“Hostility towards Pakistan is the quickest route to national unity in India.”
– Barak Obama
India and Pakistan, two nuclear-capable states and pugnacious neighbours, recently prosecuted a short war against one another. This “Indo-Pak” conflict was an unprecedented war confined to an electromagnetic spectrum; it was a non-contact engagement, beyond-visual-range (BVR), with unbelievable stand-off distances.
I, being a veteran, with 38 years of experience, having participated in combat at different levels and stood witness to conflict in its many facets, today find myself, totally, at sea – a dinosaur from times past, irrelevant and extinct. So as I meander through the process of making sense of how this conflict unfolded, I ask the readers to forgive my trespasses into this new domain of warfare, which I am unfamiliar with, yet am still willing to tread into. I cannot determine whether it is because of the courage of an ignorant old man, or simply the stupidity of a fool; perhaps a little bit of both. Nevertheless, being associated with one of the finest armies in the world and within an established military institution and system, it has given me great pride to see a generation of young men and women protect this country with their far better capacity, competence, and acumen than people such as I could ever offer. Well done, you deserve every accolade that comes your way – you have earned it, and a grateful nation bows its head to you in gratitude for what you have achieved.
The conflict we are about to study may go beyond the regional context and is more complex than it appears at the surface. An event may be a component of an international conflict, trying to establish global dominance in a fluid environment. The world is waxing and waning as it searches for fresh frontiers in a “New World Order” more determined by the economic spectrum than by any other. As global interoperability has progressed in the market economy, the supply chain and blockchain system, we are witnessing new initiatives in innovation and technology as every contender attempts to display potential power and a global ranking. The United States initiated its Build Back Better (B3W) programme to invest $40 trillion by 2035, establishing a consortium of nations led by the United States. Europe, especially after the Trump administration’s economic and tariff policy extended protection to US markets, started to look for new vistas and started its global gateway concept. There are no proper figures regarding the funding source or the amount planned for the gateway.
On the other hand, China has established the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), currently inter-connecting 70% of the globe and dealing in 30 % of the global economy, with an investment since 2013 amounting to $1.75 trillion. The world thus stands divided into three camps, and almost every country would have to be a part of one or the other, by default or design, just to survive. This has led to competitive attitudes in manufacturing and production and capturing markets and services, each trying to outdo the other.
You will find more infographics at Statista
These global economic orders are competing in digital sciences, artificial intelligence (AI), robotics, automation, and the revolution in communication. This has caused many conventional business activities to strengthen through integration, while other such activities may have become redundant due to the disruption caused by these new developments. These new initiatives, part of our regular and routine conventions, have introduced change through diversification and expansion in almost every field. If one is not willing to change and adapt, one is liable to be left on the roadside as the race passes one by.
Electric cars are one such illustration, and fully automated transportation is another, just as online shopping has begun to push out retail stores and medical practices have started to take over. In this sphere, we see the world led by a Chinese multi-faceted system instead of a Western one. Still, in relevance to our region, we see the US, Israel, and India developing into one camp, while China, Pakistan, Iran, and Turkey into another, with Russia in the shadows as a potential Asian ally more than a Western one. The Saudis and the Middle East have shown a preference for India, and it is here that the influence of the market economy begins to dominate ideological affiliations.
It is no secret that, whereas India has wiggled its way into becoming the darling of the West, Pakistan has, in equal proportion, destroyed its image and reputation, managing to acquire the status of being the country that everyone loves to hate! Pakistan’s standing is due mainly to its omissions and commissions, but is also aggravated by an intense Indian propaganda.
You will find more infographics at Statista
India, 8 times in size, both in geography as well as population and a huge differential in national wealth, has felt that it needs to be universally recognised as a regional power and deserves to be awarded with a permanent seat on the United National Security Council – where at times, India sees Pakistan as a spoiler and China as a competitor contesting this contention.
The United States has declared India a strategic partner, and the world generally sees India as a lucrative market for business, making India a prominent mover and shaker in the global financial system and a partner in the B3W. At the same time, Pakistan stands out as a showcase for the BRI through its CPEC project. An initiative that connects the BRI to the Indian Ocean through Gwadar. This makes the region a hotbed for a conflict between the B3W and the BRI. Thus, when narratives compete and stories get told, it is only natural for the Indian story to be bought hook, line, and sinker, while a lack of credibility and suspicion meet Pakistan’s story.
This latest saga of Indo-Pak animosity began and unfolded from the alleged terrorist attack in Pahalgam, Kashmir, on 22 April. India accused Pakistan, and the world believed India, as it has always done. This allowed India to develop a casus belli to teach Pakistan a lasting lesson.
