QuoteThe Israelization of India's Military Hardware & Doctrine
Faced with the underperformance of its frontline fighter jets, India turned to Israeli-made Harop drones to sustain offensive operations. Yet, before evaluating this pivot from a military standpoint, it's important to consider the diplomatic miscalculations it represents, both domestically and internationally.
By deploying Israeli UAVs in a high-visibility regional conflict against a Muslim-majority nation, India inadvertently reinforced longstanding narratives—particularly among segments of the global and domestic Muslim population—that feed into the "Yahud-Hunud" (Jewish-Hindu) alliance perception. This notion, which frames India and Israel as aligned in a broader anti-Islamic agenda, gained renewed traction in the public discourse and on social media, and it was even referenced in a recent Times of Israel analysis:
QuoteAs the India-Pakistan confrontation unfolds, Birvadker believes that Israel's role — albeit indirect — will not go unnoticed.
Israel does not have formal diplomatic ties with Pakistan, and as Birvadker noted, its "standing in the Muslim world is already among the lowest compared to any other country."
While not anticipating any direct impact, she warned that "we will likely see more radical groups attempting to exploit the situation, drawing comparisons to 'genocide' and 'occupation' in light of India's actions and Israel's indirect involvement."
Such narratives, she explained, have long been present in parts of Kashmir, where conspiracy theories link "Hinduism and Judaism as working together to eliminate Islam." In popular Muslim jargon, it is called the "Yahud-o-Hanud ki sazish," or Jewish-Hindu conspiracy.
While strategic partnerships are a reality of modern warfare, the optics of this decision have arguably deepened mistrust and polarization, both within India's own minority communities (Muslims number anywhere between 220 and 250 million) and across the broader Islamic world.
India's use of Israeli drones in its recent strikes introduced a serious diplomatic liability, particularly given the global outrage over Israel's actions in Gaza. The optics (especially in the Islamic world and among neutral observers) strongly suggested that India was attempting to emulate not just Israel's military tactics but also its punitive strategy of targeting densely populated urban areas. This perception was reinforced by vocal endorsements from prominent Hindu nationalist figures who openly praised Israel's hard-line approach as a model for India:
(https://muslimskeptic.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/jeet1.jpg)
(https://muslimskeptic.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/amitjeet.png)
And in practice, India did just that: it launched drone strikes on tier-one Pakistani cities such as Lahore and Rawalpindi. Militarily, this approach was highly questionable. Drones like the Harop lack the payload capacity and deep-strike capabilities necessary to effectively neutralize hardened military assets in urban environments. Strategically, the strikes caused minimal disruption to Pakistan's military infrastructure.
More importantly, from a diplomatic and arguably moral standpoint, the decision sent a deeply troubling message. India, for the first time in its modern conflict history, showed a willingness to strike civilian-adjacent areas in major Pakistani cities.
This shift not only alienated segments of the international community, including voices that were previously neutral or sympathetic; it also undercut Pakistan's own internal peace advocates. It hardened Pakistani public opinion and undermined the credibility of left-leaning, peace-oriented voices in Pakistan who had long argued for de-escalation with India. Among the civilian sites targeted by a drone was the Rawalpindi Cricket Stadium, which was struck just before a scheduled Pakistan Super League (PSL) match. This move carries profound symbolic significance given cricket's status as the most cherished sport across the subcontinent. An attack involving cricketers echoes far beyond just the battlefield, striking at the heart of national pride and cultural identity.
India had likely hoped to replicate Türkiye's highly successful use of Bayraktar TB2 drones, as seen in conflicts like Nagorno-Karabakh, where Turkish drones devastated enemy armor, convoys, and command posts. However, the Indian effort instead exposed the absence of a coherent drone doctrine. There was no visible integration with broader ISR (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance) operations, no suppression of enemy air defenses (SEAD), and limited success in neutralizing key military assets.
Worse, by aligning its tactics and hardware with Israel at a time of widespread condemnation of Israeli actions in Gaza, India invited moral comparisons—and not in its favor. This allowed Pakistan to draw diplomatic sympathy even from non-Muslim and non-aligned states, who viewed the strikes as being part of a broader, reckless escalation.
Indian officials point to the fact that their drones penetrated deep into Pakistani airspace, reaching core urban centers. But this assertion is hollow and meaningless when viewed through a military lens:
(1) Penetration is not equivalent to operational success. Modern air defense systems are still challenged by low-slow-small (LSS) aerial targets, especially at low altitudes, so mere entry isn't proof of superiority or capability.
