The four-day Indo-Pak spat
Listen to article
Five weeks after the Indo-Pak confrontation, although hostilities have come to an end, the pit and cauldron of doubt and antagonism continues to simmer. War shocks still continue after closure of the four-day spat on 10 May 2025 in the shape of bluff and bluster and propaganda and misinformation.
On the Pakistan side, there continues to be fear and consternation of a replay of something like Sindoor for which pretexts may be discovered or imagined. On the Indian side, a media blitz continues to be spread about the threat of terrorism from Pakistan.
The flare-out between 7 and 10 May of 2025 may have only been four days long but it spewed a plethora of consequences – domestic, regional and international. Both the sides have claimed to gain the upper hand in the conflagration. India declared to have decimated nine terrorist outfits in "POK" and after nearly 27 years attacked sites across the international boundary in the Punjab. It also claimed to have struck several air bases with missiles and an AWACS plane parked in the hangers in the Nur Khan Air Base in Rawalpindi-Islamabad which is only about 6 to 7 minutes distance from a nuclear installation.
On the other hand, Pakistan claims to have taken down six Indian jets – three Rafaels, one Sukhoi, one Mirage and one MIG – with the help of Chinese provided J-10C using remotely fired missile PL-15.
Just one day before the commencement of the Paris Air Show, the CEO of Dassault, the manufacturers of multi-role French F-35 jet, declared that the claim of Pakistan to have downed three Indian Rafaels "is inaccurate". This claim flies in the face of French intelligence reports confirming the shooting down of the plane as well as the statement in an interview by the Indian defence chief made in the Shangri-La Security Dialogue of admitting the felling of Indian aircraft but refusing to mention the exact number of planes taken down.
The possibility of Chinese military technology having the better of cutting-edge western armaments as shown in the taking down of Rafaels by J-10Cs and PL-15 missiles reverberated throughout the world, denoting a sea change in the geo-strategic scenario particularly in the context of the US-China contest. The balance of power between India and Pakistan, supported and armed by Chinese latest technology, suddenly seemed to have undergone a big change with India having to face an uphill task in case of having to face a two-sided opponent in the shape of Pakistan and China.
The fusion between Chinese ideology and military equipment and Pakistan army strategy and tactics is something of great concern for India.
Another special aspect of the short confrontation was the use of social media war, hysteria and misinformation from both sides. In fact making outlandish claims of Karachi port having been destroyed and an attack on Lahore not only made a mockery of Indian media but indelibly dented the credibility of news emanating from Indian media.
Shivshankar Menon, former Indian high commissioner to Pakistan and former foreign secretary, in an interview with Karan Thapar made a claim typical of Indian mindset , saying, "Sindoor may not have deterred terrorism in Pakistan and may have only provided a temporary respite since militarism is hard wired into the security structure" and weltanschauung "of Pakistan."
Operation Sindoor, Menon claims, has not deterred terrorism but it has imposed costs for Pakistan to think twice before launching another terror attack. Now it is for India, according to Menon, how best to manage increasing the costs for Pakistan and gains for India.
Adil Shah of Georgetown University, USA, has averred that Sindoor did not deter Pakistan but rather emboldened it by giving it the impression of victory.
Trump's effort at bringing about a ceasefire between India and Pakistan to prevent the situation from escalating into a non-conventional nuclear flare-out has led to two consequences. Trump has reiterated on several occasions that he was responsible for effecting a ceasefire between the two South Asian neighbours and that he could bring about a solution to the Kashmir dispute.
American efforts in the Indo-Pak spat has led to the internationalisation of Kashmir dispute much to the chagrin of India which insists that the Kashmir dispute could only be resolved through bilateral measures. Trump's attempt has also led to the rehyphenation of India and Pakistan after several years of dehyphenation of US relations vis a vis the two South Asian opponents.
The May 2025 flare-out makes it all the more essential to bring an end to confrontation between India and Pakistan since another such occurrence could go out of hand due to escalation or accident. There is paramount need therefore for detente, peace and deterrence of confrontation between the two neighbours who suffer from similar problems of poverty, shelter, potable water and lack of health cover.