Smarting from the failure of trying something similar on 19 February 2019. Then the Indian Air Force bombed an uninhabited mountainside in Balakot, situated deep in Pakistan, and suffered the ignominy of having its aircraft shot down, with one of its pilots captured. Scores had to be settled, and India hoped to make a comeback. It had to demonstrate a spectacular show of power potential by humiliating Pakistan, joining the exclusive club of big-power players, and projecting to the world its capacity to take unilateral action at the regional level. In short, India had come of age. India declared war on Pakistan and abrogated the Indus Water Treaty, which had been signed and implemented in 1960 under the auspices of an international agreement and World Bank Funding. The United States watched all this, claiming no part in the conflict, but extended its benign approval to India as to what it chose to do.
The Pahalgam incident of 22 April 2025 was an unfortunate event resulting in the mindless killing of 26 tourists visiting Indian Held Kashmir. Undoubtedly, the perpetrators of this crime should be condemned in the strongest of terms, just as the incident should be denounced and declared wholly unacceptable by any standards. However, identifying the perpetrators should be the first and foremost matter – it was not. It could have been an indigenous team carrying out an operation as part of the freedom struggle against Indian occupation, or a Pakistani-sponsored attack to create unrest in the valley, or a false flag operation executed by the Indian Intelligence.
The question of it being an indigenous operation is highly unlikely since no one would approve of a target attacking tourists in the valley, as they were a source of livelihood for the local populace and domestic economic activity, which was unprecedented. Besides, if such operations were to be undertaken, they would usually focus on Indian Military assets far more than any tourists, per past trends governing such activities. For Pakistan to have sponsored an act of terror 400 kms inside Indian Controlled Kashmir, across a manned fence, in a territory bristling with seven hundred thousand troops, appears a little far-fetched. If Pakistan had to select a target, it would have been much closer, yet creating the same effect, if this effect was the desired objective. The question is, what could have been the objective?
The consequences of such an act should have been clear to anyone: heightened tensions between India and Pakistan; Pakistan was in no position to undertake such an endeavour. A separatist movement in Baluchistan polarised Pakistan, an insurgency in KP, political unrest all over the country, a discredited military, an economy in shatters, and a nation divided on so many scores – the last thing the powers-that-be in Pakistan needed was a confrontation with India.
Nevertheless, for argument’s sake, for one moment, if we were to believe that Pakistan had engineered the Pahalgam terrorist act, then by any rational logic, this terrorism should have expanded beyond Pahalgam to the rest of Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IOJK), and would have been visible during the conflict that ensued. The freedom fighters should have come out of hiding and attacked Northern Command troops on the roads, valleys, defiles, and bridges – but it did not happen. To still believe and then insist that it was a standalone incident planned by Pakistan now makes no sense by any measure.
Pakistan’s request for an independent, impartial inquiry was rejected. It assumes the role of the judge, jury, and executioner, three-in-one; simply finding the other party guilty because one has decreed it as such. It implies that India does not want to determine the truth behind the incident, but there is no other civilized way to validate the facts without an impartial inquiry. This leaves us with the probability of a false flag operation undertaken by the Indian Intelligence. To what avail?
The first reason is the coming elections to be held later in the year, the BJP’s need, and the Modi Government’s desire to appeal to an RSS-influenced Hindu population and parade themselves as victorious regional leaders. The Modi administration has time and again displayed its pathological hatred for anything non-Hindu in general and Muslim in particular; humiliating Pakistan was totally in line with their attitude.
Find more statistics at Statista
The second reason was the BJP Government’s confidence in managing such a conflict. This was probably based on the many briefings they had been given by the military high command, measuring their military capability against Pakistan and concluding that they were the dominant military power.
The third was to create a sellable rationale to abrogate the Indus Water Treaty, the fourth was to avenge the humiliation of the 2019 Balakot affair.
The fifth reason was just to be valid in order to form and do what India has always been doing.
History stands testimony to Indian deceit: they first initiate a false flag operation, then claim to be the victims, accuse Pakistan without any evidence or impartial inquiry, and then initiate military operations against Pakistan with the tacit approval of the world at large. Terrorism is what India has been doing all over the world, and especially in Pakistan. Kulbashan Yadev stands as a testimony to this Indian bent of mind, but it never seems to impress anyone in the world. In the battle of narratives, Pakistan has been universally seen as the bad guy, India as the victim, and thus, here, as always, the world stood by with India much more than it did with Pakistan. However, in more ways than one, it was a conflict between B3W and the BRI.