(2) The failure to prioritize and hit high-value targets suggests that many drones may have been jammed, spoofed, or diverted, likely due to electronic warfare (EW) measures. Pakistan claims to have downed or neutralized at least 25 Israeli-origin drones, possibly with the help of Turkish EW systems like Koral, in which Türkiye is a global leader.
Ultimately, drone penetration without impact, while also at the cost of diplomatic damage, cannot be described as a success. If anything, it underlined India's lack of battlefield integration, its overreliance on symbolic technology, and the steep geopolitical cost of replicating Israeli-style warfare without Israel's strategic depth or diplomatic insulation.
Pakistan's Counter-Op: "Operation Bunyan Marsus"
India codenamed its military campaign "Operation Sindoor," a term referring to the red or orange mark traditionally applied on a Hindu woman's hair parting, used to symbolize marital status. Intriguingly, the absence of sindoor denotes widowhood, raising questions about why this name was chosen. Some speculate it may be a grim allusion to the Pahalgam attack, where women and children were reportedly spared, leaving many as widows. If that's the intended symbolism, it reflects a tone of vengeance more than strategic clarity.
Even now, India is still searching for the actual perpetrators of the Pahalgam assault. Its decision to strike mosques and religious seminaries in Pakistan hasn't produced concrete results. Instead, it underscores the operation's ineffectiveness in both intelligence and target acquisition.
The most glaring failure, however, lies in India's inability to dominate the escalation ladder. Far from deterring Pakistan, Operation Sindoor prompted a well-coordinated Pakistani counter-strike: "Operation Bunyan Marsus." Just as "Sindoor" draws from Hindu cultural symbolism, "Bunyan Marsus," taken from a Qur'anic verse, carries deep Islamic significance:
Indeed, Allah loves those who fight in His cause in solid ranks, as though they were a [unified] structure, joined firmly together. (Qur'an, 61:4)
The name of the operation expresses emphasis on unity and collective strength. The symbolism is evident.
The operation is believed to have been named by Pakistan's Chief of Army Staff, General Asim Munir, currently seen as the country's de facto leader amid a weakened civilian government. Munir is said to be a hafiz of the Qur'an, from a religious family that boasts numerous huffaz. Some argue that he may be the most religiously devout army chief since Zia-ul-Haq in the 1980s (who precipitated the end of the Soviet Union through Afghanistan) and that his religious leanings appear to dictate the messaging of Pakistan's military doctrine.
Even Indian media has acknowledged that key airbases, Udhampur, Pathankot, Bathinda, Bhuj, and Adampur, were struck. While India has downplayed the damage, saying that there were no "heavy casualties," these attacks clearly demonstrated Pakistan's ability to bypass India's layered air defenses, including the indigenous Akash systems, Israeli SPYDERs, and domestic radar grids.
Pakistan didn't merely match India's escalation. By deliberately avoiding civilian targets, it gained a moral and diplomatic edge in the eyes of the international community.
This may well be the key reason a ceasefire, though not officially termed as such by the Indians themselves, was reached. India, despite its population advantage of over 1.1 billion and presumed military and economic superiority, found that escalation didn't proceed on its own terms.
According to CNN, the deal is said to have been quietly brokered by U.S. Senator J.D. Vance, whose wife has Indian-Hindu heritage:
QuoteVance encouraged Modi to have his country communicate with Pakistan directly and to consider options available for de-escalation, the officials said.
At that point, the officials said, the US believed the two sides were not talking, and they needed to get them back to the bargaining table. Vance also outlined to Modi a potential off-ramp that the US understood the Pakistanis would be amenable to, the officials said, though they did not offer details.
Following the call, State Department officials, including Rubio, began working the phones with their counterparts in India and Pakistan through the night, the sources said.
Among India's nationalist circles, particularly within the Hindutva-aligned constituency, there is a palpable sense of betrayal. This sentiment is echoed loudly by figures like Arnab Goswami, the loud and sensationalist editor-in-chief of Republic TV, which possesses an audience running into the millions and is widely regarded as the most prominent media outlet that is sympathetic to the Hindutva worldview.
Only Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He) knows what the future holds, whether the ceasefire will hold or if India is merely biding its time to regroup and retaliate. But what is clear right now is that Pakistan, particularly the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) and its civilian resilience, has exceeded people's expectations.
The message being projected, perhaps not just to India but also to the wider Muslim ummah, seems to be that of the strategic value of robust defense capabilities coupled with a committed ideological vision that is grounded in Islamic principles. And Allah knows best.
Excerpted from this article:
India vs. Pakistan Ceasefire: Contextualizing India's Failureshttps://muslimskeptic.com/2025/05/12/india-vs-pakistan-ceasefire/