India-Pakistan Attacks: A Traditional and Limited Military Posturing Game

On May 7, while the world focused on the Trump administration’s launch of a trade war, a brief but intense military clash broke out between India and Pakistan on the South Asian subcontinent. That day, the Pakistani military announced it had shot down five Indian fighter jets, destroyed multiple Indian checkpoints, and hit several Indian outposts. India also confirmed that at least three of its jets had “crashed” in Indian-controlled Kashmir.

On May 8, the Pakistani military claimed it had shot down 25 Israeli-made “Harpy” drones and accused India of further “escalating the conflict.” Pakistan’s Ministry of Information said about 50 Indian soldiers were killed near the India-Pakistan Line of Control in Kashmir. On the same day, India accused Pakistan of using drones and missiles to attack Punjab in Indian-controlled Kashmir. In response, the Indian military launched counterattacks and destroyed several targets.

Pakistani Foreign Minister Dar confirmed that after the exchange of fire in the Kashmir region, the national security advisors of both countries had communicated. On the evening of May 8, Indian Foreign Secretary Vijay Gokhale emphasized to the media that India’s launched “Operation Sindoor” did not target specific military sites, only terrorist facilities in Pakistan and locations clearly linked to cross-border attacks against India. He also stated that India had no intention of escalating the situation. Another positive sign was the reopening of three sluice gates of two upstream hydropower stations on the Chenab River that had been closed by India, which restored water supply to downstream Pakistan.

Observers noted that although military engagement had not completely ceased, the intensity of the exchanges was clearly decreasing. Moreover, India kept sending de-escalation signals. Therefore, this limited conflict between two nuclear powers is expected to gradually end and is unlikely to develop into a fourth Indo-Pakistani war. Analysts pointed out that the traditional India-Pakistan conflict remains unresolved. This round of military posturing triggered by India, apart from serving domestic political agendas, can only exacerbate tensions in South Asia and does not help rebuild neighborly relations or realize India’s dream of becoming a major power.

The India-Pakistan conflict once again escalated from a seemingly minor incident. To some extent, India exaggerated the situation, turning a terrorist attack into the largest air battle between the two South Asian powers in nearly half a century.

On April 22, a terrorist attack occurred in Pahalgam, Indian-controlled Kashmir. Three gunmen went on a rampage, killing 26 civilians. Without conducting a full investigation, the Indian government immediately concluded it was a “Pakistan-sponsored terrorism” incident and declared a series of strong retaliatory measures. Subsequently, India expelled Pakistani diplomats, canceled the bilateral trade agreement, and even cut off water supplies critical for Pakistan’s agriculture and daily life. India’s simplistic and aggressive approach clearly aimed to pin the blame on Pakistan without debate, placing itself in a favorable position in public discourse and paving the way for further actions.

On April 29, Indian Prime Minister Modi, ignoring Pakistan’s repeated denials and calls for an impartial international investigation, publicly authorized the Indian armed forces to respond decisively to the terrorist attack. He claimed that the Indian military had “full operational freedom” to decide on any military response in terms of method, target, and timing. In the face of India’s aggressive stance, Pakistan refused to back down and raised its own level of readiness, even threatening to use nuclear weapons.

In the early hours of May 7, the Indian military launched the first strike of the border clash code-named “Operation Sindoor” bombing multiple targets within Pakistan. India’s press bureau confirmed nine Pakistani targets were hit. Pakistan’s Dawn newspaper reported airstrikes on five cities including Muzaffarabad (capital of Pakistan-controlled Kashmir) and Bahawalpur in Punjab province, with power outages in some cities. Pakistan’s military intelligence reported that multiple regions were hit by Indian missile attacks and its air force had entered full wartime status. Soon after, Pakistan’s national TV quoted military sources saying Pakistan had started retaliation, launching missiles at Indian border camps, outposts, and airbases, and shooting down five Indian fighter jets. As of the early hours of May 8, Pakistan reported 31 deaths and 57 injuries.

According to U.S. media, both sides deployed jets in an unprecedented aerial battle within their own airspace, involving 125 aircraft, with the furthest fire range exceeding 165 km. It was later confirmed that the Indian aircraft shot down by Pakistan included three French-made Rafale fighters, one Russian-made MiG-29, one Su-30MKI, and one Heron drone.

The Rafale is India’s most advanced main fighter, roughly 3.5 generations. Some military enthusiasts believe the Pakistani jets likely involved in the kills were JF-17s equipped with PL-15E air-to-air missiles and LY-80 air defense systems. The Pakistani Air Force now operates over 150 JF-17s, and the PL-15E has a range of up to 145 km. The outcome of this military confrontation shows that, despite being at a general disadvantage, Pakistan achieved high-level results in air combat, gaining the upper hand over India in terms of morale.

Although both sides fought fiercely and India did not gain any advantage—in fact, it even suffered some losses—this local conflict initiated by India seems to have reached a turning point as India was the first to show weakness.

First, the Indian Air Force, which launched the air raids, did not dare to enter Pakistani territory, and Pakistan, with a sense of restraint, also ordered its air force to avoid entering Indian airspace.

Second, India took the initiative to inform Russia, the UK, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and the US about the details of “Operation Sindoor”. This not only appeared to be an attempt to form alliances but also showed a desire for mediation and an intention to end things while ahead.

Third, despite multiple aircraft being shot down, India was the first to “blink” and show goodwill, emphasizing to other countries that it had “no intention of escalating” the current situation and was prepared to respond firmly only if Pakistan chose to escalate.

