Sep 02, 2025
Sep 02, 2025
During four days of war about India’s reprisal on terrorists and their masterminds, and consequent a limited yet intense autonomous war with the nuclear armed hostile neighbour, Pakistan, indeed surprised and shocked the global community, more so the Western countries including the US and Europe, which so far had perceived India as a largely tolerant and defensive in global geopolitics. Even, a far more surprising element was that none of them had a prior inkling of the military power and potentialities acquired by India during a little over last one decade largely through its focus to tap own potential of indigenous development and production to strengthen the military capabilities, further assisted and combined with the imported warfare systems and equipment. In fact, the growing economic power and military strength of Bharat has now prompted the most powerful nation on the earth i.e. the Unites States to have re-look at India in the context of the global geopolitics and reset their policies and priorities in terms of their future relationship with the countries of the South Asian region. In the current piece of writing, the author proposes to briefly analyze significant developments in the aftermath of the India-Pakistan 4-days intense face-off.
The Ceasefire
After an intense military conflict escalated over four days from 7-10 May 2025, the ceasefire was implemented with effect from 5.00 PM on 10 May after a direct dialogue between the Director Generals of Military Operations (DGMOs) of Bharat and Pakistan. Even before the declaration by the parties involved, the US President Donald J. Trump made an announcement of it claiming credit for the said ceasefire. Prima facie, this sent a message across the world that the US President played a major role in crisis management through a mediation between the two warring countries. Pakistan not only promptly acknowledged President Trump’s role in brokering a ceasefire but also recommended his name for the award of Nobel prize for peace. However, Bharat officially maintained that the ceasefire was agreed to between the two countries on the request made by the Pakistan's DGMO, categorically denying any third-party mediation or role in the bilateral conflict.
Notwithstanding declaration of ceasefire with the fall of dusk, hitherto fore, violations by the Pakistani military were reported in various areas across the line of control. Similar allegations were made by the Pakistani media and army too. However, it was widely sensed these skirmishes as sort of aberrations owing to gap in communication of messages across hierarchical channels in military and many such violations continues till the following day; however, hostilities from both sides stopped by 11 May (afternoon). Notwithstanding, the unprecedented misinformation and false reporting about what actually transpired between 7-10 May continued in media of both sides, in fact, it’s still on in the social media and by the Pakistani political leaders and military spokesmen. Although Pakistani General Asim Munir, designated a Field Marshall now, has recently given a direct nuclear threat from the soil of the US but during the crucial four days of the war hostilities, the overt nuclear signalling was at a much lower pitch compared to earlier occasions of India-Pakistan crisis.
After the MEA spokesperson stated that the agreement on ceasefire was reached during the mutual talks of the DGMOs of two sides, wherein Pakistan side made first contact, the US President changed his tone and texture that he had not actually carried out mediation but the US facilitated both countries in the process. However, the US President kept on changing his stance and after few days claimed that he didn’t just ‘broker’ the ceasefire between India and Pakistan, but averted a ‘nuclear conflict’ adding that he had threatened to stop trade with both countries unless they agree to end hostilities. More recently, in August 2025 too, while the United States hosted signing of a peace deal ceremony between Armenia and Azerbaijan in White House, the US president once again claimed that he got "things settled" between India and Pakistan following the four-day military conflict between the two countries that could have turned into a "nuclear conflict". He inter alia stated, "They were going at it, they were going at it big, and they were two great leaders that came together just prior to what would have been a tremendous conflict, as you know, a nuclear conflict, probably.”
Bharat has officially maintained as a policy for the decades now that there is no role for a third party and it will not accept any such mediation or intervention in its Kashmir matters. In the current crisis too, Bharat’s consistent stand has remained that the two countries halted their military actions following a direct talk between their military without any third-party mediation as also that such a request was made by the DGMO, Pakistan. The US President Donald Trump, however, has continued his rhetoric of brokering peace between India and Pakistan. The author has already commented on the probability of the US role in previous part. The opposition parties in India, particularly the Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, opted to give credence to US President’s claims using it a sort of political weapon against the Modi government back home with allegations of mishandling the Pahalgam attack and Operation Sindoor, and Pakistan in allowing a third-party intervention. Finally, Prime Minister Modi broke his silence and spoke at length in the Parliament during its Monsoon Session on 29 July. In a speech lasting about an hour and fourty-two minutes, he spoke at length with clear vision on the subject, and the relevant text is quoted as under:
“Not a single world leader told India to stop its operations. On the night of May 9, the Vice-President of America tried to talk to me, he tried for an hour, but I was in a meeting with officers of the armed forces so I could not pick up his call. Later, I called him back. The Vice-President of America told me on the phone that Pakistan was going to launch a big attack on India. My answer was that if Pakistan has this intention, it will cost them a lot. If Pakistan attacks, we will respond by launching a big attack. This was my answer”.
The moot question and crux of the point is where lies the truth among these claims and counter-claims of the involved countries. The author is supplementing in what he wrote in the previous part. Now, if we look at the two world leaders: Mr. Trump is globally known for his egocentric and erratic ways, frequently changing or contradicting even own statements, with too much emphasis on business & commerce with his “America First” in domestic and foreign policy. On the other hand, Mr. Modi, a popular world leader by now despite his opposition within the country, is largely known for his abstinence in personal life, and sincerity and commitment to make Bharat self-reliant with his “Nation First” policy. He has also gained a reputation nationally and internationally - "what he says, he does." So, a logical sequence of events leading to ceasefire between Bharat and Pakistan appears to have been as follows:
Indian armed forces’ well calibrated precision strikes on the terror dens deep into Pakistan territory, successful neutralization of almost all incoming enemy threats for four days, and a lethal strike on major airbases of Pakistan nearly grounding their Air Force temporarily in early hours of 10 May, was indeed a major setback for the Pakistani military with a demoralizing impact on Pakistan.
