The latest phase of the Indo-Pak conflict, which erupted on the night of May 7/8, has gone disastrously for Pakistan. In the absence of tangible military success, Islamabad has resorted to fabricating victories—claiming to have downed five Indian fighter jets or destroyed Indian S-400 systems—and feeding these lies to sympathetic Western journalists.
Pakistan’s offensive capabilities proved feeble. Their Chinese-supplied drones and air-to-air missiles repeatedly failed to hit their targets. Despite 24 hours of continuous effort, they failed to land a meaningful blow.
Realising they were losing the drone-and-missile war, the Pakistani civilian government played a dangerous card: it created the illusion that a nuclear confrontation was imminent. This alarmist narrative compelled U.S. President Donald Trump to intervene. His administration brokered a ceasefire deal that was tentatively accepted by both sides.
But the ceasefire was short-lived. Pakistan’s Army Chief rejected the agreement, unwilling to accept a defeat that would tarnish his military record. He deliberately sabotaged the deal, and hostilities resumed within three hours.
Frustrated, the American administration issued a stern warning to the Pakistani military leadership.
As of now, the fighting has slowed, but the next 24 hours remain critical. Everything hinges on how much humiliation the Pakistani Army Chief is willing—or able—to endure. He may soon have no option but to end the war
Sir: For days , maddening noise from both sides of the aisle( media)provided more confusion than clarity. Your write up was much awaited and breath of fresh air. BBC of modern times indeed.
I have been a student of India-Pakistan for a long time. I have life long friendships that have survived our individual differences and divergences. My take may appear in variance with yours ( 99.99% times I subscribe to your views) , hope you will make allowance for this rarity.
1, Aftermath : ceasefire between India and Pakistan has not brought with it a spirit or a reduction in mutual animosity. The brief skirmish ended inconclusively, with no definitive military victor—yet, on closer inspection, the diplomatic and strategic outcomes appear to tilt unexpectedly in Pakistan’s favor.
2. Disproportionate Victory?
Given the vast asymmetry in size, economy, and global clout between India and Pakistan, it is striking that Pakistan has emerged appearing more composed and diplomatically agile. While India launched a retaliatory strike, it did so without placing public evidence on record regarding Pakistan’s direct involvement in the provocation—an omission that raises uncomfortable questions about transparency and intent. Meanwhile, Pakistan capitalized on the moment. Its swift counter-response and media narrative control positioned it as the calmer player. Most notably, Pakistan has succeeded in reigniting global attention on the Kashmir issue—long considered diplomatically dormant. This reframing has come at a cost for India: a seeming erosion of its steadfast policy of no dialogue with a state that sponsors terrorism.
3. The Question of Terror and Global Diplomacy
The whereabouts and identities of the four alleged terrorists remain obscure, casting a shadow over the moral clarity of the conflict. More disturbingly, India has permitted third-party involvement—especially from global powers like the United States—not just to negotiate a ceasefire but to influence broader terms of engagement. This development compromises India’s long-held stance of bilateralism and non-intervention in its regional disputes. Every newspaper is showing stern and firm face of Indira Gandhi standing taller than Nixon, standing next to her.
4. Foreign Policy Under Scrutiny
India’s global narrative suffered further erosion when its military response lacked broad international backing. In stark contrast, Pakistan found support from at least three countries—an indication of the subtle shift in geopolitical sympathies.
5. Path forward
DEEP INTROSPECTION .
A rigorous rethinking of India’s diplomatic doctrine is not just advisable—it is imperative.
Pakistani army projects itself as a religious force which is fighting the enemies of Islam. Their nourishing of terrorists and continuous cry about Kashmir (they have no locus standi whatsoever) still sells, 240 million people worry about Kashmir more than the education, health or growth. If Operation Sindoor had gone for another 10 days to raze 95% of Pakistan to dust, it wouldn't end their support to terrorists. Unfortunately, there is no permanent solution to the problem. Upping the ante and bringing down the tolerance threshold with every terror attack is a good strategy.
Non-kinetic actions take longer time to produce results but they work well. India should openly support Balochistani freedom fighters and should expedite the infrastructure needed to choke the water supply. IWT is a master stroke, and in 5-10 years time, the dispute between India and Pakistan could shift from Kashmir to Water.
