There is credible evidence pointing to Indian involvement in supporting terrorist activities within Pakistan. The confession of Indian spy Kulbhushan Yadav attest India’s role in destabilizing Pakistan.
Meanwhile, the human rights situation in India, especially regarding minorities, has drawn global concern. The safety and rights of minorities are at risk, and incidents of violence and extremism in India often stem from deep-rooted internal issues. India has repeatedly attempted to externalize blame— often accusing Pakistan without credible evidence.
Pakistan, in contrast, has consistently urged India to share verifiable evidence, but India has refused. Furthermore, India’s alleged involvement in acts of international terrorism, including assassination plots uncovered in the USA and Canada, has raised serious questions.
As South Asia undergoes profound geopolitical shifts, it has become increasingly clear that for Pakistan, a capable and modern military is not a luxury but an imperative. The recent conflict with India underscored the need for readiness. While war remains undesirable, sustainable peace must be built on the foundation of strength. A well-equipped military ensures that Pakistan can protect its national interests, uphold its sovereignty, and contribute to regional stability
The issue of Kashmir remains. However, India continues to treat it as an internal matter while attempting to internationalize its domestic challenges, such as terrorism. Despite repeated provocations, Pakistan has shown restraint and maturity. In the aftermath of the recent Pahalgam incident, the people of Pakistan once again advocated for peace.
Operation Bunyanum Marsoos was a defensive measure taken in response to Indian aggression, aimed at protecting innocent civilians. It sent a clear message: while Pakistan is committed to peace, any aggression would be met with a firm response.
Pakistan’s armed forces are professional and dedicated to defending the country against all threats— internal or external. The state maintains a zero-tolerance policy towards terrorism and remains committed to regional peace and stability.
Both India and Pakistan, as nuclear-armed neighbours, bear a responsibility toward the safety and future of over 1.6 billion people. There is no room for war. What is needed now is mutual maturity, dialogue, and a commitment to resolving disputes peacefully in accordance with international law.
During the recent conflict with India, Pakistanis viewed the military’s performance with a sense of pride and reassurance. In what has been described as one of the largest air battles of the 21st century, involving 112 aircraft equipped with beyond-visual-range (BVR) technology, Pakistan claimed a decisive advantage. While India reportedly lost five fighter jets— including three Rafale aircraft— Pakistan emerged without confirmed losses in the aerial combat.
The PAF also successfully countered the largest swarm drone attack in the region’s history, neutralizing all 77 hostile drones using a mix of soft-kill (electronic disruption) and hard-kill (kinetic) methods. In addition, Pakistani air defences intercepted multiple ballistic missiles, including the technologically advanced BrahMos. Despite its hypersonic speed and precision, the majority of BrahMos missiles were either destroyed or deflected, marking a significant milestone for Pakistan’s growing air defence capability.
India launched strikes on nine locations, whereas Pakistan responded by targeting 26 across India, demonstrating both technological prowess and operational confidence. Rather than limiting itself to a proportional response, Pakistan elevated its strategy, executing both defensive and offensive operations with calculated precision.
The combined strength of Pakistan’s Army, Air Force, and Navy was on full display. Analysts noted that had Pakistan not demonstrated such military competence and restraint, the conflict might have escalated uncontrollably. The show of force played a key role in preventing immediate escalation, making clear that a full-scale India–Pakistan war was not only unsustainable but unacceptable to the international community.
On the diplomatic front, Pakistan navigated the crisis without losing international support. Despite fears, the IMF did not halt its tranche. While global powers called for restraint, Pakistan gained backing from key allies, notably China and Türkiye. Conversely, Israel— widely viewed in the Muslim world as ideologically hostile—sided with India. However, the broader Western response leaned toward neutrality, undercutting India’s perception of itself as the West’s favoured strategic partner.
Domestically, the conflict exposed deep-seated issues within India, particularly its treatment of minorities, including Muslims and Sikhs. In contrast, Pakistan saw a unifying effect internally, as political divisions narrowed and national solidarity strengthened. Pakistan’s narrative gained credibility, while India’s claims were widely criticized as unsubstantiated or fabricated.
Importantly, Pakistan used the moment to shed longstanding allegations of being a state sponsor of terrorism. Instead, India came under scrutiny for supporting destabilizing elements in Balochistan, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, and other regions.
Regionally, the conflict reset geopolitical dynamics. India’s long-standing effort to “de-hyphenate” itself from Pakistan in global diplomacy was effectively undone. The Kashmir issue, long pushed to the margins, re-entered international discourse with renewed urgency. Indian deterrence suffered a visible and public collapse, as Pakistan effectively countered India’s strikes and asserted strategic dominance.
The PAF’s post-strike briefing became a defining moment. Unlike rhetorical claims, it presented verifiable data— radar logs, satellite images, jamming signals, and missile trajectory spoofing. India’s prized S-400 air defence system at Adampur was mapped and struck, while Rafale jets were reportedly grounded and unable to engage effectively in contested airspace. India’s command-and-control satellite links were jammed mid-battle, crippling their beyond-line-of-sight coordination and fragmenting their operational networks.