Consequently, fearing consequences of the war escalation, the Pakistan leadership frantically contacted the US and other friendly countries to pressurize Bharat for an immediate ceasefire. In turn, the American President may have asked the US Vice-President and Secretary of State to reach the Indian Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, respectively, offering US mediation for a ceasefire; but their offer was politely declined and they were told that such a request must come directly from Pakistan through a proper channel. Accordingly, the Pakistani DGMO spoke to his Indian counterpart as per the established protocol, and a ceasefire was implemented with effect from 5.00 PM on 10 May 2025.
Indian diplomacy has always been restrained and graceful; so, the Prime Minister and other MEA spokespersons have avoided rebuttal of the US President's rhetoric and role.
Losses Incurred by Warring Countries
In any hostilities around the world, the warring countries and their military usually tend to hide or under-pitch their own war expenses, material and manpower losses while simultaneously highlighting enemy losses as well as own successes and gains, sometimes event in exaggerated terms. The author has no hesitation to say that, for sure, Bharat and Pakistan too are not exception to this general precept. This author came across many versions of the present war accounts including losses as reported by the authorities and media of both countries as well as it appeared in the international media, including some reports on the cost incurred by both countries, but he has decided to consciously avoid making conclusions or even giving much credence to such versions based on the presumptions and guesstimates. So, let’s first evaluate some such claims vis-à-vis verifiable position or probability of such occurrences.
Pakistani military sources claimed on 7 May that India and Pakistan had engaged about 125 fighter jets in a dogfight for over an hour exchanging long-ranged beyond visual range missiles wherein the latter shot down three Indian Rafales, one SU-30MKI, one MiG-29 and one Israeli IAI Heron UAV. Such an aerial encounter and consequent Indian losses were widely reported mostly by the leftist and left-leaning tabloids and daily newspapers of the West and Arabian Doha-based Al Jazeera, albeit the numbers and variants of the crashed aircraft kept on changing from 2 to 6. Indian private media also mentioned about one Pakistani jet crash during early phase of conflict, and later on, images and video of at least one crashed jet with an injured Pakistani pilot being rescued by the locals were found viral along with the destroyed terror sites on social media. One similar claim and evidence quoted by Pakistani military about the shot down Indian jet turned out to be fake, as it was actually that of a Mig-29 crashed near Agra due to system malfunction on 4 November 2024 during a training flight. On one specific occasion, the CNN anchor asked Pakistani Defence Minister Khawaja Asif for the evidence to prove that Pakistan actually shot down five Indian jets. In reply, Asif said, “It’s on Indian social media, not on our social media… It’s all over Indian media.” Needless to mention, Asif’s reply shocked the CNN anchor and she just said, “You ‘re the defence minister, sir. The reason to talk to you today, sir, is not to talk about content all over social media. I’m sorry.”
The author recalls when a journalist posed a specific question to the Indian Air Marshal Bharti about the loss of aircrafts as claimed by Pakistan and reported in sections of media during the news conference on 10 May, the latter’s calm response was that the losses are part of a war and our all fighter pilots are safe. He added what is important is whether the targeted goal in war were accomplished and it was indeed accomplished. After a few weeks following the Operation Sindoor, the Bloomberg interviewed the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) Gen Anil Chauhan, during which he admitted initial mistakes in war strategy due to which some Indian Air Force jets were brought down. He also said that they realized the mistake, made course correction, and the jets were back in the air in two days striking on Pakistan air defences and air bases, air strips, etc. The notable point here is that he did not say that the jets were “shot down”; instead, he used the terminology “brought down”. Gen Chauhan didn’t give any figures about the Indian fighter jet losses, he maintained what is important is the outcome in a war. Both being 'shot down' and being 'brought down' have different connotations in the context of military operations.
In this author’s opinion, it is well nigh impossible that 5-6 jets are shot down and there is not even one fighter pilot casualty. Like what we see in the game of cricket or hockey, a team doesn’t go by the number of wickets fallen or the number of goals conceded, it’s the victory that ultimately matters. The outcome of war overwhelmingly shows that the Indian military achieved their goal of destroying targeted terror dens in Pakistan with a pin-point accuracy and later on their strikes on Pakistani airbases and other military infrastructure on 10 May with a calibrated force and pin-point accuracy created a desired impact and forced the enemy almost to surrender and seek immediate ceasefire. In this connection, regardless of what Pakistani leaders, military and media as also (biased) Western sources claim, the internet is full of genuine and time-stamped images and videos of destruction caused in Pakistan. As against this, a single reliable image or video of any Indian fighter jet or other damages claimed such as that of the Indian Brigade Hqrs, S-400 Missile Defence System or Brahmos missile is not available; earlier, the images of a MiG-29 shot were convincingly proved as being fake. In author’s opinion, there is no way that a country could hide a huge loss of 5-6 high value fighter jets that too without even a single pilot loss. So, may be one or two jets were lost/damaged or may be even not one; till a verifiable evidence is available, its all nothing but speculations.