Operation Sindoor
So begins the war. India began assembling its forces and completing troop concentrations along its western border, beginning on 25 April and completing these by 5 May. The posture was suggestive of threatening Pakistan, possibly a coercive manoeuvre, but one that could facilitate a general invasion. Pakistan responded likewise to defend itself, and as usual, mobilised faster and completed preparations before the Indians due to its shallow depth. In this period, we see a flurry of resignations and sackings amongst the Indian High Command. It suggests that the military and political leadership were not on the same page. Though the Indian military has an apparent asymmetric advantage over Pakistan’s military potential, there is a probability that the Indian High Command needed more time to synchronize all its assets into one cohesive capability. The political leadership appeared to be in indecent haste, and thus India went into operations driven by political needs more than military logic.
Subsequently, India initiated hostilities by attacking Pakistani cities, Bahawalpur, Muridke, Kotli, and Muzaffarabad in Azad Kashmir through stand-off missiles employing Rafale Platforms on 6/7 May. The Indians named it Operation Sindoor, a strange selection for labelling a military operation, since it implies the red dye put in a bride’s hair-parting on her head on her wedding day.
Pakistan obliged the Indians in keeping with their desire for a wedding: The PAF knocked out five aircraft, including 3 Rafales, in an act of justifiable self-defence employing Chinese J-10 aircraft. India lost their aircraft as an unintended consequence of their aggression. The codes, references, geo-location of the respective crashed planes, and other details of each aircraft have been recorded and presented to the international press with a complete digitized record.
India, in its usual deceit, informed the world that it had struck terror camps only, and their intent was limited to dismantling the terror apparatus. It was a stupid thing to say since they were bombing cities indiscriminately and killing innocent civilians, women, and children. There were 30 dead and 57 wounded Pakistanis in this wanton act of unnecessary killing.
Why did the Indians claim this? They knew that they had killed no terrorist, just as we did, so what was the benefit in such deceit? The first thing that comes to mind is that they hoped to goad Pakistan into a hasty response for which they were waiting, desperately wanting to down a Pakistani combat aircraft in Indian territory to showcase it. The second was that they wanted to further fool their millions of war-hysterical, trigger-happy people – that they had achieved something physically and had hurt Pakistan as well as avenged Pahalgam. It quickly became a self-serving political rhetoric, had no military value, and was an event that cost the Indians far more than Pakistan.
Hereon, Pakistan showed unprecedented restraint and stayed its hand. This restraint is unexplained and is not understood. However, one possible reason was to evaluate the response from the international community, hoping that there would be a condemnation of the Indian aggression. It never happened. Yet, Pakistan unilaterally forfeited its right to destroy the illegal dams built over the Rivers of Kashmir. However, the IWT had been abrogated, and India had already committed an act of war.
I felt this was an opportunity to settle the issue of Kashmir waters once and for all, but I am sure the powers-that-be had a far better and deeper understanding of what they were doing. The world community still did not feel that India should be restrained, and thus India embarked on testing Pakistan’s resolve by upping the ante and resorting to drone warfare on 8 May. After the downing of its planes, India grounded its air force and instead resorted to a drone offensive. Pakistan shot down 70 drones in retaliation and also conducted ground attacks in Kashmir and hit Uri, Poonch, etc. The Indians justified sending in their swarms of drones only as a response to Pakistani drones, but it seems here that their imagination got the better of them. Pakistan denied it and informed the international press that its visibility and audibility would far exceed any press conference whenever Pakistan undertakes any offensive operation.
It would be known to all, but this was not offensive. Instead, India deliberately fired missiles into Amritsar and Ferozepur, claiming that these were Pakistani missiles. They chose these cities because of their Sikh population, who were very pro-Pakistan, and India probably hoped that it would turn the Sikhs against Pakistan. The affinity of the Sikh Population with Pakistan itself is sufficient evidence to prove that Pakistan would never undertake such a silly endeavour. The Sikh community has since condemned the Indian authorities for doing such a thing. Nevertheless, though it is claimed that Pakistan intercepted and shot down most of the drones, Pakistan continued showing restraint, claiming that Pakistan’s interceptions, etc, had sufficiently punished India.
To my mind, this restraint was now becoming questionable and uncalled for, but then I am not aware of what was going on; there must be more to it than we know. A plausible reason for doing so will hopefully become public sometime later. The drones had very little effect on the destruction of infrastructure or loss of lives. It is understood that these drones were more for mapping, recording anti-aircraft positions, radar locations etc. etc. Encouraged by Pakistan’s lack of response the Indians further tested Pakistan’s resolve by escalating the conflict a rung higher and on 9 May they carried out ballistic missile strikes, employing the Brahmos Cruise Missile against 3 Pakistani Airbases, i.e. Nur Khan Base in Chaklala, Murid in Chakwal and Rafique: the fourth airbase to be struck was at Rahim Yar Khan which UAE built as a recreation facility and for their hunting tours.