The latest phase of the Indo-Pak conflict, which erupted on the night of May 7/8, has gone disastrously for Pakistan. In the absence of tangible military success, Islamabad has resorted to fabricating victories—claiming to have downed five Indian fighter jets or destroyed Indian S-400 systems—and feeding these lies to sympathetic Western journalists.
Pakistan’s offensive capabilities proved feeble. Their Chinese-supplied drones and air-to-air missiles repeatedly failed to hit their targets. Despite 24 hours of continuous effort, they failed to land a meaningful blow.
Realising they were losing the drone-and-missile war, the Pakistani civilian government played a dangerous card: it created the illusion that a nuclear confrontation was imminent. This alarmist narrative compelled U.S. President Donald Trump to intervene. His administration brokered a ceasefire deal that was tentatively accepted by both sides.
But the ceasefire was short-lived. Pakistan’s Army Chief rejected the agreement, unwilling to accept a defeat that would tarnish his military record. He deliberately sabotaged the deal, and hostilities resumed within three hours.
Frustrated, the American administration issued a stern warning to the Pakistani military leadership.
As of now, the fighting has slowed, but the next 24 hours remain critical. Everything hinges on how much humiliation the Pakistani Army Chief is willing—or able—to endure. He may soon have no option but to end the war
Thanks a lot for your wonderful insights.
Sir: For days , maddening noise from both sides of the aisle( media)provided more confusion than clarity. Your write up was much awaited and breath of fresh air. BBC of modern times indeed.
I have been a student of India-Pakistan for a long time. I have life long friendships that have survived our individual differences and divergences. My take may appear in variance with yours ( 99.99% times I subscribe to your views) , hope you will make allowance for this rarity.
1, Aftermath : ceasefire between India and Pakistan has not brought with it a spirit or a reduction in mutual animosity. The brief skirmish ended inconclusively, with no definitive military victor—yet, on closer inspection, the diplomatic and strategic outcomes appear to tilt unexpectedly in Pakistan’s favor.
2. Disproportionate Victory?
Given the vast asymmetry in size, economy, and global clout between India and Pakistan, it is striking that Pakistan has emerged appearing more composed and diplomatically agile. While India launched a retaliatory strike, it did so without placing public evidence on record regarding Pakistan’s direct involvement in the provocation—an omission that raises uncomfortable questions about transparency and intent. Meanwhile, Pakistan capitalized on the moment. Its swift counter-response and media narrative control positioned it as the calmer player. Most notably, Pakistan has succeeded in reigniting global attention on the Kashmir issue—long considered diplomatically dormant. This reframing has come at a cost for India: a seeming erosion of its steadfast policy of no dialogue with a state that sponsors terrorism.
3. The Question of Terror and Global Diplomacy
The whereabouts and identities of the four alleged terrorists remain obscure, casting a shadow over the moral clarity of the conflict. More disturbingly, India has permitted third-party involvement—especially from global powers like the United States—not just to negotiate a ceasefire but to influence broader terms of engagement. This development compromises India’s long-held stance of bilateralism and non-intervention in its regional disputes. Every newspaper is showing stern and firm face of Indira Gandhi standing taller than Nixon, standing next to her.
4. Foreign Policy Under Scrutiny
India’s global narrative suffered further erosion when its military response lacked broad international backing. In stark contrast, Pakistan found support from at least three countries—an indication of the subtle shift in geopolitical sympathies.
5. Path forward
DEEP INTROSPECTION .
A rigorous rethinking of India’s diplomatic doctrine is not just advisable—it is imperative.
My $0.02
Best Regards
Madan
Thank you— makes a lot of sense.
Pakistani army projects itself as a religious force which is fighting the enemies of Islam. Their nourishing of terrorists and continuous cry about Kashmir (they have no locus standi whatsoever) still sells, 240 million people worry about Kashmir more than the education, health or growth. If Operation Sindoor had gone for another 10 days to raze 95% of Pakistan to dust, it wouldn't end their support to terrorists. Unfortunately, there is no permanent solution to the problem. Upping the ante and bringing down the tolerance threshold with every terror attack is a good strategy.
Non-kinetic actions take longer time to produce results but they work well. India should openly support Balochistani freedom fighters and should expedite the infrastructure needed to choke the water supply. IWT is a master stroke, and in 5-10 years time, the dispute between India and Pakistan could shift from Kashmir to Water.