Other than the aforesaid disputed claims on 7 May, any other significant loss at any Indian military establishment or equipment most likely did not occur during the war hostilities on 8-10 May. The Air Force Station, Adampur in Bharat’s Punjab played a pivotal role during the Operation Sindoor and Prime Minister Modi himself visited this airbase on 12 May, just a day after the ceasefire, to honour warriors and soldiers, where his image with S-400 Missile Defence System (destroyed as per Pakistani claim) in the background remained viral globally for days. Though the global media ridiculed it as a copycat move, Prime Minister Sharif too visited Pasrur Cantt. in Sialkot with Khawaja Asif, Asim Munir and others in a spirited show off consolidation with soldiers on 14 May i.e. a day after Mr. Modi's Adampur visit. Of course, considerable damages were caused in the border villages in terms of civilian life and properties, including worship places and schools, particularly owing to continuous Pakistan artillery and mortar shelling. Since such a counter shelling was done by the Indian army too, therefore, the losses on both sides cannot be ruled out.
According to reports, 21 civilians and 8 military & paramilitary personnel on Indian side were killed during the Pakistani shelling, the majority of deaths were caused in mortar shelling mostly in Jammu region and Poonch district in the Kashmir Valley. Among the buildings damaged or destroyed were a gurudwara, a Shiva temple, at least two schools run by the Christian missionaries, and many residential units. The only known casualty reported considerably away from the border was the death of a civilian caused by a Pakistani loitering munition in the Firozpur district of Punjab. Pakistan accepted the death of 40 civilians and 13 military personnel in the Indian Air Force strikes and cross-border shelling. The author is not going into such details other than to record that the Indian strikes on 7th May and 10th May on 9 terrorist camps and 11 Pakistani airbases respectively had a surprise element and it is likely that the causalities may have been much higher than what has been conceded. The Indian military and other official sources have consistently maintained that over a hundred terrorists were liquidated in the air strikes on 7th May in 9 terrorist camps (Jaish spokesman death death of 10 relatives and supporters of Masood Azhar) and that they also effectively ensured that any collateral damage is not done to the civilians in Pakistan. On their part, Pakistan counts killing of terrorists as their civilian deaths.
In terms of strikes on terrorist dens in Pakistan, the most significant achievement of the Indian armed forces was the destruction of the Jaish-e-Mohammad and Lashkar-e-Taiba headquarters at Bahawalpur and Muridke in Pakistan's Punjab state, respectively. The New York Times and Washington Post are consistently known for the negative portrayal of India but even they published reports with satellite images with reports that at least six airbases of Pakistan suffered major damages during the Indian air strikes. Reports emanating from the independent sources suggest significant damages at the Nur Khan airbase in at least two missile strikes and drone attacks, including roof tops, hangars, mobile control towers, and so on. The Indian missile attack at the PAF Bolari airbase located about 160 km away from Karachi known for housing Saab 2000 Erieye AEW&CS squadron and other aircrafts suffered about 60 feet wide crater on the aircraft hangar alone. Similarly, Shahbaz airbase had almost a 100 feet wide crater in an aircraft hangar and damaged Air Traffic Control Tower. The satellite images clearly showed a huge crater on the runway too, a damaged airport lounge and a 100 feet wide crater in the apron area…the airport was declared closed for a considerable period. Similar extensive damages were observed at other airbases hit, including PAF Mushaf (Sargodha) and Sukkur. Experts believe that Pakistan lost at least one AEW&CS, 6-7 fighter jets (in air and hangar), radars and air defence system in Indian strikes.
Who is Winner of the War?
The foregoing factual account is sufficed for the readers to make a credible conclusion about the winner of the current India-Pakistan military conflict; however, let’s consider just a few stances of the Pakistani version to begin with. Immediately after the ceasefire, the National Assembly of Pakistan was convened on 12 May to celebrate, and many ministers and senators claimed the ceasefire a victory for the nation. Later on, Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif spoke on a ceremonial occasion that their offensive against Indian missile storage facility and airbases was a “grand success” and that henceforth the achievement will be celebrated on 10 May every year. The Defence Minister Khawaja Asif targeted the Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi calling him a “defeated gambler” while yet another senator commented that Modi’s address to the domestic audience sounded like a “clear admission of a humiliating defeat”. On 20 May 2025, the Pakistan government re-designated (promotion) Chief of Army Staff Asim Munir as "Field Marshal" citing that he exhibited an exemplary leadership and remarkable success in military operation against India during the 4-days war. Air Chief Marshal ZA Babar too was granted a second tenure extension arguably 'in recognition of his operational excellence' during the operation. PM Sharif made a statement on 15 May that they have avenged their defeat in 1971 war.
Pakistan announced on 21 May that it would nominate US President Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize, citing his role in brokering the ceasefire. After a few weeks, Shehbaz Sharif visited Azerbaijan to attend its Independence Day on 28 May. While speaking on this occasion, he inter alia stated that Pakistan military led by Field Marshall Asim Munir had planned a massive response to teach India a lesson after 4.30 AM Islamic prayer (Fajr) on 10 May but India preempted their move by attacking Pakistani airbases with Brahmos missiles. It is not clear whether this was a "tongue slip" or a "genuine admission", but with this statement, Pakistani prime minister contradicted his own previous claims of victory over India. Later, while speaking at Jinnah Stadium in Islamabad on 14 August (Pakistan’s Independence Day), Sharif equated the occasion with the celebration of freedom as Marka-e-Haq (the mark of truth). He said that Pakistan’s historic victory in Marka-e-Haq during the four-day war imposed by India has not only reinforced the sanctity of their (Pakistan) freedom, but has also instilled a renewed sense of ambition and national spirit. Lauding Pakistani military, he added, “They taught India the lesson which its future generations will also remember until judgement day.” Pakistani President Asif A. Zardari too echoed somewhat similar sentiments and rhetoric during his speech.
