India’s approach to addressing state-sponsored terrorism from Pakistan has become a strong and proactive strategy. It is based on quick, accurate, and carefully planned military actions to send a clear message: terrorists and their supporters will face serious consequences. Unlike traditional deterrence, which relies on threats to prevent attacks, this method involves taking decisive and impactful actions to weaken terrorist groups, demonstrating determination, and making it clear that any attack will lead to strong retaliation. The Indian Air Force (IAF) plays a key role in this approach, using its advanced technology, precise weapons, and ability to carry out deep strikes to carry out operations carefully while handling the risks of escalation within the sensitive India-Pakistan nuclear context.
Punitive Deterrence. Punitive deterrence involves actively using military actions, not just threats, to make it costly for those who support or tolerate terrorism. The goal is to prevent future attacks by showing that supporting terrorism can lead to serious and tangible consequences, instead of just diplomatic criticism. This strategy uses quick, targeted strikes on terrorist sites and military resources related to them, keeping up pressure and making it costly for enemies to continue. It relies on credible retaliation to change the decision-making of those who sponsor terrorism, promoting a safer environment for everyone.
India’s Response to Pakistan’s State-Sponsored Terrorism. India’s response to Pakistan’s state-sponsored terrorism reflects a shift from restraint to proactive deterrence, combining precise military strikes, diplomatic isolation, and economic and trade restrictions. These include the following:-
- Halting of composite dialogue with Pakistan.
- Expelling Pakistani diplomats, reducing high commission staff, recalling Indian diplomats, and cancelling Pakistani visas (48-hour exit deadline).
- Expelling Pakistani military advisors.
- Revoking Pakistan’s Most Favoured Nation status (2019) and imposing 200% tariffs on imports.
- Suspending all overland trade via the Attari-Wagah border and banning Pakistani aircraft from Indian airspace.
- Suspending the Samjhauta Express.
- Banning Pakistani artists in Indian cinema.
- Suspending SAARC visa exemptions.
- Suspending the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty, halting data sharing and signalling potential water diversion to pressure Pakistan.
- Briefing global envoys, the UNSC, and allies with evidence of Pakistan’s terror links, advocating for terrorists to be designated as international terrorists.
- Sending parliamentary delegations to 33 countries with dossiers on Pakistan’s terror activities, promoting a “zero-tolerance” policy.
- Consistently raising Pakistan’s role in terrorism at UN forums and reframing Kashmir as an internal issue under Article 51 of the UN Charter.
- Pushing for Pakistan’s FATF grey-listing to curb terror financing, which impacts its economy.
Evolution of Military Punitive Deterrence
India has shifted toward a proactive “cost-imposition” strategy, conducting targeted operations to degrade Pakistan-based terrorist infrastructure. This shift reflects India’s move from restraint to a doctrine that treats state-sponsored terrorism as an act of war, warranting proportional military responses.
Surgical Strikes (September 29, 2016). Following the Uri terror attack in which 19 soldiers were killed, ground-based operations signalled India’s willingness to retaliate across borders, setting the stage for a more proactive stance. Indian Special Forces crossed the Line of Control (LoC) to destroy terror launch pads in Pakistan-administered Kashmir, eliminating several militants.
The Balakot Airstrikes (2019). On February 14, 2019, a JeM suicide bomber killed 40 Indian paramilitary personnel in Pulwama, Jammu and Kashmir, prompting a calibrated aerial response on February 26, 2019. The IAF conducted airstrikes on a JeM training camp in Balakot, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. It was a pivotal moment, marking India’s first use of airpower on Pakistani soil since the 1971 Indo-Pak War, marking a significant shift in India’s counter-terrorism strategy. It lowered India’s response threshold from ground-based surgical strikes (e.g., 2016 Uri raid) to aerial operations, indicating deeper incursions for future provocations. IAF carried out standoff precision-guided munitions (PGMs) enabled strikes within Pakistani airspace, showcasing India’s power projection. Balakot established airpower as the “sword arm” of India’s deterrence strategy, setting a precedent for proactive retaliation. While it did not eliminate terrorism, it demonstrated India’s resolve and capability to act decisively.
