What you said is logical but could've only been possible if the GoI was eager to get itself in an all out war, which I highly doubt. If that's what it wanted, we would've conducted SEAD/DEAD on May 7th followed by the actual missile attacks on terrorist installations and if the Pakis retaliated (they would have) we would've bombed their air bases like on May 10th but on a greater intensity with not just the runway but also aircrafts like what you suggested. It seems to me, that originally the GoI wanted a repeat of Balakot where we would've struck targets and they would've retaliated, both sides claiming victory and then ignoring each other for the next 6 years but that plan got de-railed with Porki reaction and had to improvize to get their DGMO to request a ceasefire and sell it as a win to Indians.
at some point all these "would have" "could have" theoretical assumptions have to consciously fall back on reality checks for confirmation. reality check here is what has been stated and executed by the actual main players in the game, in this case the gormint and security forces. they checked almost every box, that security focussed intelligentsia of the country have been debating on.
we need to have clarity on what has been achieved:
- demonstrate that terrorism is the primary issue between India and pakistan.
- combat proven tag to many of the defence equipment
- raise the cost of an misadventure i.e deterrence
- demonstrate restraint factored into the operational planning
- find space for conventional deterrence, as a response to sub-conventional warfare imposed by paki army.
- find space for conventional retaliation under nuclear overhang.
- call out nuclear bluff
- let pakis know, pakjabi heartland is no longer out of bounds
- there is space for both kinetic and non-kinetic responses.
- remind pakis of their lack of strategic depth .
- erase the distinction between jihadis and their state sponsors.
if folks want to apply their mind, and add more chapters to the playbook, can use the above mentioned points as the new baseline and build on it. we also have to be careful not to over read the outcomes, beyond a point so much so that it blurs the lines between hallucinations and reality.