Compared to Pakistan military and political leadership, such rhetoric or unsubstantiated claims were neither made by the Indian military nor its political leadership. Prime Minister indeed said on 12 May that Bharat has always defeated Pakistan on the battlefield, and Operation Sindoor has added a new dimension. He further added that the military action has only been paused and will strike again if any further “terrorist attack” occurs. In an interview with the Reuters, India's Chief of Defence Staff General Anil Chauhan said that the Indian Air Force flew all variants of aircraft with all types of ordinances on the 10th May and most of the strikes had achieved pinpoint accuracy with some even to a metre to whatever was our selected mean point of impact. Pakistan’s claims of the destruction of India’s S-400 and Brahmos systems proved to be only a malicious misinformation campaign. Indian military released time-stamped images of almost all high-value targets in Pakistan as evidence, and accepted minor losses to its airbases in Pathankot, Udhampur, Adampur and Bhuj.
The bias of the Western news media in war reporting, particularly by the leftist and left-leaning media and newspapers, was clearly visible when the Operation Sindoor began, and even after the ceasefire. However, when the time-stamped satellite images were produced by the Indian military and some of the media groups had their own independent satellite images, some of them had no option but to modify and fine-tune their approach in reporting. For instance, The New York Times and The Washington Post are almost perennial critics of Bharat and Modi government, and for the sake of brevity, the author would briefly quote the essence of reporting by these two papers only here on the subject. The New York Times wrote that India had a clear edge in its targeting of Pakistan’s military facilities and airfields. Further, India’s role was "assertive" and "aggressive", establishing a new level of deterrence with Pakistan. The Times commented that India struck targets deeper inside the enemy territory hitting close enough location marked with “terrorist activities”, and that India could claim victory against these groups. The Washington Post noted that the Pakistan’s celebration of victory following the ceasefire “may be clouding a clearheaded assessment” and the “regional status qua had been upended” with more aggressive strikes by India.
The author would like to conclude this issue by quoting the recent remarks of Field Marshal Asim Munir from the American soil. According to reports, addressing an event of non-resident Pakistanis at Tampa, Florida on 11 August 2025, the de facto military ruler of Pakistan openly threatened to wage a “nuclear war” to take down “half the world” if his country faced an existential threat in a future war with India. Quite obviously, this could be a rhetoric of "a frightened and desperate dictator" but certainly not the "wisdom quote of a winner" of a recent war. In this author’s opinion, the Operation Sindoor marked a significant turning point in India-Pakistan strategic power balance. Bharat carried out well calibrated and precision strikes on the fortified terrorists and well guarded military targets deep into the enemy territory largely with the indigenously developed or assembled warfare systems such as Brahmos missiles, Akashteer air defence units, supplemented with its Israeli and Russian attack/defence systems, and achieved its carefully planned and intended goals. Bharat not only achieved a victory but also demonstrated its sweeping military dominance over the China and Türkiye supported adversary.
Global Reaction
A. Domestic – Government, Opposition & Media
In the context of Pakistan, it is a globally accepted fact that the real authority and powers rests with the Pakistani military, and the government and political leadership of any party depends on its support. A classic example to validate this averment could be fact that US President Donald Trump chose Pakistan's Gen Asim Munir to have a one-to-one dialogue with Pakistan rather than calling the political leadership of that country viz. the prime minister or president. The last American President's visit in Pakistan was in March 2006 and high level delegations too have been rare between the two countries during the last two decades. However, Asim Munir has been twice invited to America in just two months now by the White House and US Military, after India-Pakistan face off, and two high level US delegations too visited Pakistan to discuss trade, investment and security cooperation. It is believed that US and Pakistan have also reached a trade agreement for exploration of oil, minerals, etc. in Baluchistan. Currently, the main opposition party in Pakistan is Tehreek-e-Insaaf (PTI), and its leader Imran Khan Niazi and his wife are serving jail terms following conviction by courts. His supporters believe that cases against him are politically motivated. Nonetheless, the current conflict with Bharat and consequent crisis in Pakistan united everyone there, including ruling and opposition parties, in their national interest. Nonetheless a few sane voices in Pakistani media and intellectuals occasionally also reflected on unethical military control over the governance and state's patronage of terrorist groups.
In the Indian context, the position is just the opposite. The government, ruling parties, a section of media, and supporters (common people) have favoured and rejoiced the action and achievements of the Modi government and armed forces during the Operation Sindoor. The Congress Party and its associates have ruled this country for almost six decades since 1947, and accordingly, they still have a well set ecology and deep nexus comprising of politician & supporters, institutions & intellectuals, and media & press of shared interests. Narendra Modi constituted his government at Centre in 2014 and ever since his government has firmly stayed in power. Largely surviving on a popular support, the Modi government is currently serving for a third consecutive five-yearly term. This is not the right occasion to discuss the ailments of the Congress and other allied opposition parties, but it is a fact that their frustration and desperation for remaining out of power for so long has grown to such an extent that they have started opposing almost every decision and action of the Modi Government, even if their move goes against the interests of very nation.