The expenditures incurred on military and arms would be best spent upon education and health. In this day and age, two poor countries to be in possession of nuclear capabilities and increasing expenditures on ever advanced arms and armaments is a self-defeating policy depriving millions of the basic essentials of a civilised life.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
10 hours ago
- Express Tribune
COAS asks Kabul to curb Indian proxies on its soil
Listen to article Chief of Army Staff Field Marshal Asim Munir said on Friday that Islamabad sought peaceful and cooperative relations with Afghanistan and warned Kabul against permitting Indian-sponsored terrorist proxies to operate from its soil. Addressing officers of the 52nd Common Training Programme in Islamabad, Field Marshal Asim maintained that Afghanistan was a neighbouring Islamic country but it must act responsibly and curb the influence of hostile forces operating in its territory. "We ask only one thing: do not give space to India's terrorist proxies – Fitna al-Hind and Fitna al-Khawarij," he said. Afghanistan remains a "brotherly, neighbouring Islamic country" but it must act responsibly and curb the influence of hostile forces operating in its territory, he added. He highlighted the crucial role of a transparent and efficient civil bureaucracy in national development, stressing that its service-based structure was indispensable in the state system. He emphasised the need for institutional cohesion and mutual understanding between civil and military leadership. In his address, the army chief discussed national security, internal and external challenges and the vital role of the armed forces in safeguarding regional peace and stability. He urged the officers to embody the highest standards of integrity, professionalism and patriotism in their duties. He also highlighted the importance of inter-institutional cooperation and mutual respect in advancing Pakistan's strategic and developmental goals. He expressed his belief that such collaboration between civilian and military sectors would help strengthen Pakistan's position on the global stage. The COAS's remarks underscored the necessity for a capable civil bureaucracy to efficiently manage state affairs and contribute to the country's development. The meeting concluded with an interactive question-and-answer session, reflecting a spirit of shared responsibility and collective commitment to Pakistan's progress.
Express Tribune
10 hours ago
- Express Tribune
India accused ofillegal deportations targeting Muslims
India ramped up operations against migrants after a wider security crackdown in the wake of an attack in the west in April. Photo AFP India has deported without trial to Bangladesh hundreds of people, officials from both sides said, drawing condemnation from activists and lawyers who call the recent expulsions illegal and based on ethnic profiling. New Delhi says the people deported are undocumented migrants. The Hindu nationalist government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi has long taken a hardline stance on immigration -- particularly those from Bangladesh -- with top officials referring to them as "termites" and "infiltrators". It has also sparked fear among India's estimated 200 million Muslims, especially among speakers of Bengali, a widely spoken language in both eastern India and Bangladesh. "Muslims, particularly from the eastern part of the country, are terrified," said veteran Indian rights activist Harsh Mander. "You have thrown millions into this existential fear." Bangladesh has seen relations with New Delhi turn icy since a mass uprising in 2024 toppled Dhaka's government, a former friend of India. But India also ramped up operations against migrants after a wider security crackdown in the wake of an attack in the west -- the April 22 killing of 26 people, mainly Hindu tourists, in IIOJK. Indian authorities launched an unprecedented countrywide security drive that has seen many thousands detained — and many of them eventually pushed across the border to Bangladesh at gunpoint. Rahima Begum, from India's eastern Assam state, said police detained her for several days in late May before taking her to the Bangladesh frontier. She said she and her family had spent their life in India. "I have lived all my life here — my parents, my grandparents, they are all from here," she said. "I don't know why they would do this to me." Indian police took Begum, along with five other people, all Muslims, and forced them into swampland in the dark. "They showed us a village in the distance and told us to crawl there," she told AFP. "They said: 'Do not dare to stand and walk, or we will shoot you.'" Bangladeshi locals who found the group then handed them to border police who "thrashed" them and ordered they return to India, Begum said. "As we approached the border, there was firing from the other side," said the 50-year-old. "We thought: 'This is the end. We are all going to die.'" She survived, and, a week after she was first picked up, she was dropped back home in Assam with a warning to keep quiet. Rights activists and lawyers criticised India's drive as "lawless". "You cannot deport people unless there is a country to accept them," said New Delhi-based civil rights lawyer Sanjay Hegde.
