Qamar Bashir
In the wake of a tragic terrorist attack, Indian leadership, spearheaded by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, vowed to punish not only those directly involved but also their alleged backers and facilitators. Without any conclusive investigation or hard evidence, India hastily pointed fingers at Pakistan. Now, with war rhetoric at its peak, the likelihood of punitive Indian action against Pakistan cannot be dismissed. However, while retaliatory strikes may appear attractive politically, the reality on the ground—shaped by complex
military balances, nuclear deterrence, and third-party interests—makes any such action perilous for all sides.
India essentially has five military options: a surgical strike, a full-scale war, a missile
attack, a naval offensive, or a commando raid. Each comes with monumental risks. A
limited ground incursion to “punish” Pakistan might seem feasible, but India’s past
experience in 2019 revealed the limitations of such operations. Pakistan today is far more
prepared, with enhanced surveillance, defensive deployments along the Line of Control,
and swift retaliatory capabilities. Any such strike would provoke immediate,
proportionate retaliation, rapidly escalating the conflict.
A missile strike may seem like a low-risk option. India possesses an extensive array of
ballistic and cruise missiles, including the Agni series, with ranges of 700 km to over
5,000 km. It also fields the BrahMos cruise missile—one of the world’s fastest. Pakistan,
however, has developed a credible missile arsenal of its own. The Shaheen I and II
ballistic missiles offer ranges up to 2,500 km. The Babur cruise missile, comparable to
the U.S. Tomahawk, has a precision strike range of 700 km and can be launched from
land, air, or sea. Pakistan is estimated to possess over 200 cruise missiles, capable of
delivering nuclear or conventional payloads.
India’s dense population and industrial clusters make it disproportionately vulnerable. A
missile war would ensure mutual devastation, with potentially higher economic losses for
India. While India enjoys a numerical advantage, Pakistan’s full-spectrum deterrence and
strike capability mean that no missile attack will go unanswered.
India’s Air Force fields over 2,100 aircraft, including Rafales, Su-30MKIs, and Mirage
2000s. Pakistan’s Air Force, with around 900 aircraft, includes JF-17 Thunders, F-16s,
and upgraded Mirage jets. Though smaller in size, the Pakistani Air Force is tightly
organized, well-drilled, and supported by robust air defense systems. The 2019 Balakot
episode demonstrated Pakistan’s readiness to retaliate with precision, neutralizing Indian
airspace violations and capturing an Indian pilot without triggering wider escalation.
India’s navy, the fifth-largest in the world, clearly outclasses Pakistan’s smaller maritime
force. However, Pakistan’s upgraded coastal surveillance, submarine capability, and anti-
ship missile systems, such as the Harbah and Babur naval variants, offer enough
deterrence to discourage a naval conflict. Any strike on Pakistani ports or vessels would
be matched with retaliatory action, resulting in shared losses and open-water instability.
India might consider inserting special forces into Pakistan through helicopters or aircraft
for sabotage missions. Yet, Pakistan’s border monitoring and elite Special Services
Group significantly reduce the chances of success. Such actions could backfire, lead to
operational failures, or even provoke a cycle of asymmetric escalations that drag both
countries deeper into conflict.
The most terrifying scenario is a descent into nuclear confrontation. While India
officially follows a “No First Use” policy, recent shifts in rhetoric have cast doubts on
how firmly that policy would be followed in crisis. Pakistan, for its part, has always
maintained that it reserves the right to use nuclear weapons if national survival is at stake.
Pakistan’s tactical nuclear weapons, such as the Nasr missile, are designed to neutralize
Indian advances and signal deterrence. Should Pakistan face overwhelming force, it could
launch limited nuclear strikes against advancing troops or even strategic urban targets.
India would almost certainly retaliate massively, setting off a chain reaction of
destruction.
Both nations maintain between 150 to 165 nuclear warheads, with long-range delivery
systems capable of reaching any city within minutes. A nuclear exchange would flatten
cities, kill tens of millions, and cripple both economies. The environmental fallout and
global panic would echo far beyond South Asia. The world has long feared a nuclear
exchange on the subcontinent. One misstep, one misjudgment, is all it takes.
To further complicate the crisis, China is a critical stakeholder in this conflict. Beijing
controls parts of Kashmir (Aksai Chin) and thus has a direct territorial interest in any
conflict involving disputed regions. More importantly, China has invested over $62
billion in the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), the flagship project of its Belt
and Road Initiative. This corridor passes through Gilgit-Baltistan, a region also claimed
by India. Any military operation threatening the corridor’s security would directly harm
Chinese strategic and economic interests.
China’s involvement in water resources in the region and its hydro projects in Pakistani-
administered Kashmir also make it sensitive to instability. Any disruption caused by
Indian military activity could trigger diplomatic retaliation, or in the worst case, military
or economic responses. While China may avoid direct conflict, it will not tolerate
destruction or destabilization of its assets. At the very least, it will act to rein in escalation
through diplomatic backchannels and multilateral forums. At the most, it could lend rapid
material and strategic support to Pakistan to preserve regional balance.
Given these realities, diplomacy is the only logical course. Pakistan has already extended
an offer to form a joint investigation commission or allow an independent international
inquiry. Accepting such an offer would demonstrate leadership maturity, avoid
speculative strikes, and potentially reveal the real perpetrators behind the attack.
An impartial investigation would help hold the actual culprits accountable and prevent
collective punishment or regional destruction. It would also show the international
community that India and Pakistan, despite historical hostility, can still act in line with
global norms, and in the greater interest of peace.
This moment presents a defining choice: escalate into an uncontrollable disaster, or rise
above vengeance and act with restraint. India and Pakistan must recognize that no
military solution can secure long-term peace. Both are proud nations, with immense
potential, but their destinies remain entangled. A war between them would have no
victor—only scorched earth, shattered lives, and a legacy of loss.
There is still time to avert catastrophe. Dialogue is not a weakness. It is the only path left
to those wise enough to understand that total war, especially in a nuclear neighborhood,
leaves no room for honor, no space for victory, and no future for anyone.
