The enduring rivalry between India and Pakistan, fuelled by the unresolved Kashmir dispute and clashing geopolitical ambitions, has surged to dangerous heights following the April 2025 Pahalgam attack. While India has long projected itself as the region’s dominant military power, recent developments underscore Pakistan’s capacity to not only withstand aggression but also emerge strategically victorious. From nuclear deterrence to diplomatic alliances, Pakistan’s multifaceted strategy has exposed India’s vulnerabilities, forcing a recalibration of power dynamics in South Asia.
Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal remains its ultimate safeguard against Indian conventional superiority. Unlike India’s declared “No First Use” doctrine, Islamabad has deliberately maintained strategic ambiguity, reserving the right to deploy nuclear weapons if its sovereignty or survival is jeopardized. This stance, reiterated by Defence Minister Khawaja Asif after the Pahalgam attack, imposes an existential calculus on New Delhi. The catastrophic risks of escalation render India’s conventional advantages moot, effectively neutralizing its ability to pursue large-scale military objectives. Recent skirmishes along the Line of Control (LoC) exemplify this dynamic: after Pakistan destroyed India’s infantry brigade headquarters, drone installations, and battalion posts, New Delhi’s admission of defeat via the symbolic white flag in the Jura sector underscored the futility of conventional brinkmanship.
Pakistan’s alliances with China and Gulf states amplify its diplomatic clout. Beijing, a steadfast ally, has consistently advocated for de-escalation, leveraging its UN Security Council position to counterbalance Indian aggression. During the 2025 crisis, China’s mediation efforts and strategic investments in the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) provided Islamabad with economic and political insulation. Simultaneously, Pakistan’s outreach to Gulf nations, whose financial influence and energy partnerships with India are critical, created additional pressure points. By framing the Kashmir issue as a humanitarian crisis, Pakistan galvanized Muslim-majority nations, isolating India in forums like the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).
Though India’s GDP dwarfs Pakistan’s, Islamabad has cultivated economic buffers through regional partnerships. The suspension of bilateral trade and closure of airspace during the crisis disrupted Indian supply chains, demonstrating Pakistan’s capacity to inflict asymmetric economic pain. Moreover, Pakistan’s agrarian economy, though vulnerable to water disputes, remains less entangled in global markets, reducing its exposure to sanctions. In contrast, India’s aspirations as a global economic power make it susceptible to international backlash. The Indus Waters Treaty crisis, triggered by India’s suspension of water flows, highlighted this asymmetry. Pakistan’s explicit threat to treat water scarcity as an existential threat underscored its readiness to escalate to nuclear thresholds, a risk India cannot afford.
Pakistan’s military has demonstrated tactical proficiency in recent engagements. Following India’s missile strikes on civilian targets, including the Subhan Allah Mosque in Bahawalpur, Pakistan’s retaliatory strikes on Kotli and Muzaffarabad showcased precision and resolve. The DG ISPR’s disclosure of India’s “shameful” targeting of non-combatants further eroded New Delhi’s moral standing. On the ground, Pakistan’s fortified defences along the LoC, including artillery deployments in the Leepa Valley, have blunted Indian incursions. The capture of a BSF soldier and the destruction of critical infrastructure reflect a strategy of attrition designed to exhaust India’s resources.
Public sentiment in Pakistan, particularly in conflict zones, reinforces this resilience. Communities near the LoC, hardened by decades of shelling, exhibit defiance. As one activist noted, “Fear does not exist in our lexicon”, a sentiment echoed in nationalist rhetoric from leaders like Khawaja Asif. This societal fortitude, coupled with Pakistan’s portrayal of the conflict as a struggle for Kashmiri rights, sustains domestic unity and international sympathy.
India’s heavy-handed tactics in Kashmir, mass detentions, property demolitions, and censorship, have alienated local populations and drawn global condemnation. By contrast, Pakistan’s narrative of resisting oppression resonates with diasporas and human rights organizations, amplifying pressure on New Delhi. India’s reliance on U.S. support has also proven fickle; Washington’s muted response to the 2025 crisis reflects its reluctance to undermine counterterrorism cooperation with Pakistan.
Pakistan’s triumph in a potential conflict lies not in territorial gains but in imposing unsustainable costs on India. By leveraging nuclear deterrence, diplomatic networks, and asymmetric tactics, Islamabad can compel New Delhi to seek de-escalation. The 2025 crisis revealed India’s susceptibility to water diplomacy, economic disruptions, and reputational damage, weaknesses Pakistan is poised to exploit.
Following Recommendations
- Utilize Track-II dialogues mediated by neutral states like Switzerland to address core grievances, including Kashmir and water rights.
- Mobilize the UN and World Bank to enforce the Indus Waters Treaty and investigate human rights violations in Kashmir.
- Counter Indian propaganda with fact-based campaigns highlighting humanitarian crises in Kashmir.
- Enhance community preparedness in border regions through early-warning systems and infrastructure hardening.
“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.” Sun Tzu
Ultimately, Pakistan’s strategic synthesis of military readiness, nuclear deterrence, and diplomatic agility positions it to outmanoeuvre India in a protracted conflict. By prioritizing attrition over confrontation, Islamabad can safeguard its interests while exposing New Delhi’s strategic overreach.