When the Pahalgam massacre occurred on 22 April 2025, everyone in the government and opposition condemned the gory event. The terrorists had carried out targeted killings identifying victims on religion but the opposition parties indulged in an aggressive criticism of the government for the use of the term ‘Hindus’ for the victims. They also alleged that the incident occurred due to Central government’s security lapses and grave failure in preventing the terrorist attack. Though the Indian military operations against the terrorist camps and Pakistan military were a tremendous success, Pakistan indulged in a large scale misinformation and fake claims about shooting down many Indian fighter jets, destroying a Brigade Hqrs, S-400 Missile System, and so on. Also President Trump claimed a misplaced credit for brokering a ceasefire on 10 May. However, instead of giving any credence to the Indian military and own government, the Congress, their associates and supporters generally endorsed Pakistani version and indulged in blaming Modi government for the loss of lives and equipment, and accepting a third-party mediation in a dispute involving Kashmir. Instead of acknowledging Indian military’s achievements during the Operation Sindoor, the opposition parties have time and again demanded the government and military to reveal the number and details of the alleged fighter jet losses.
Taking a clue from President Trump's latest rhetoric on India and Prime Minister Modi during a cabinet meeting on 26 Auguat, endorsing Trump's version in own characteristic ways, the de facto Congress supremo and opposition leader Rahul Gandhi forgot even the basic norms of etiquette about Indian prime minister while speaking in an election rally in Bihar, "Trump ne aaj kaha, maine phone uthaya, Narendra Modi se kaha: Sun ye jo tu kar raha hai isko 24 ghante ke andar band kar, aur Narendra Modi ne 24 ghante mein nahi, 5 ghante mein sara ka sara rok diya... ..." (Trump said today, I picked up phone and told Narendra Modi: Listen, whatever you are doing, stop it within 24 hours. And Narendra Modi, instead of 24 hours, stopped the entire operation in 5 hours.). Attacking own party colleague Shashi Tharoor, yet another Congress Party leader Mani Shanker Aiyer, known to be close to Gandhi family, stated that there was no evidence of Pakistan’s role or Pakistani terrorists' involvement in Pahalgam attack, and that none of the countries visited by Indian delegations have given credence to India’s stance on Operation Sindoor. So it appears, Bharat's main opposition party and their allies do not trust what Indian prime minister said in Parliament or what the Indian armed forces presented with evidence; instead, they have more faith in often conflicting versions of Pakistan and American president.
B. International – Governments and Media
Almost all countries that really matter in the global geopolitics, condemned the Pahalgam attack killing 26 civilians, mostly Hindus; while some of them clearly justified the Indian strike on the terror infrastructure in Pakistan on 7 May, many others advised both Bharat and Pakistan to exercise restraint to end the war hostilities, and most of them welcomed the ceasefire on 10 May. Even Pakistan initially expressed sympathies with the victims of terror killings but later on started blaming the Indian establishment itself to have carried out attack. In an interview with a UK news channel, Pakistani Defence Minister Khawaja Asif confessed on 16 May that their country supported terrorist groups for three decades mainly at the behest of the United States. Subsequently, Pakistan foreign office claimed on 18 July that it dismantled the terrorist network and any effort to link the Pahalgam terror attack with the defunct Lashkar-e-Taiba was against the reality. The reactions and responses of just a few countries and/or their leaders is briefly indicated in the following paragraphs.
China, Türkiye (Turkey) and Azerbaijan were three countries which openly came in support of Pakistan during the 4-days conflict with India. While Pakistan uses mostly China supplied defence equipment, a large quantity of drones of Turkish origin (mainly Bayraktar TB2) were used by Pakistan as identified by the Indian armed forces. Simultaneously, the Turkish political and diplomatic hostilities compelled Bharat to review its business ties with them, revoking security clearances and freezing diplomatic engagements to a certain cases. China though officially appeared to be neutral, adopting a stance of calling upon both the countries for the peace and dialogue during the conflict, but they are also believed to have supported Pakistan through intelligence, military hardware, satellite equipment, and diplomatic signalling during the war and even in the aftermath. Some analysts have even gone to the extent of making suggestion that China uses the India-Pakistan conflict as a “live lab” to test its military hardware and their performance vis-à-vis other weapon systems.
All along during the current conflict with Pakistan following the Pahalgam attack, Israel affirmed their full support to Indian action against the terrorists camps and their masterminds. Israel’s ambassador in India stated, “Israel supports India’s right to self-defense. Terrorists should know there’s no place to hide from their heinous crimes against the innocent.” France is yet another country that supported India with a clear vision on terrorism. The US President initially said that India has a sovereign right to combat terrorism, justifying the Operation Sindoor. Also the US became first country to designate The Resistance Front, a proxy of Lashkar-e-Taiba, as a “foreign terrorist organization” and a "Specifically Designated Terrorist" for its involvement in the Pahalgam attack. After India once again ruled out any possibility of a third party mediation on Kashmir, US Vice President JD Vance, while urging restraint by both countries, remarked, “This is fundamentally a regional matter not America’s war and not something we should try to control.”
