The Pahalgram killings in Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IOJK) on April 22, 2025, had all the hallmark of being stage-managed by India as “casus belli” for establishing the “new normal” domination of the region by India. The Indians created the “false flag” pretext to restore the credibility lost by India in South Asia by the August 2024 Bangladesh debacle. Without even a hint of any possible investigation process, India accused Pakistan of complicity within hours, rejecting Pakistan’s expressing of its willingness to cooperate fully with a neutral international investigation.As I assess the security situation, an unsettling and unprecedented shift has emerged in the pattern of terrorist attacks in Pakistan. The deliberate separation of Hindus from Muslims before carrying out the killings is evident in recent incidents in Balochistan, particularly those attributed to RAW-supported BLA elements, who have similarly targeted non-Baloch civilians. Similarly, throughout the decades-long history of militancy in Kashmir, there has never been a documented case where militants deliberately targeted civilians, attacked religious sites, or bombed public markets. This recent incident, where assailants disguised themselves as pilgrims and selectively killed Hindu civilians, points to a well-established RAW/AGB pattern. The hallmarks of previous “false flag” operation, the 1971 Ganga hijacking, orchestrated by Indian intelligence and falsely blamed on Kashmiris, was used by India as an excuse to stop overflights between East and West Pakistan, that divide of a physical and psychological separation, led to Pakistan’s dismemberment in Dec 1971.
The question remains: why now, and who benefits from such calculated optics? However, India had more nefarious intentions. The Indus Water Treaty was first held in abeyance, the Attari border check post was closed, and Pakistanis in India under the SAARC Visa Exemption Scheme (SVES) were given 48 hours to leave the country. India’s unilateral actions evoked measures from Pakistan, diplomatic ties were downgraded. Borders, airspace, and trade routes were closed, with India banning Pakistani digital content and lobbying international agencies such as IMF to review Pakistan’s funding. Skirmishes across the Line of Control (LOC) intensified, with mutual artillery fire and airspace violations. On May 7 an Indian air and drone offensive “Operation Sindoor” was launched with great fanfare to “punish” Pakistan for the Pahalgam terrorist incident. Pakistan promised retaliation at a time and place of their choosing. From 7 to 10 May nuclear-armed Pakistan and India engaged in alarming brinkmanship, their most intense confrontation since 1971, involving airstrikes and cyber warfare. Pakistan reported downing of a total of nearly 77 drones over 36 hours – a significant military feat. On May 9, India intensified the drone strikes and at 2:55 am May 10 with Brahmos missile attacks on many airbases, particularly the missile strike on Nur Khan Air Base (formerly Chaklala Air Base), India went into over drive. At 4:30 am Pakistan retaliated with decisive retaliatory strikes, “Operation Bunyan-un-Marsoos”, targeting high-value Indian military assets, including BrahMos storage in Beas, the Udhampur airbase, and the S-400 system in Adampur and multiple airbases such as Pathankot, Suratgarh, and Halwara. 12 Division was particularly severe along the Line of Control, targeting Indian posts, military centres in Rajouri, KG Top, Uri with artillery and small arms.
The scale and precision of the Pakistani response led to the suspension of air traffic over large swathes of northern India, including the shutdown of 21 airports. By 0930 hrs May 10 DG ISPR confirmed that Pakistan had successfully inflicted major damage on 26 Indian military capabilities and infrastructure. The major success was PAF’s surgical strike through three brave pilots on a virtual suicide mission to take out the vaunted Russian origin S-400 missile battery at Adampur. With its air power almost paralyzed and facing significant losses, India signaled its willingness to de-escalate. Having neither initiated nor escalated the conflict, Pakistan agreed to a ceasefire. Nearly six decades of India’s South Asia’s strategy completely vapourized in six hours. India’s perceived superior military might had been glamourized by the induction of the state-of-the-art French Rafale aircraft into the Indian Airforce (IAF) in 2020 by the staged spectacle of a grand Hindutva ceremony. India was keen to show this “force-multiplier” as a lethal kinetic instrument for total domination as a hegemonic power in South Asia and the Gulf States region. And they did convince the Gulf States, if not Pakistan and to a varying degree other South Asian states. It is now confirmed that in the longest air combat in modern aerial combat history, approximately 30 Pakistani aircraft outmaneuvered by electronic warfare and BVR (beyond visual range) 70 Indian aircraft, totally destroying the myth of India air superiority that had convinced the world, particularly the Arab States. Since almost all the Arab rulers of the major Kingdoms have served in the Armed Forces, some even flying modern combat aircraft, not only was the so-called Indian military superiority exposed to be a farce to them but it graphically dispelled the aura of Indian “military domination” of this region. For the Arabs May 10 morning must have been a final wakeup call to follow the Indian aerial setback of May 7. Why did the shares of Chengdu Aircraft Corporation (CAC) producing the J-10C and JF-17 aircraft go up and in stark contrast the shares of Dassault Aviation producing the Rafale go down?
