Operation Mahadev and India's shifting role in South Asia

Listen to article

India recently launched Operation Mahadev in Lidwas, near Srinagar, targeting militants allegedly involved in the April 22 Pahalgam attack. While the government called it a success, there is still no verified evidence linking those killed to the Pahalgam attack. This recurring gap between military actions and verifiable outcomes is eroding India's credibility, both domestically and internationally. What complicates matters further is the abrupt transition from Operation Sindoor to Operation Mahadev, not due to a strategic pause initiated by India, but because of a ceasefire — one reportedly brokered by the United States.

This shift in the tempo of military actions highlights something deeper: India's discomfort in navigating a region where it is no longer the sole power broker. And that discomfort has only grown more visible as India struggles to balance its internal political narrative with external strategic realities.

In the ongoing Monsoon Session of Parliament, the Pahalgam attack and India's retaliatory actions have sparked heated debate. Home Minister Amit Shah claimed those killed in Operation Mahadev were carrying Pakistani voter IDs and — oddly enough — Pakistani chocolates, as supposed proof of foreign involvement.

But across the aisle, former Home Minister P Chidambaram cautioned against drawing premature conclusions. He pointed out that no independent investigation had yet established Pakistan's direct role in the Pahalgam attack. His remarks echoed concerns of many analysts who questioned whether India had once again rushed into a military response without solid ground.

Rahul Gandhi added fuel to the fire, claiming that Indian pilots were given strict instructions not to engage Pakistan's defence systems, and that Islamabad had prior knowledge of the strike's limits. Whether these claims are fully accurate or politically motivated, they raised doubts over the true intent and efficacy of Operation Sindoor — was it a military response or a public performance?

The four-day standoff between May 7 and May 11 brought South Asia to the brink. India claimed to have struck nine terror sites and disrupted eleven Pakistani air bases. Pakistan responded with Operation Bunyan-ul-Marsoos, claiming it had downed six Indian jets, including Rafales, and intercepted several drones.

Then came a sudden ceasefire — not the result of bilateral talks, but reportedly due to US intervention. Former President Donald Trump didn't hesitate to take credit, claiming it was his diplomatic pressure that ended the hostilities. He even endorsed Pakistan's claim of shooting down Indian jets. Strikingly, New Delhi offered no rebuttal, no clarification, not even a token denial.

That silence was more than a diplomatic gesture. It suggested an unease within India about how to handle its diminishing ability to control the narrative - both at home and abroad.

India has long projected itself as South Asia's natural leader — economically, militarily and diplomatically. But in this episode, the heavy lifting to halt escalation came not from New Delhi, but from Washington. That exposed a growing dependency on Western partners to manage regional crises, calling into question India's cherished notion of "strategic autonomy."

The broader message from this episode is that South Asia is no longer India's undisputed sphere of influence. The region has entered a new phase, where external actors like the US — and increasingly, China — shape events with more agility than India does.

China, while officially silent during this latest crisis, remains a critical player. Its growing ties with Pakistan, military infrastructure in disputed regions and deep economic engagement with South Asian countries make it a strategic counterweight to India. While New Delhi focuses on containing Pakistan, Beijing continues to expand its footprint — not just in military terms, but also through economic corridors, port access and diplomatic alliances. India's strategic myopia risks ceding more ground to China than it can afford.

India stands at a crossroads. Its aspiration to lead South Asia is real — and achievable. But that requires shifting from theatrics to transparency, from overstatement to credibility. Here's what New Delhi should consider moving forward:

If military operations are to gain public and global support, India must present transparent, independently verifiable proof. That includes forensic intelligence, clear identification of targets and post-operation disclosures. The age of unquestioned nationalistic fervour is waning — citizens and allies alike demand facts.

India needs to redefine what autonomy means in a multipolar world. Relying on US intervention, while convenient, cannot be the default. Strategic autonomy doesn't mean going solo; it means building coalitions that share your long-term vision. That includes mending ties with neighbours rather than attempting to dominate them.

India's greatest challenge today is not Pakistan. It is in managing its own ambitions in a region that is no longer playing by the old rules. Operations like Sindoor and Mahadev may offer political capital in the short run, but true leadership will come only when India chooses clarity over confusion, and substance over showmanship.