Indian drones were either electronically blinded or shot down. Confirmed losses included a Rafale and a Su-30MKI, with debris filmed inside Indian territory. Unexploded SCALP-EG warheads landed in Pakistani fields. Several of India’s retaliatory missiles misfired or crashed within its own borders, with one French M88 engine found in Bathinda and wreckage of a Russian AL-31FP engine scattered across the Akhnoor forests. Satellite intelligence from China’s MizarVision confirmed that Indian strikes on Nur Khan Airbase caused minimal damage, merely scorching ground vehicles rather than achieving mission-critical destruction.
Meanwhile, Pakistan’s precision strikes hit 26 military targets, including BrahMos storage depots at Bas and command hubs at Barnala. The Pakistan Navy maintained underwater dominance, tracking Indian submarines without surfacing its own.
All of this was carried out with calibrated restraint. As Pakistan asserted control over the battlefield narrative, India scrambled diplomatically— reaching out to the USA, appealing to Saudi Arabia, and seeking a negotiated exit. A public comment by US President Donald Trump internationalized the Kashmir issue, aligning with one of Pakistan’s long-standing strategic goals.
India’s failed “Operation Sindoor” became a case study in miscalculation. Even Indian defense experts acknowledged Pakistan’s edge in training, strategic thinking, and execution.
India’s attempt at water coercion backfired, with the Baglihar Dam gates released more from hydrological panic than any calculated strategy. In the end, Pakistan didn’t just defend itself— it dictated the tempo, controlled multiple warfare domains, and shaped the conditions under which the conflict de-escalated. Delhi’s attempt at escalation ultimately backfired— its stock markets plunged into turmoil, and its media resorted to misleading its own population to mask the fallout. The conflict didn’t conclude with a negotiated ceasefire; it ended with Pakistan conducting a precise, evidence-backed exposure of India’s operational failures.
The geopolitical dynamics of South Asia have long been shaped by the deeply entrenched and often adversarial Pak-India relationship. Recent instances of Indian aggression have reignited strong calls within Pakistan for enhancing its military capabilities. In an increasingly volatile regional environment, a robust and well-prepared military is not just a strategic asset— it is a fundamental requirement. This has been one of the most significant lessons drawn from the recent confrontation with India and Pakistan’s swift and coordinated response to it.
Pakistan’s military preparedness has never been more critical. A credible and modernized defence force is the foremost line of deterrence against external threats. While Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal serves as a strategic shield, conventional military strength remains essential to counter low-intensity conflicts, border skirmishes, and hybrid warfare— threats that fall below the nuclear threshold but can still destabilize the region.
India’s substantial investments in its defense sector— ranging from advanced fighter jets and missile systems to naval expansion— are steadily shifting the regional military balance. To maintain strategic parity and ensure regional equilibrium, Pakistan must prioritize the modernization of its own military capabilities. This includes conventional forces, cyber and intelligence units, and advanced surveillance systems.
Given the ongoing tensions in Kashmir and the rising threat of hybrid warfare, including cyber-attacks and disinformation campaigns, Pakistan must ensure its armed forces are equipped not only to defend territory but also to operate effectively in digital and information domains. The military also plays a central role in domestic security— whether combatting insurgency in Balochistan, stabilizing tribal areas, or managing border security and internal threats.
Moreover, a strong military enhances Pakistan’s standing in international diplomacy. Nations are more likely to engage seriously with a state that possesses credible defence capabilities. Military strength thus serves as a critical pillar of Pakistan’s foreign policy— especially in platforms such as the UN and the OIC.
However, the path to military modernization is not without challenges. Pakistan’s economic constraints pose a significant hurdle, requiring a careful balance between defence spending and social development. Limited domestic defence production increases reliance on foreign suppliers, which in turn exposes the country to geopolitical pressures and potential sanctions.
The evolving global landscape— particularly the deepening Indo-US defence partnership— necessitates that Pakistan expand and diversify its own strategic alliances. Strengthening ties with long-standing partners such as China and Türkiye is essential.
Developing a resilient domestic defence industry is equally important. Reducing dependence on imports and fostering innovation will enhance self-reliance and national resilience. In addition, greater investment is needed in non-traditional military domains such as cyber warfare, artificial intelligence, and space-based surveillance systems. Building a national consensus on defence priorities across political cycles is crucial to ensuring strategic continuity and coherence.
As South Asia undergoes profound geopolitical shifts, it has become increasingly clear that for Pakistan, a capable and modern military is not a luxury but an imperative. The recent conflict with India underscored the need for readiness. While war remains undesirable, sustainable peace must be built on the foundation of strength. A well-equipped military ensures that Pakistan can protect its national interests, uphold its sovereignty, and contribute to regional stability.
