How India’s Measured Drone Response Sets It Apart from Global Powers

In contrast to American overreach or Russian brute force, India’s restraint in dealing with Pakistan after the Pahalgam provocation sets a new paradigm in modern warfare.

While India and Pakistan have stepped back from the brink following the announcement of a ceasefire brokered by the United States, Operation Sindoor nonetheless marks a turning point in South Asia’s security calculus, with India combining precision (in its deployment of drones, loitering munitions and ballistic missiles) with principle and showing remarkable restraint in its operations.

Operation Sindoor had been initiated by the Indian Armed Forces on May 7, targeting terrorist infrastructure deep within Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir as a direct response to the brutal massacre of 26 Indian tourists by Pakistan-sponsored terrorists in Kashmir’s Pahalgam on April 22.

Pakistan’s immediate retaliation, dubbed ‘Operation Bunyan-ul-Marsoos,’ had involved drone and missile strikes not just on Indian military targets but civilian facilities as well. It resulted in the killing of several persons, including children.

Throughout this fierce skirmish which had threatened to escalate to a full-blown war, India’s use of unmanned systems stood in stark contrast to Pakistan’s persistent flirtation with asymmetric escalation. India’s measured approach also contrasted sharply with the more aggressive postures observed in other global conflicts.

Drones are not new to the subcontinent. Pakistan has long used rudimentary drones to aid insurgents across the LoC. India, meanwhile, has spent the last decade quietly modernising its UAV capacity by buying Herons from Israel, acquiring U.S.-made MQ-9 Reapers and investing in indigenous systems like the Rustom and Tapas.

Operation Sindoor marked the first time these assets were deployed in tandem with ballistic missile batteries and satellite-guided munitions in a punitive but proportionate response.

At a time when many nations have embraced drones as tools of unchecked force, India’s decision to strike only military targets, despite the provocation of civilian deaths, is exceptional.

The United States, often seen as a pioneer in drone warfare, offers a cautionary counterpoint. Between 2004 and 2016, American drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia killed thousands, many of them civilians. Security scholar Hugh Gusterson had warned that “drones make possible perpetual war without costs.”

The U.S. learned this painfully as its drones radicalised more than they neutralised, sowing deep resentment in tribal regions from Waziristan to Aleppo.

India, in contrast, has opted for a model of accountability and deterrence. Even as it developed offensive drone capabilities, it resisted their use in the wake of the 2016 Uri attacks and the 2019 Pulwama bombing. The 2019 Balakot airstrikes, carried out by manned aircraft, were a message of intent but not escalation. The same logic applied to Operation Sindoor with drones were being used in a precise manner to defang Pakistan’s ability to inflict further harm.

Historical Precedents

To understand this approach, it helps to consider history. The India-Pakistan rivalry is unlike any other in the world: two nuclear-armed states with unresolved territorial disputes, multiple wars behind them and vastly divergent civil-military equations. Pakistan’s military establishment, which dominates its polity, has long seen terrorism as a force multiplier. India, by contrast, remains a democracy with civilian supremacy over the military. Its doctrine emphasizes deterrence, not dominance.

During the Kargil War in 1999, India refused to cross the LoC despite enormous pressure even as Pakistani troops and militants infiltrated its territory. Again in 2008, after the widespread killing of innocent civilians and several policemen during the Mumbai attacks orchestrated by Lashkar-e-Taiba, India opted for diplomatic isolation and intelligence coordination over military retaliation. Contrast this with Russia’s invasion of Georgia in 2008 or its annexation of Crimea in 2014.

In recent years, the proliferation of drone technology has lowered the threshold for conflict. Where once only a handful of states could deploy precision munitions from the sky, now even non-state actors can wreak havoc.

In his seminal 2013 work ‘A Theory of the Drone,’ French philosopher Grégoire Chamayou critiques the ethical and strategic implications of drone warfare. He argues that drones enable a form of warfare without combat where the operator is insulated from risk, leading to a “principle of immunity for the imperial combatant.” This detachment can erode traditional just war principles, as the act of killing becomes a remote, almost administrative task. This “necroethics” as he terms it, raises profound questions about the morality of state-sanctioned assassinations and the erosion of combatant equality.

Chamayou’s work, as all major books on drone warfare, were primarily motivated by the civilian casualties of America’s ‘War on Terror.’ In contrast, India’s measured approach against Pakistan has aligned with a commitment to uphold ethical standards in warfare and resisting the drift towards the impersonal and risk-free model of conflict that Chamayou warns against.

Naturally, no such qualms have been forthcoming from the various terror outfits. The Islamic State (ISIS) had used off-the-shelf drones to deadly effect in Mosul. The Houthi rebels in Yemen have targeted Saudi oil facilities with Iranian-made UAVs. In the Caucasus, Azerbaijan’s Turkish Bayraktar drones overwhelmed Armenian defences in Nagorno-Karabakh in 2020, showcasing the asymmetric power of cheap air power.

Pakistan, increasingly reliant on Chinese drones and Turkish advisers, has sought to replicate this model. Its attacks in recent months, particularly on Indian civilian targets, bear the hallmarks of this doctrine: low-cost, high-visibility and plausibly deniable.

This has prompted the Indian calculus to shift from strategic patience to calibrated response. The parallels with Russia and Ukraine are instructive. In the early months of the Ukraine war, Russia’s use of Iranian Shahed drones to attack Kyiv’s infrastructure demonstrated a new playbook: overwhelm enemy air defences with loitering munitions and create psychological terror among civilians. Ukraine responded by innovating rapidly, developing homemade drones and targeting Russian supply depots with long-range UAVs. The skies over Donbas became a laboratory for future war.

While the Russia-Ukraine war has spiralled into total war with massive civilian casualties, India has so far drawn a red line around escalation. The moral clarity of India’s approach, rare in contemporary military strategy, may well be its greatest asset.

Globally, the drone race is accelerating. The U.S., China, Israel, Turkey and Iran dominate production, while dozens of other states are emerging as buyers or second-tier manufacturers. By 2030, the global military drone market is expected to surpass $100 billion. Already, there are over 20,000 drones in military service worldwide in comparison to just a few hundred at the turn of the millennium.

India, traditionally a laggard in aerospace innovation, has been catching up. The Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) is developing autonomous swarm drones, while Indian startups are working on AI-integrated loitering munitions and stealth UAVs. The acquisition of 31 MQ-9B Reapers from the U.S., along with the operationalisation of the Kalyani Group’s indigenous weaponised drones, represents a technological leap.

Operation Sindoor may well mark a threshold not just in the India-Pakistan conflict but in how democracies wage war. In an age where machines kill silently and borders blur in cyberspace and sky, India’s decision to strike hard but not indiscriminately has been both moral and strategic. By integrating historical restraint with modern capabilities, India has set a precedent for responsible state behaviour in the era of drone warfare.