Offering his deep condolences to victims, French President Emmanuel Macron expressed strong solidarity with India following the Pahalgam terrorist attack condemning the attack in the strongest possible terms, “France alongside its allies, will continue the fight against terrorism wherever necessary.” Russia firmly condemned the act of terrorism opposing every form of extremism while simultaneously stressing the international community to join forces in combating this global menace. UK Foreign Minister stated that India had every reason to be outraged by the Pahalgam killings, while former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak opined, “No democratic state should tolerate cross-border terrorism.” Japanese Defence Minister strongly condemned the terrorist attack at Pahalgam and expressed unwavering solidarity with India in its fight against terrorism. Most of the Arab countries while condemning the Pahalgam terror attack, requested both Bharat and Pakistan to exercise restraints and resolve issues in a peaceful manner.
Indian Diplomatic Outreach
Just after a week of ceasefire, the Government of India released a list of seven all-party delegations on 17 May to travel key partner countries, including members of the United Nations Security Council and the European Union to apprise them of the nation’s position following the Pahalgam attack and Operation Sindoor. The chief motives of this diplomatic initiative were to counter Pakistani propaganda, justify Bharat’s right to self-defence against terrorism, and rally international support for the country’s anti-terror stance. This campaign featured multi-party parliamentary delegations dispatched to over thirty countries engaging foreign leaders, media, and India diaspora, including the European Union headquarters in Belgium. The seven delegations included 59 members comprising of MPs and political leaders from the BJP led National Democratic Alliance (NDA), such members from the opposition Congress and other parties, as also many former diplomats. A brief detail of the group-wise name of leader and countries to be visited respectively is as follows.
During the next few weeks, these Indian delegations carried out their global outreach programme to the designated countries, assisted by the Ministry of External affairs. During these visits, the members explained to the target audience the legitimacy and measured response against persistent cross-border terrorism, the collective resolve to combat terrorism transcending domestic political difference, counter Pakistan’s victim card narrative and expose its role in sponsoring terrorism, firm Indian stance of zero tolerance towards terrorism in all its forms, assertion of the nation’s right to defend itself and hold perpetrators of terror attacks accountable, and stressing the need for a global cooperation and effort to dismantle terrorist infrastructure irrespective of where it exists. Among other things, these delegations also sought to consolidate international support in engaging with the influential nations, UN Security Council members, etc. with a view to build a global consensus against the state-sponsored terrorism. The outreach programme inter alia included interaction with the Indian diaspora at various places to apprise them of the nation’s resolve vis-à-vis terrorism and rally their support.
In reaction to the aforesaid Indian diplomatic outreach programme, Pakistan too geared to constitute high level diplomatic delegations around the same time that included members of his government and army, to visit the important world capitals of the countries like the US, the UK, Belgium (Brussels), France, and Russia, etc. to present Pakistan's perspective on the conflict. The Pakistani delegations were aimed to counter India’s outreach objectives, to portray Pakistan as a responsible nation, seek assistance for the resumption of the Indus Waters Treaty, and to underscore the need for the international community to promote peace in the region. Pakistan’s deputy prime minister & Foreign Minister Ishak Dar, the former Foreign Minister Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, and other key ministers, army officials and diplomats too were part of Pakistani teams for the presentation of their case abroad as also, allegedly, to expose Indian propaganda (as they called it).
Changing Geopolitics: US Resets South Asia Policy
It has not been too long when India was on the preferred list of foreign countries on US President Donald Trump’s politics and policies framework. During his presidential election, he publicly acclaimed and acknowledged Indians diaspora, particularly the contribution of Hindus, in building the American economy. Following the Bangladesh upheaval largely believed to be West deep state engineered, the Awami League government of Prime Minister Hasina Begum was forcibly overthrown leading to a large-scale violence against the minorities, mainly Hindus, that continued even after the formation of Muhammad Yunus government in August 2024. Once again, President Trump was among the frontier world leaders who not only supported the cause of Hindus in Bangladesh but also took a punitive action by withholding certain aid to Bangladesh. More recently, following the Pahalgam attack on 22 April, the US not only condemned the terror attack but also acknowledged Bharat’s right to self-defence against the terrorism. So, it looks like a subject of deep concern and analysis as to what has transpired in a short while prompting the President to review and adopt a priority and policy shift in the Indian context in South Asia region.
It became noticeable when President Trump almost blindsided India with his rather surprise reaction to the four-days military face-off in May 2025 following the Pahalgam terror attack. The attack occurred when US Vice-President JD Vance was on official visit to India; and there is a historical trend of such attacks coinciding with the high-profile US diplomatic visits to India. During President Trump's last visit to India, a large scale communal riots were engineered by the Islamists. So far, President Trump is known for his hard-line rhetoric against the Islamic terrorism, and Mr. Vance and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, too, are known for similar views on Islamic terrorism. They are also well aware of Pakistan’s long history of patronizing and sponsoring terrorism; even Osama Bin Laden responsible for the death of nearly 3,000 people in America during 9/11 attack by al-Qaeda was sheltered in Pakistan for a long period right under the nose of Pakistani army in Abbottabad Cantt. Pakistan also has a long history of remaining on FATF grey list, last such spell being 2018-2022 for its failure to enact specific anti-terror legislation and curve terror funding. Nonetheless, the President or other US leaders didn’t even once linked Pakistan with the perpetrators of the Pahalgam massacre. On the contrary, President Trump's portrayal of both India and Pakistan on equal footing and terms was perceived in India as politically insensitive and diplomatically frustrating.