Operation Sindoor (2025). By 2025, resurgent terrorism linked to Pakistan necessitated a more robust application of punitive deterrence. On April 22, 2025, the Pakistan-backed Resistance Front (a Lashkar-e-Taiba offshoot) killed 26 Hindu civilians in a targeted attack in Pahalgam, underscoring Pakistan’s continued proxy warfare. On May 7, 2025, the IAF launched Operation Sindoor, targeting nine terrorist sites in Pakistan’s Punjab (e.g., Bahawalpur, Muridke) and Pakistan-administered Kashmir (e.g., Muzaffarabad, Kotli), targeting JeM, LeT, and HuM facilities. Described as “focused, measured, and non-escalatory,” avoiding military/civilian targets. The strikes degraded training camps, command centres, and logistics without initial ground incursions, showcasing precision and minimising escalation risks. Pakistan’s response, Operation Bunyan Marsoos, triggered a four-day aerial and missile exchange. The IAF penetrated Pakistani defences, striking forward airbases, radar sites, and depots—the first such action since 1971. A ceasefire, called for by Pakistan on 10 May 2025, halted the crisis, with India claiming strategic gains in degrading terrorist infrastructure. Operation Sindoor solidified punitive deterrence as a cornerstone of India’s counter-terrorism strategy, demonstrating the IAF’s ability to deliver sustained, high-impact responses.
The IAF’s Multifaceted Role
The IAF serves as the linchpin of punitive deterrence, bridging conventional and subconventional domains through a multifaceted operational framework.
Precision and Standoff Strikes. The IAF leverages advanced platforms like Rafale, Mirage-2000, Su-30, and BrahMos missiles, alongside drones and loitering munitions, to conduct deep-penetration strikes. Balakot and Sindoor demonstrated the feasibility of hitting targets accurately from far, reducing the need for sustained ground mobilisation.
Surveillance and Intelligence. Drones, Airborne Warning and Control Systems (AWACS), and space-based assets enable real-time targeting, compressing the sensor-to-shooter cycle to hours. This enhances accuracy and minimises collateral damage.
Network Centric Operations. The IAF’s network-centric operations integrate advanced sensors, platforms, and weapons, enabling rapid and precise strikes. Real-time intelligence and compressed sensor-to-shooter cycles enhance situational awareness and accuracy. This interconnected framework supports joint operations, ensuring effective deterrence and power projection across domains.
Joint Operations. The IAF synergises with Army Special Forces for hybrid operations and the Navy for maritime denial, creating an “intricate deterrence” web.
Power Projection and Escalation Control. The IAF’s ability to conduct operations at varying intensities, from symbolic to sustained, allows India to signal resolve while avoiding full-scale war. Air superiority and layered defences protect Indian airspace from retaliatory strikes.
Strategic Messaging. Airstrikes bolster domestic support by demonstrating decisive action, projecting India’s technological edge, and reinforcing a tripwire strategy that establishes clear red lines and credible retaliatory intent.
The IAF’s integration of these elements positions it as India’s “deterrence multiplier,” enabling swift, politically impactful responses to state-sponsored terrorism.
Analytical Perspective
Strategic and Political Implications. India’s punitive deterrence policy, executed primarily through airpower, has profound strategic and political implications. By treating state-sponsored terrorism as an act of war, the IAF’s actions signal that sponsors will face direct consequences, moving beyond defensive postures to active retaliation. Persistent, high-impact coercion, as seen in Sindoor, reduces the frequency of terrorist attacks by disrupting Pakistan’s terror ecosystem and compelling adversaries to recalibrate their approach. The airstrikes assure domestic audiences of decisive action while signalling restraint and capability internationally, balancing India’s image as a responsible power. The use of indigenous systems alongside advanced platforms showcases India’s growing defence capabilities and strategic autonomy.
Challenges and Limitations. Despite its successes, punitive deterrence faces significant challenges. In a nuclear dyad, strikes risk miscalculation and escalation to a full-scale conflict. Successful strikes require precise, real-time intelligence to target elusive terrorist infrastructure and avoid collateral damage, which could undermine international support. Repeated strikes risk mission creep, resource strain, and domestic fatigue amid losses. Sustaining public support and managing economic costs remain critical.
Future Implications and Outlook. The IAF’s role in punitive deterrence will continue to evolve, driven by technological advancements and strategic imperatives. Integration of space-based surveillance, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), and long-range precision-guided munitions will enhance the IAF’s ability to conduct deep, low-risk strikes. Development of hypersonic weapons and AI-driven targeting could further strengthen deterrence. Continued investment in long-range munitions, unmanned platforms, networked command systems, and indigenous air defence will bolster the IAF’s ability to deliver rapid, flexible, and high-impact deterrence, preserving escalation dominance.