Business Recorder
13 hours ago
- Business Recorder
New realities of power in global politics
Recent geopolitical flashpoints — the four-day military engagement between India and Pakistan and the 12-day war between Iran and Israel—have unveiled two compelling realities. First, despite the shifting tides of multi-polarity, the United States remains the most consequential actor in global power politics. Second, the long-standing regional myths of invincibility and dominance by India's in South Asia and Israel's in the Middle East have been irreversibly challenged. In both crises, the US emerged not only as a mediator but as the ultimate arbiter of dispute resolution and end of hostilities between the said warring nations. President Donald Trump's assertive and decisive phone calls, whether by official design or calculated spectacle, succeeded in arresting escalations that could have spiraled into regional wars - a feat that a world body like the UN could not have achieved so decisively and in so short a time. Washington's capacity to stop two simultaneous conflicts in volatile regions underscores its unmatched diplomatic leverage and military deterrence even in an era of a waning uni-polarity. Equally significant, however, is what these conflicts revealed about the internal dynamics of their respective regions. In South Asia, the India-Pakistan skirmish exposed the limits of New Delhi's regional hegemony. The conflict demonstrated not only Pakistan's strategic resilience but also the geopolitical reality that India is not unilaterally dominant in the subcontinent. Both nations, despite their historical asymmetries in size and economy, were treated as equals by global powers in diplomatic terms. This is a notable departure from narratives of Indian supremacy and highlights the strategic agency of smaller states in the region. Meanwhile, in the Middle East, the twelve-day Israel-Iran conflict similarly unsettled long-held perceptions. While Israel has historically enjoyed technological and military edge, Iran's retaliatory capacity, endurance, and regional alliances gave it a credible deterrent posture. The myth of Israel's absolute military superiority took a hit—not necessarily in battlefield metrics, but in the psychological and diplomatic perceptions that govern modern deterrence theory. Iran showed it could absorb strikes, retaliate meaningfully, and force negotiations—all while maintaining a regional influence structure through proxies. In the wake of the recent India-Pakistan military standoff and the 12-day Israel-Iran war, the global spotlight focused not only on the crisis resolution but also on the visible absence of direct intervention from China and Russia—two major global powers often seen as the principal challengers to US influence. Despite their strategic relationships with Pakistan and Iran respectively, Beijing and Moscow exercised strategic restraint. The absence of direct Chinese and Russian intervention in support of Pakistan and Iran is perhaps not a sign of weakness—it is a calculated strategic posture consistent with their long-term vision of a multi-polar world. Their restraint reflects an understanding that global influence in the 21st century is shaped as much by stability, economic entrenchment, and ideological appeal as by military might. China and Russia prioritize strategic stability over tactical opportunism, particularly in regions where overt engagement could spiral into uncontrollable escalation. Both powers prefer the doctrine of strategic patience and to leverage the US burden to preserve their influence through non-military tools such as diplomacy, infrastructure investment, arms sales, and cyber presence. Also, China's risk calculus avoids getting embroiled in wars that could endanger its global economic interests or supply chains. This strategy has paid off in China's rise as the second biggest economy of the world. It is important to note that China backed Pakistan by providing it with the means of air force and missile superiority over India and Iran with missile superiority over Israel — which proved to be a turning point in both the said conflicts. Additionally, Russia, heavily engaged in Ukraine and under severe Western sanctions, seeks to avoid opening a second front or worsening its diplomatic isolation. In an era where multi-polarity is often taken as a given, recent history just offered a blunt reality check: the United States still sits at the top of the global power pyramid. China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and the growing BRICS bloc may be reshaping economic partnerships, but when conflict erupts, it's still Washington—not Beijing or Moscow—that the world turns to. While critics will debate whether Trump's methods are sustainable, the facts on the ground are clear: the global order may be evolving, but America's authority—particularly in moments of crisis—remains unchallenged. China is just not yet ready to overtly exercise its authority into the internal affairs of other countries nor into their wars or conflicts. Much of the same holds true for Russia. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