Operation Bunyan Un Marsoos
Pakistan, on 10 May, then proceeded to hit 26 Indian air bases along the western border. PAF employed the JF-17 fighters and took out two S-400 anti-missile systems, thus punching open two corridors for further operations, i.e., one in the north at Udhampur and the other somewhere in the South. During this process, an additional two Indian aircraft were hit and destroyed.
PAF had unequivocally established air superiority, and the skies belonged to them. India then requested the United States to intervene, which had, till then, along with Israel, expected India to have done substantial damage to Pakistan, which was seen here as a Chinese proxy. It is believed the CIA had briefed President Trump of overwhelming evidence of disturbing developments. President Trump warned India that it may be on the receiving end of an unprecedented offensive, but India refused to scale down. People have tried to confuse this incident by saying it was a Pakistani threat to go nuclear, far from it.
Pakistan never needed to go nuclear at this stage. Going nuclear is only possible when conventional responses have been saturated and no other options are available. This was never the case, and Pakistan had great depth in its conventional capacity. This notion of a nuclear threat by Pakistan remains one of the fake accusations that India likes to push, i.e., nuclear blackmail.
However, after the 10 May Pakistani attack on 26 Indian sites, India agreed to a ceasefire, and the United States brokered a ceasefire – Pakistan agreed, and the Indians immediately accepted it, having first requested it. The United States felt that the Indians were about to humiliate themselves as well as embarrass the US-Israeli nexus, and as such, it was an appropriate time to halt the war. During this crisis, Pakistan was openly and visibly assisted by China, Turkey, and Azerbaijan. Iran played out an artificial neutrality, the Middle East leaned towards the Indians, and the United Nations was indifferent.
True to Indian custom and habit, they have immediately embarked on a campaign of narrative-building that it was Pakistan that demanded ceasefire (however, they cannot explain why, after being the only beneficiaries of it), they have lied to their constituents about the damage they have caused Pakistan and unashamedly declared victory without winning anything. All this after having lost $ 85 billion in equities, a falling prestige in the eyes of the world, and forfeited their posture of military dominance. Despite all this, they have yet to manage to construct a never-ending cycle of war, with a new declaration by Modi: that if any terrorist acts are committed anywhere in India again, it will be considered an act of war. This leaves the crisis open-ended for India to initiate war whenever it feels it is in a better position to do so and to engineer another false flag when it finds it convenient to do so.
Nevertheless, a fragile ceasefire and a return to normalcy have begun. How should we view this conflict? Some argue that this conflict was mutually coordinated at the government level and snowballed out of control. The Pakistani government has remained conspicuous in its absence throughout this conflict. The minister of defence has had the dubious distinction of being branded as an Indian asset inserted into the Pakistani system. So many questions will arise here about the conduct of the Pakistani political leadership, who are presently in government. Yet, whatever the case, a conflict was one of the world’s largest aerial dogfights, with 120 fighters competing to win airspace. This included 80 Indian jets as opposed to 40 Pakistani jets in the air on 6/7 May.
It was a war fought within an electromagnetic spectrum that evolved around frequency hopping, spoofing, hacking, disinformation, jamming, and gathering intelligence (ELINT)/early warning. The conflict began over the dominance and control of this spectrum, in which Pakistan appears to have the upper hand. Pakistan was able to identify and intercept, and destroy or make redundant, the Indian airborne attacks, ballistic missiles, and drones. The war never progressed to the ground assets contact-engagement that required a physical contest of forces on the winning ground. It ended at the stage of the BVR and stand-off phases of engagement. There is no way to bring closure to this conflict by stating who won the contest, but it would suffice to say that Pakistan has no recorded aerial losses. At the same time, it’s more or less universally established that India has lost seven aircraft, though India denies this.
India started the conflict, apparently Pakistan concluded it; Pakistan appears to be happy with itself, while India is currently suffering the throes of the shock-and-awe of this conflict and demanding that the government explain itself. As such, I would say, momentarily, Pakistan stands as a clear and uncontested victor in this conflict. India has not accepted the outcome, and the government has gone to great lengths to explain that the ceasefire is only a temporary halt and that they have every intent to punish Pakistan.