The sudden India-Pakistan conflict added a new wave of anxiety to an already chaotic world, momentarily diverting attention from ongoing hotspots like the U.S. tariff war, the Red Sea crisis, the Israel-Palestine conflict, the Iran nuclear issue, and the Russia-Ukraine war. China, the United Nations, the EU, and other countries and international organizations called on both sides to exercise restraint and avoid escalation or expansion of the conflict. Iran and Turkey actively engaged in mediation, while the U.S. government, which usually supports India, maintained an ambiguous stance this time. President Trump expressed confidence that both sides could properly handle the crisis on their own.

This conflict has most likely already passed its peak and is expected to shift toward lower-intensity confrontations or even non-military strategies. However, India’s overreaction, which triggered a major clash, raises questions and deserves analysis.

First, the Pahalgam terror attack carries suspicions of being staged. After the attack, Indian media claimed that the “Resistance Front,” a peripheral group of the Muslim militant organization “Lashkar-e-Taiba” active in Indian-controlled Kashmir, claimed responsibility. Indian security agencies accused several attackers of coming from Pakistan. However, a few days later, the “Resistance Front” officially denied any involvement, stating that the earlier “claim” was fabricated by Indian cyber intelligence through hacking. Pakistani officials accused Indian intelligence of once again “staging” the attack, aiming to tarnish Pakistan’s international image and serve a Hindu fundamentalist political agenda at home.
On May 1, the messaging app Telegram revealed that India’s intelligence agency had orchestrated the attack and framed Pakistan, with the leak attributed to Lieutenant General Rana, head of India’s intelligence service. Rana was later mysteriously dismissed.

Second, India’s refusal to accept the joint investigation proposal is unreasonable. After the Pahalgam attack, Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz called for a credible, transparent, and neutral international investigation. India not only firmly rejected this but quickly took a series of retaliatory measures, unilaterally placing the blame on Pakistan. Analysts believe this abnormal behavior indicates India’s intent to obscure the truth and facts in order to justify military actions.

Third, Pakistan currently has nothing to gain from escalating tensions. South Asia experts believe that Pakistan’s political situation has gradually stabilized this year, though its economy remains in difficulty and security has not fundamentally improved. Actively provoking a large-scale military conflict with India would entail enormous risks, so Pakistan has adopted a defensive posture and is unlikely to attack India by sponsoring terrorism.

Fourth, India has a domestic political need to act aggressively against Pakistan. Analysts point out that Modi has consistently promoted Hindu nationalism and marginalized the Muslim population. His political legitimacy relies on the growing influence of Hindu nationalist ideology, which in turn creates a dependency and entanglement between the two. Terror attacks from Pakistani or Muslim backgrounds and strong retaliatory measures reinforce Modi’s nationalistic and religious narrative.

Fifth, India has taken the opportunity to further advance the “Indianization” of the Kashmir region.
After Modi’s re-election in 2019, his government strengthened central control and the “Indianization” process over Indian-controlled Kashmir by stripping it of its special autonomous status, dissolving its legislative assembly, and changing it from an autonomous state to a centrally governed territory. This further suppressed the national and religious identity of the local Muslim population, complicated prospects for resolving the Kashmir issue, and incited the rise of radical, extremist, and even terrorist forces. The Modi government even attempted to legitimize the annexation of Kashmir to the international community by holding a G20 ministerial meeting in Indian-controlled Kashmir.

India and Pakistan have sharply opposing views on the status of Kashmir. India insists that Kashmir is an inseparable part of its inherent territory, while Pakistan stresses that the future of Kashmir should be decided by its people through a referendum based on relevant UN resolutions. This divergence in stance has led to subtle differences in how the two sides shape public opinion and also explains the frequent terrorist attacks in Indian-controlled Kashmir. Modi’s government, by forcefully “Indianizing” Kashmir six years ago, has undoubtedly intensified the existing conflict. It has consistently rejected Pakistan’s proposals for territorial negotiations, instead demanding that Pakistan first address terrorism before any talks on territorial disputes. In doing so, India unilaterally sets the agenda for improving bilateral relations while forcing Pakistan to take responsibility for terrorist attacks unrelated to it—pushing the peaceful resolution of the Kashmir issue into a dead end.

This round of India-Pakistan conflict, due to their nuclear power status, complex geopolitical context, and fragile internal politics, is unlikely to escalate into a fourth large-scale war. Rather, it has followed the familiar narrative logic and storyline seen in the past. However, through this incident, observers can clearly see that under the Modi administration, India has indeed made significant progress in economic development. Its comprehensive national strength and geopolitical weight have far surpassed Pakistan’s. Furthermore, China, the U.S., Russia, the EU, and even Japan are all competing to win India over in complex geopolitical games, fueling Modi’s sense of superiority to an unprecedented level. This has led India to drift further into the illusion of the “Indian Dream” and the pursuit of great power status, even to the point of losing touch with reality.

A powerful India has not only become “naturally aggressive” toward Pakistan but has also adopted a rigid and confrontational posture in its relations with China. Rather than showing gratitude for China’s support in India’s inclusion in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, India has continuously obstructed China within the organization and in BRICS, manipulating the Kashmir issue through the G20 and even openly competing for leadership among the Global South—bringing India back to the early days of the Non-Aligned Movement after WWII.

In fact, India remains a major South Asian power, a subregional power. Its blind confidence, arrogance, and narcissistic pursuit of a power status beyond its actual capabilities may prove counterproductive. This rash provocation of a rare conflict with Pakistan—and the humiliating defeat in the air battle—might hopefully awaken the Modi government from its self-induced great power fantasy, prompting a return to more realistic foreign and strategic policies, and the adoption of power strategies and goals that match India’s true national strength and position.

Prof. Ma is the Dean of the Institute of Mediterranean Studies (ISMR) at Zhejiang International Studies University in Hangzhou. He specializes in international politics, particularly Islam and Middle Eastern affairs. He previously worked as a senior Xinhua correspondent in Kuwait, Palestine, and Iraq.