must give PK a chance - September 4, 2025
- The world’s prescription for China’s revival: Will Beijing listen? - September 3, 2025