This may well be a face-saving rhetoric for now. Still, evidence is piling up of new weapon shipments, US involvement, and Israeli expertise busy in rebuilding Indian confidence as well as operational capacity. Keeping the BJP Government’s attitude in mind, it is highly unlikely that this ceasefire will hold and that there will be more to come – it’s not over. Though I have every confidence in our military leadership and our young combatants, the women and children protecting the sovereignty of this country, it is only fair that I list my concerns for their attention. Call it the ramblings of an old man, a hostage to habit, whatever – but for one thing, by design or by default, the conflict itself or the Pahalgam incident, whatever you prefer, has brought Kashmir to the forefront and internationalised it.
The other most glaring impact this conflict has had is on the reunification of a polarised Pakistani populace. Both these matters will become conclusive arguments in the times to come, showing this as evidence, proving that Pakistan did Pahalgam. Modi has already kept the door open for war by stating that any other act of terror will be seen as an act of war. Thus, India could manipulate the environment to continue the war and simply say that there was no ceasefire!
The surprise India suffered today during this conflict may be difficult to achieve since these things are usually a one-time initiative. However, it would be a very different matter if Pakistan had stayed its hand and still had much more up its sleeve in reserve for the future. The US-Israeli-Indian nexus must by now be working overtime to find the ways and the means to paralyse Pakistan’s net-centric systems – we must be prepared, should war-game these possibilities, and manage the operational environment just as we already have.
So what has this conflict demonstrated on the global plane? It has effectively shown the difference between Western technologies and Chinese ones. Stocks of Dassault, the manufacturer of the Rafale fighters, went down substantially, just as those of Chengdu, the manufacturer of the J-100, went up. Competing technologies in the digital and AI spectrums also favoured the Chinese systems. The BRI has become stronger, and the CPEC would probably speed up its completion. Pakistan has been unequivocally pushed into the Chinese camp, even though the US had engineered a regime change in Pakistan as recently as 2023. This meant getting a pliant setup suitable for the US cause, but at the cost of China. Pakistan, usually a recipient of US military equipment, now has 80 % Chinese hardware. The contest between B3W and the BRI has become more prominent, and Chinese involvement may be far more than what meets the eye.
A ceasefire is in effect, though it is not likely to hold as already explained. However, suppose it ever comes to sincere negotiations. In that case, Pakistan must insist on reinstating the Indus Water Treaty, an independent investigation on the Pahalgam Incident and an agreement to hold such independent investigation for any such incidents in future, the reinstating of article 370 in Kashmir, demand an apology from India and their unilateral confession related to the unfolding of events as they had occurred. Pakistan needs to start a diplomatic campaign that Kashmir is a disputed territory, recognised as such by the UN, and needs to be resolved, if peace is to be ever given a chance. The promised right to a plebiscite must be executed, and people must be allowed self-determination. It is the only way to arrive at a permanent settlement. Any other arrangement will only be temporary and at the discretion of India to implement or not, just as the IWT has been. India is never willing to allow a neutral mediator, insists on bilateral talks, and then links them to first addressing terrorism that it conveniently manufactures to support its position. The world needs to step up to the plate and call India’s bluff – enough is enough.
We must now capitalise on this small victory for Pakistan and establish a more functional government. The need for a sovereign foreign policy must be defined: Are we B3W or BRI? We need to take a firm position, not a tentative one. But whatever it is, it must not be at the cost of the other. We must repay our debt quickly and regain our independence, self-respect, and national pride. Our education system must be reformed to handle the new norms of technology and their dictates. We must encourage manufacturing and production to develop our economy on a war footing and use the infrastructure of the CPEC to establish one of the world’s biggest supply chains, transportation, and warehousing systems. However, this can only be done effectively with the people on board and a legitimate government.
Legitimacy is not acquired by manipulating the legal system but is entrenched in the popular will of the populace. Only a legitimate government can establish policy and make decisions as an outcome of national ethos, instead of individual whims. As was done by sending dubious people to Israel to participate in back-channel negotiations, or as is said more correctly, behind our backs and in total disregard of the national sentiment. Israel stands for everything that we do not. Without taking these universally acceptable steps immediately, it’s not about if, but about when, we have to confront another “Operation Sindoor” and a smirking Modi – and it will keep happening till we run out of surprises.
“War is delightful to those who have had no experience of it.”
– Desiderius Erasmus
If you want to submit your articles and/or research papers, please visit the Submissions page.
To stay updated with the latest jobs, CSS news, internships, scholarships, and current affairs articles, join our Community Forum!
The views and opinions expressed in this article/paper are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of Paradigm Shift.
