Resource Denial: Precursor to Op Sindoor

Article by Debalina Ghoshal

In 2025, India adopted surprising stern policies in its foreign policy and decision-making in response to the Pahalgam attack. A ‘resource denial’ strategy was adopted as a precursor to the Operation Sindoor. This ‘resource denial’ strategy formed one of the modes of counter-terrorism operations in addition to military offensives. It is in this context that the article discusses how ‘resource denial’ also played a crucial factor in counter terrorism operations.

Resource denial

The ‘resource denial’ is a strategy in which states deny resources of necessities or relevance to neighbours or other powers to strengthen their denial mechanism as part of their foreign policy objectives. This was for the first time that India adopted a strategy that denied its neighbour resource capabilities that allowed them to organise their micro level economy: agriculture.

Two dams that have always held strategic importance: Baglihar Dam and Salal Dam were closed post Pahalgam attack in 2025 denying water supply from dams to Pakistan. As an upper riparian state, India has always respected the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) of 1960 and allowed Pakistan to benefit from the Chenab River.

But last year, following Pahalgam, the Treaty was suspended by India and New Delhi decided to utilise the water resources for its own economic benefits. This action was confirmed by India’s home minister, Shri Amit Shah when he iterated that the IWT would never by restored and that India would divert the water for its own benefit. The external minister Shri S. Jaishankar expressed discontent over the fact that India’s goodwill and keenness to maintain friendship with Pakistan was responded with “terrorism, attacks, and wars.”

This was one of the most crucial turning points of India’s revised counter-terrorism strategies. The then defence minister of Pakistan, Jawaya Asif also cited blocking water or diverting the same as “aggression” and announcing it as an “act of war.”

The message was clear to Pakistan. Promoting and supporting asymmetric warfare would bear consequences. These consequences would include foreign policy choices that are supported by diplomatic assertiveness and military actions that are decisive in nature. This amalgamation of realism driven foreign policy and military choices to counter terrorism complemented each other, providing India psychological recuperation from the trauma of Pahalgam.

Nevertheless, India’s prime-minister Shri Narendra Modi’s decision to suspend the Treaty has been on the cards since Pakistan’s Uri terrorism operations in 2016 explaining, “blood and water cannot flow simultaneously.”

In fact, in 2026, Shah applauded the Operation Sindoor as a turning point in India’s security doctrine and response. Diplomatic offensives cannot function without a credible military backing. India was well prepared for a military response from Pakistan’s side following the closing of the dams.

Continuous missile testing by New Delhi during the phase proved that military preparations sought to complement diplomatic moves. This was a meticulously planned approach to further counter terrorism policies quite frequently requiring a perfect network centric approach and thorough coordination not only between the armed forces but also between minister of external affairs and his ministry and the armed forces.

The external minister has explicitly mentioned that the decision of the Modi government to suspend the treaty will be a long term decision and the decision would not be reversed until Pakistan “irrevocably gives up its support for terrorism.” Military actions and diplomatic offensives have been termed as “decisive shifts” by the minister.

Shri Shashi Tharoor, a veteran in the opposition party, also expressed his angst over continuous betrayal of India’s goodwill by Pakistan and supported the suspension of the treaty even clarifying that this act is exercising its right of self-defence. He also echoed Jaishankar’s demands that Pakistan “conduct themselves in that spirit of goodwill.”

Former foreign minister Yashwant Singh cited the move to suspend the treaty as a shift from “strategic restraint.” IWT was indeed one of India’s most big-hearted policies to ensure that the neighbouring state is receiving water to cater to their needs. If terrorism was a not a solution for Islamabad to destabilise India, there was little doubt that New Delhi would have continued with a policy of cooperation and friendship with Pakistan.

Resource denial is an extreme diplomatic move which can take place only when a state is no longer willing to burden itself with powers in competition trying to create a security deficit in its territory. India is militarily capable and credible to support its government’s actions against terrorism by complementing through decisive actions to support diplomatic assertiveness.

Shri Rajnath Singh, India’s defence minister, along with his military leaders, General Anil Chauhan, Chief of Defence Staff (CDS),  and the three chiefs of armed forces wings have continuously planned and implemented robust and holistic strategies and tactics to ensure military- the Army, Air Force and Navy is strengthened to support resource denial strategies.

Conclusion

India will continue to suspend the IWT as long as Islamabad’s assurance of support for peace and growth for both the neighbours does not become an altruistic reality. However, India has supported its strong diplomatic stance of resource denial with the help of credible military capability that has time and again conveyed a strong message across the border. Proxy wars are no longer cheap means of achieving decisive tactical victory against India.