In his present avatar, President Trump is aggressively posing as a committed peacekeeper in the world. Recently, a White House spokesperson spoke citing Trump’s successful mediation so far on six occasions, including Russia-Ukraine and India-Pakistan, to stop war or ongoing conflicts between countries thereby justifying his qualification for a Nobel Peace prize. In the past on more than one occasion, President Trump expressed his desire to mediate on the Kashmir dispute between India and Pakistan but he was politely told by Indian Prime Minister that there is no role for a third party in Kashmir and only issue left to be resolved between the two countries is when and how Pakistan will vacate the illegally occupied part of Kashmir. Despite the aforesaid position, he reiterated the same wish with similar response from Bharat during the current stand off. During the Operation Sindoor, the President initially reacted to the Pahalgam terrorist attack by avoiding any reference to Pakistan’s role and then claimed credit for the ceasefire that India being at distinct advantage had planned and achieved on its own terms.
It goes without saying that repeated public claims by President Trump of brokering a ceasefire, treating both the countries on equals terms and diplomatic treatment, and downplaying the terrorist attack that shocked the conscience of every Indian, was considered unfair and frustrating for India, both politically and diplomatically. It is not a secret that India is the largest democracy in world, fastest developing and fourth largest economy, and fourth most powerful military globally compared to a rather small and weak, economically poor and nearly bankrupt, with an image of a rogue nation sponsoring terrorism. During the recent G7 summit held in Canada from 16 to 17 June 2025, President Trump abruptly left citing domestic urgency and invited Prime Minister Modi to come to Washington when he was already hosting Pakistani Army Chief Asim Munir at lunch in the White House on 18 June. Mr. Modi politely declined his offer citing domestic engagements but later on in a telephonic talk with the President towards June end, he once again made it strongly clear that Delhi will never accept a third-party mediation with Pakistan on the issue of Kashmir. Bharat has also consistently maintained a stand that talks for ceasing military action on 10 May were directly held between India and Pakistan on the latter’s request.
The present US President is widely regarded as a narcissistic, egoistic and self-absorbed person who is often known for being too focused on trade and taking impulsive decisions to prove his mettle, at times calling it the ‘art of deal’. Also, he seems to have a strong urge for taking credit for success in whatever he does or say, and however unmerited or premature the subject may be. Undoubtedly, he is leader of the most powerful country in the world and cannot be overlooked without facing repercussions. As mentioned earlier, Gen Asim Munir of Pakistan has visited US twice in two months on his initiative and invitation. Apparently, a trade deal was also signed between the US and Pakistan during his visit perhaps on exploration of oil and minerals in Baluchistan. Now, it is curious to note in President Trump’s America, an army general gets precedence over the political heads, the president and prime minister of that country just because the global general perception is that in Pakistan the real power rests with the Pakistan military.
The last US Presidential visit to Pakistan was in March 2006, when George Bush was American President and Gen Parvez Musharraf was Pakistan's President dictator. Even high level US delegations visit to Pakistan have been rare during the last two decades. Now, the US has suddenly revived its interest in Pakistan and during the last few months high level US delegation visits occurred visits to Pakistan delegations on trade, investment and security cooperation. During the current global US tariff war too, President Trump has levied only 19% tariff on imports from Pakistan thereby allowing it to remain competitive. As for India is concerned, the US President initially levied 25% tariff on Indian goods - a high among the friendly nations, and then imposed yet another additional 25% punitive tariff for buying crude oil from Russia in his recent executive order. Thus, now India is one of the highest tariff levied country, only other country is Brazil in the same tariff bracket; all other countries including China are placed in lower tariff brackets.
Besides, the trade talks between the two countries have been held in abeyance, the US investors are frequently being asked not to invest in India, and the Silicon Valley discouraged to hire Indian professionals, and India has been even blamed for Russia-Ukraine war. President Trump even called India "a dead economy" along with Russia on one occasion recently as against the fact that India is the fastest growing economy on date. Consequently, he even received vast criticism within own country. Alan Blinder, the former US Vice Chair of the Federal Reserve, said, "India's economy doesn't look 'dead' to most people...certainly not now. India has been growing fast - to call it a 'dead economy' is very Trumpian." Now a German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine has reported without citing any source that US President Donald Trump tried to talk to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi four times in recent weeks amid a raging trade dispute, but the Indian leader refused to talk. Within hours after this news, President Trump spoke in a cabinet meeting that he had warned Prime Minister Modi to end war and talk back the next day or else he will not do any business and impose trade tariff so high that “his head’s going to spin".
So, whether there are genuine factors of concerns to be addressed bilaterally or it's just a fallout of an impulsive approach of "a hurt ego", its a subject of detailed investigation and analysis. According to reports published in some newspapers, despite India's categorical rebuttal, Trump has so far spoken more than three dozen times taking credit for the ceasefire in varying versions. Though one theory of President being upset with India for not agreeing to open its farm and dairy sectors for the US products is in circulation but there seems to be much more than this behind the scene. For now, one doesn’t know how these or other measures will precipitate and shape future socioeconomic, political and diplomatic relations between Bharat and America, officially proclaimed as the largest democracy and the largest economy, respectively. But Bharat has successfully faced such eventualities in the past, and today the country is in a much stronger position, economically, technologically and militarily, to absorb such a shock. If an early course correction is not made by the US to mend the deteriorating relations between two countries, it is bound to have a serious impact on the global geopolitics, too, very soon, with new permutation and combination of nationalities. Bharat's clearly emerging image of the world's fastest growing economy, vast manufacturing potential and infrastructure, a large consumer base, technology and military strength is something that the majority of countries would not like to ignore and prefer to do business with.
