Qamar Bashir
In one of the most consequential military escalations in recent South Asian history, the
May 2025 conflict between India and Pakistan concluded not with a decisive
proclamation of victory, but with an abrupt and uneasy ceasefire—sought under growing
international pressure. Initiated by India under the pretext of retribution for the tragic
terrorist attack in Pahalgam, the confrontation ended with Pakistan not only holding its
ground militarily, but emerging diplomatically strengthened and strategically vindicated.
CNN’s Nic Robertson, reporting from Islamabad, offered a compelling account of
Pakistan’s response to India’s deep airstrikes. He described it as a "relentless barrage of
missiles and rockets" launched against Indian military targets across the Line of Control
and into mainland India, targeting airbases, depots, and command structures with striking
precision. Robertson called it a "calibrated show of strength" that reversed India’s
offensive momentum and compelled New Delhi to urgently seek international mediation.
His report echoed the sentiment that Pakistan’s counteroffensive had significantly altered
the trajectory of the conflict and revealed serious gaps in India's preparedness.
The ceasefire, brokered with the active involvement of U.S. Secretary of State Marco
Rubio and Vice President JD Vance, culminated in a statement from President Donald J.
Trump on his Truth Social platform:
“I am very proud of the strong and unwaveringly powerful leadership of India
and Pakistan… Millions of good and innocent people could have died… I am
proud the USA was able to help you arrive at this historic and heroic
decision… Additionally, I will work with you both to see if, after a ‘thousand
years,’ a solution can be arrived at concerning Kashmir.”
This marked a rare and notable moment—an American president publicly acknowledging
Kashmir as the core issue and proposing to facilitate a long-term solution. For Pakistan,
this was a diplomatic breakthrough, bringing to the fore a demand it had made for
decades: international engagement on Kashmir. For India, it was an abrupt strategic
recalibration, revealing the limits of unilateral aggression and the price of escalation in a
nuclear environment.
India’s invocation of the Kashmir issue during back-channel negotiations signaled a
significant shift. Having long resisted third-party involvement, India found itself using
Kashmir as a bargaining lever to draw Pakistan into accepting U.S.-mediated talks. The
irony was not lost on observers: India had inadvertently internationalized the very issue it
had always insisted was bilateral.
Public sentiment in India reflected growing disillusionment. Social media platforms were
awash with criticism of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Defence Minister Rajnath
Singh. Many accused the government of dragging the nation into a conflict it could
neither win nor sustain. A widely circulated post read:
“You couldn’t protect Indians. You couldn’t avenge their deaths. More Indians died in
the crossfire. Why are you still in office?”
Another stated:
“India was so shocked by Pakistan’s military response, it had to beg Trump for a
ceasefire. Don't provoke a war you can’t manage.”
The backlash highlighted a growing credibility gap between India’s military rhetoric and
its battlefield realities. Analysts from leading global outlets offered similar assessments.
The Guardian termed the war a "miscalculated gamble" that ended in embarrassment for
India. France 24 questioned the performance of India’s Rafale fleet after reports
confirmed the downing of three by Chinese-origin jets. Al Jazeera highlighted the
precision of Pakistan’s counterstrikes, while the BBC noted how India’s attempt to
project strength backfired, leading to diplomatic retreat and external mediation.
Technologically, the mismatch was stark. Pakistan’s use of Chinese J-10CE and JF-17
Thunder jets, armed with PL-15 long-range missiles, displayed integrated network
warfare capabilities. India’s multi-sourced fleet—combining French, Russian, and Israeli
platforms—suffered from lack of system-wide coordination. This disparity contributed to
India’s failure to repel deep strikes and safeguard critical infrastructure, including
forward airbases and missile systems in Adampur.
Estimates from defense correspondents suggest at least five Indian aircraft were downed,
including three Rafales. Pakistan’s deep penetration—reportedly 200 km into Indian
territory—without interception, further dented the credibility of India’s air defense.
Symbolically, India’s perception as the “net security provider” in South Asia took a
serious hit. Its attempt to display dominance instead exposed operational vulnerabilities
and forced an unwanted climbdown. Conversely, Pakistan’s firm yet controlled response
helped restore deterrence, drew international empathy, and opened diplomatic pathways
that had long been closed.
Think tanks responded swiftly. The Council on Foreign Relations noted that “India’s
effort to assert dominance has backfired, exposing strategic weaknesses.” The
International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) observed that “Pakistan has
demonstrated battlefield coherence, technological integration, and strategic restraint.”
Within India, the political consequences may be far-reaching. The ruling BJP, already
facing domestic challenges, now confronts criticism over its handling of national
security. The opposition is likely to seize on the events as a turning point in public
confidence, particularly among young voters who have grown increasingly skeptical of
nationalist bluster.
Though the war lasted just a few days, its implications will reverberate far longer.
Pakistan demonstrated not only its military resolve but also its growing stature as a
rational and capable state actor. It forced a reevaluation of strategic assumptions in the
region and made clear that peace in South Asia hinges not on rhetoric, but on addressing
long-standing disputes—beginning with Kashmir.
The May 2025 conflict has redrawn the strategic contours of the subcontinent. For
Pakistan, it was not just a matter of defending its borders, but of asserting its place on the
regional and global stage. For India, it was a sobering lesson in the limits of power
projection without preparation.