Capability Enhancement / Reorientation
Airpower is commonly associated with air-delivered firepower and expeditionary capability. Airpower plays a decisive role in the kinetic application of force, aligning with the strategy of punitive deterrence. Existing airpower resources offer a large number of options; however, there is a need for some amount of recalibration and reorientation. Certain areas also need capability enhancement. These areas could include capabilities to impose measured costs on adversaries, kinetic and non-kinetic capabilities, lethal and non-lethal weapons, asset protection, organisational adaptations, technology infusion and doctrinal changes.
Surgical Offensive Capability. The offensive application of airpower will invariably be surgical in nature, i.e., precise, avoiding collateral damage. Smart weapons with a high degree of accuracy and adequate standoff are highly desirable. Standoff and precision capability enhancement is a continuous process, and the more standoff, the better it is. Variety in type and extent of warheads provides more options in terms of the effect generated. Delivery platforms are also important. UCAV capability is useful in quite a few situations. Real-time intelligence would be essential for the application of kinetic force.
Situational Awareness Enhancement. Aerial reconnaissance and surveillance are the best ways to obtain a correct and up-to-date picture of the developing situation. Better SA can be obtained by keeping a greater area under multiple sensor surveillance with better resolution. Intelligence and surveillance capability needs to be enhanced across the spectrum, starting from humint to space-based surveillance. Aerial vehicles, surface movements, the maritime domain, communications, and electronic signals require monitoring, and all inputs must be amalgamated to produce a comprehensive battle space picture. Artificial intelligence needs to be embedded in the analysis systems to provide the desired end product on a need-to-know basis, with decision support systems and what-if options. Real-time monitoring may be required to take on dynamic targets of opportunity. A Joint Surveillance and Target Attack Radar System (Joint STARS) is highly critical to the success of operations in hybrid warfare.
Protection and Security. The Airpower assets would be targeted by enemy retaliation. These vital and costly assets would need security and protection from conventional aerial vectors, sub-conventional aerial threats and ground attacks. Multi-layered security systems would be required for both aerial and ground threats. The aerial threat mitigation would need systems like Close-in Weapon Systems (CIWS) on one end of the spectrum to Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) on the other end. Multiple threat handling systems like S-400 would be ideal for the protection of a cluster of VA / VPs. Automated, networked, technology-based security systems (Integrated AD Systems) would be required for the ground security.
Networking and Cyber Domain. Air operations are highly network-centric, and the flow of information to numerous stakeholders is very important. Integrated networks with good architecture, supported by suitable applications, will assist in building situational awareness, planning, communicating and monitoring of the situation in real time. The information flow would have to be on a need-to-know basis to avoid paralysis due to information overload. The networks would have to have redundancies and protection measures in terms of firewalls and anti-virus systems. Monitoring control rooms with Quick Reaction Teams would help ensure their continued availability during hostile activity.
Space-Based Capabilities. The term airpower has changed to aerospace power, with the aerial warfare envelope expanding to the domain of space. Space-based systems and applications are embedded in every aspect of aerial warfare. From an airpower operations point of view, the most critical capability enhancement required is in the space-based surveillance capability. Enhancement is needed in terms of revisit and resolution, converting reconnaissance capability into surveillance capability.
Psychological War and Media. Psychological warfare, also known as perception war, is a vital component of any operation. The media engagement plan and organisational structure need to be in place for perception management and narrative control. All stakeholders need to work collectively in sync with each other. An appropriately equipped and manned operations room working around the clock is necessary for monitoring and conducting these operations.
Organisational Adaptation. Organisational adaptation is required for managing these operations. The change should not be for the sake of it. It should cater for the future challenges. Appropriate organisational structures need to be created to examine aspects related to information warfare, electronic warfare, cyber and space operations, strategic and Special Forces operations, and technology fusion. The intention would be to develop a multi-domain rapid reaction mechanism. A proactive approach will be even better.
Conclusion
The Indian Air Force is the linchpin of India’s punitive deterrence policy, enabling swift, precise, and politically impactful responses to state-sponsored terrorism. Through operations like Balakot (2019) and Operation Sindoor (2025), the IAF has demonstrated its ability to degrade terrorist infrastructure, impose costs on state sponsors, and signal resolve while managing escalation risks. By integrating advanced platforms, real-time intelligence, and joint operations, the IAF bridges conventional and subconventional domains, establishing airpower as India’s “deterrence multiplier.” Despite challenges like escalation risks, intelligence accuracy, and diplomatic constraints, the IAF’s evolving capabilities would shape India’s proactive counter-terrorism doctrine. As India continues to modernise its air force and refine its doctrine, the IAF will remain at the forefront of national security, rewriting the rules of crisis engagement in the region.