To this author’s view, the US President may not be ill-intentioned but his initiatives for peace are often found to be ad hoc with exaggerated claims. From his previous responses, he is also noted to step back and change approach without much caring for the credibility or loss of political face. Besides, there is also a pressure from several well-meaning former US officials and diplomats who are worried about the US-India relations developed over more than two decades' constructive efforts. It is too early to forecast about the future relationship between two countries. However, the Indian prime minister has strongly made it clear in his public utterances that his country would not buckle under pressure from any foreign country. In a versatile global scenario, otherwise considered a perennial adversary, China has strongly supported India on the whimsical US tariff levy issue, and simultaneously both countries have started taking initiatives to sink differences and address mutual issues of conflict. Besides, the current diplomatic overtures also suggest that India, Russia and China might come closer to counter President Trump driven US idiosyncrasies in time.
Denouement
Considering the volume, complexity and magnanimity of events of this essay analyzing the Pahalgam attack and Operation Sindoor, the author had to break it into three parts viz. the Attack, the Reprisal, and the Aftermath, without concluding or summing up it's earlier two parts. Therefore, the author proposes to rewind and briefly conclude the subject here as follows:
The Resistance Force, a proxy of Pakistan based dreaded terrorist organization Lashkar-e-Taiba committed a heinous crime against the humanity through a selective killing of 26 Indian tourists, mostly Hindus, in the Baisaran Valley of Pahalgam, Kashmir on 22 April 2022. The Gory incident sent shock-waves globally shaking the conscience of all humane and right-thinking people. The Operation Sindoor, as conceptualize in Indian reprisal, signifies a powerful and emotionally resonant symbol of retaliation and justice for the loss of Hindu men in the Pahalgam attack, where husbands were shot down right in front of wives (and children), leaving women with their sindoor (vermillion) symbolically wiped away. Sindoor invokes a deep emotional and cultural significance as a mark of marriage and the Hindu married woman's devotion to her husband.
The operation was named so personally by Prime Minister Modi, aimed to convey a powerful message to the terrorists and masterminds that India would avenge the terror and violence inflicted on the Indian women and their families. On being reasonably assured of the Pakistan's role in the gruesome massacre, the Indian Armed Forces launched coordinated and accurate missile strikes on 9 terrorist bases, including Bahawalpur and Muridke in Punjab, Pakistan (4 camps) and Pakistan-occupied-Kashmir (5 camps). These locations were key command centres of Jaish-e-Mohammed and Lashkar-e-Taiba, responsible for several major terrorist attacks in India, including more recent Uri (2016) and Pulwama (2019) attacks. These terror hubs were destroyed with a pin-point accuracy killing an estimated over hundred terrorists.
Pakistan reacted with launching of a barrage of missiles, drones, loitering munitions, etc., most of which were neutralized by the integrated Indian air defence system largely built on the indigenous technology. In a counter strike on 10 May, India targeted Pakistani installations and airbases, including Noor Khan, Rafiqui, Murid, Sukkur, Sialkot, Pasrur, Chunian, Sargodha, Skardu, Bholari, and Jacobabad. These attacks inter alia targeted major ammunition depots and airbases such as Sargodha and Bholari, where F-16 and JF-17 fighter jets were stationed, whereby an estimated 20% of Pakistan's air force infrastructure was eliminated. Pakistan targeted civilian areas along the LOC by continuous shelling of artillery and mortar leading to several deaths and property losses. In retaliation, the Indian forces destroyed many of the Pakistani army positions involved in shelling, including several terrorist bunkers.
The Indian onslaught inflicting severe damages to the enemy positions broke their morale and resolve to fight compelling Pakistan to seek immediate ceasefire. Notwithstanding, between the claims and counterclaims including that of the US President, the circumstantial evidences clearly suggest that the request for a ceasefire indeed came from the Pakistani DGMO which was later mutually agreed and implemented on 10 May (afternoon). India also drew a New Strategic Red Line during the Operation Sindoor that if terror is used as a state policy by any country, it would be met by India with a credible and forceful response. This resolve now defines a marked strategic shift on terrorism as also a “new norm” substituting deterrence to direct action.
During four days of war about India’s reprisal on terrorists and their masterminds, and consequent a limited yet intense autonomous war with the nuclear armed hostile neighbour, Pakistan, indeed surprised and shocked the global community, more so the Western countries including the US and Europe, which so far had perceived India as a largely tolerant and defensive in global geopolitics. Even, a far more surprising element was that none of them had a prior inkling of the military power and potentialities acquired by India during a little over last one decade largely through its focus to tap own potential of indigenous development and production to strengthen the military capabilities, further assisted and combined with the imported warfare systems and equipment. In fact, the growing economic power and military strength of Bharat has now prompted the most powerful nation on the earth i.e. the Unites States to have re-look at India in the context of the global geopolitics and reset their policies and priorities in terms of their future relationship with the countries of the South Asian region. In the current piece of writing, the author proposes to briefly analyze significant developments in the aftermath of the India-Pakistan 4-days intense face-off.
31-Aug-2025
More by : Dr. Jaipal Singh