India appears to be forging a new military doctrine, signaling a definitive break from “strategic restraint” and a firm stance against external interference. This evolution, detailed by American military experts John Spencer and Lauren Degen Amos, is clearly demonstrated by recent military actions, notably Operation Sindoor.
According to Spencer and Amos, India’s strategic posture has undergone a significant transformation. They cite India’s responses to the Uri terror attack in 2016 and the Balakot strike in 2019 as precursors to this shift. The recent Pahalgam terror incident followed by Operation Sindoor has, in their view, made this new doctrine undeniable.
The experts argue that the previous policy of “strategic restraint” was counterproductive. It failed to de-escalate tensions with Pakistan and instead created an environment where militants, supported by Pakistan’s security establishment, could exploit the gap between terror attacks and official retaliation. This hesitancy allowed cross-border terror groups to operate with growing confidence and fewer repercussions.
India’s prior approach of limited responses to terror networks did not effectively reduce threats; rather, it emboldened adversaries. Groups grew to believe that India would not breach certain military thresholds. Operation Sindoor represented a clear departure, crossing a previously established doctrinal boundary and signaling a willingness for decisive action.
Spencer and Amos highlight that India is moving away from issuing mere warnings or seeking international validation for its actions. The nation is cultivating a new operational logic centered on clear signaling and a proactive readiness to act when its citizens are threatened. Operation Sindoor, in this context, served to reveal this already established shift in strategic thinking.
This evolving doctrine suggests that India now considers major terror attacks on its civilians as equivalent to acts of war. Consequently, response planning is being fundamentally altered. India is no longer waiting for international consensus or prolonged investigations. A new principle is emerging: if a terror attack targets civilians, New Delhi reserves the right to preemptive strikes. The advanced capabilities deployed in Operation Sindoor—long-range firing, drone swarms, loitering munitions, and sophisticated intelligence fusion—underscore a move towards decisive and pre-planned military engagements.
This transition is viewed by analysts as a permanent, institutional change in India’s security policy. The report revisits the unintended consequences of strategic restraint, emphasizing how it created a predictable pattern that Pakistan’s proxies learned to exploit. The current strategic redirection is described as institutional, building deterrence based on patterns and intent rather than reactive measures.
Furthermore, public expectations for decisive action are shaping national strategy, reducing the space for prolonged deliberation. India’s rejection of external mediation during 2025 ceasefire discussions with Pakistan signals a new principle of treating such issues as internal matters, prioritizing direct communication. This enhances India’s autonomy of action.
The observed performance of Pakistan’s Chinese air-defense systems during Operation Sindoor, failing to counter Indian firepower, is a critical observation. The overall assessment suggests India is strategically preparing for the possibility of a two-front conflict.