The crisis led to several key of India’s punitive goals failure, highlighting the danger of acting on unverified claims; diplomatic channels remained absent until late; and Pakistan’s measured response and calls for a third-party investigation gained international support. The conflict showcased the rising importance of cyber, space, and unmanned warfare. Geopolitically, the crisis revealed shifting dynamics. While the United States initially signaled non-intervention, its active diplomacy toward the end indicated concern over the escalation’s potential global ramifications. After a long time, the Kashmir conflict was discussed internationally when President Trump showed interest in mediation to resolve the issue. For its part China maintained its firm support for Pakistan, reaffirming its long-standing strategic partnership. Both Turkiye and Azerbaijan openly supported Pakistan, unfortunately, no other Muslim countries condemned India’s aggression and attempt of their Israel-like “new normal” for the region. This episode highlights Pakistan’s pursuit of comprehensive sovereignty, a multidimensional concept defined by Barry Buzan that includes territorial integrity, policy autonomy, economic independence, and control over informational and cyber domains. Sovereignty now requires the ability to resist both military aggression and non-traditional coercion. No amount of Indian propaganda can camouflage this tremendous Indian setback, both materially and psychologically. Even their own defence analysts acknowledge the great Indian setbacks at the hands of mainly Chinese equipment in the hands of Pakistan. Defence analysts can rarely be swayed by mere propaganda and outright lies, since their credibility is at stake and their evaluation represents actual facts. Their take, other than some Indian origin “experts” on channels like Fox TV, were unanimous that Western technology facing a Chinese equipment handled by Pakistanis was found wanting. From someone as rabidly anti-Pakistan Army as Ms Christian Fair acknowledged that the Indians were telling outright lies in claiming an “Indian victory”, she called it “Bakwas” (nonsense).
This “six hour” war raised us to a strategic pedestal larger than India, even equaling the stature of Israel, which was built up by destroying Arab Air Forces in June 1967 in a SIX DAY war. Our devastating SIX HOUR response on May 10 brought us out of the “strategic closet” in the region in the same manner as the India’s Pokhran blasts in 1998 allowed us out of the “nuclear closet” to explode our nuclear devices. India must recognize that the only sustainable path is the peaceful co-existence of both countries; its ambitions for hegemony over neighboring nations is not acceptable. Bangladesh has already demonstrated remarkable resilience in overcoming India’s disproportionate influence, especially in matters of water sharing and trade imbalances. Meanwhile, the fragile situation in India’s Northeastern states continues to worsen. Strategically, this makes the Siliguri Corridor (Chicken’s Neck) India’s most vulnerable choke point. In the meantime China, has reiterated its claims for Arunachal Pradesh (formerly North Eastern Frontier Agency (NEFA) which India annexed in 1987. Calling it “Zangnan” (Southern Tibet), China is proceeding with reported plans to build a military base in Siriguri or its vicinity, this could further isolate NEFA. A Chinese foothold near this corridor would drastically undermine India’s ability to maintain cohesion in its troubled area on its eastern periphery. India must abandon hegemonic ambitions, favouring mutual respect, conflict resolution, and regional stability. What unfolds next will not only shape the future of South Asia but also influence the global understanding of nuclear deterrence in the 21st century. As both countries return to a tense calm, there are two potential paths ahead. One is to acknowledge the high costs of conflict and work toward sustainable mechanisms of engagement and conflict prevention. Alternatively, the region could once again fall into a cycle of military buildup and mutual suspicion, driven by domestic political calculations and historical animosities. The responsibility now lies with leadership on both sides to prioritize peace and stability. This crisis must serve not only as a warning but as a catalyst for change. Renewed dialogue, especially under international mediation, should go beyond ceasefire terms and aim to establish long-term frameworks by Confidence building measures (CBMs) for Kashmir, cyber cooperation, and preservation of treaties. In an interconnected world, true security lies in durable, rules-based engagement. The time to build that future is now. The current crisis may appear to be de-escalating on the surface, its long-term effects on crisis management, nuclear signaling, and regional diplomacy are significant. I believe in the wisdom of Sun Tzu, who warned that “No nation benefits from prolonged warfare.
