By Mirna Fahmy

A fragile period of relative stability in South Asia has shattered as a dangerous military conflict erupts between India and Pakistan, marking their most serious confrontation in years.

On May 7, 2025, India launched “Operation Sindoor,” a series of missile strikes targeting sites in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir. India claims these were aimed at dismantling militant infrastructure linked to groups it blames for the deadly April 22 attack in Pahalgam, Indian-administered Kashmir, which killed 26 people, mostly Indian tourists.

The Indian Ministry of Defense announced via the governmental press agency Press Information Bureau (PIB) that “Pakistani military establishments had not been targeted.” PIB added that any attack on military targets in India will invite a suitable response was also reiterated .

India accuses Pakistan-based militant groups, specifically Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and its offshoots, of orchestrating the attack and alleges that Pakistan provides support to these groups – a charge vehemently denied by Islamabad.

Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) is designated as a terrorist organization by several countries and international bodies, including the United Nations (UN), the United States (US), and the European Union (EU).

While LeT primarily operates from Pakistan, the country has faced persistent international pressure to take concrete action against the group. Although Pakistan has officially banned LeT, the effectiveness of its enforcement and the group’s continued activities remain a significant point of contention in the international community.

In response to India’s “Operation Sindoor,” Pakistan asserts that the strikes resulted in civilian casualties and damage to non-military sites, labeling India’s actions as an “act of war” and promising strong retaliation.

Pakistani officials claim to have shot down several Indian aircraft. The Indian Armed Forces announced that they had targeted and neutralized air defense radars and systems at several locations in Pakistan, including Lahore, as part of their military operations. Consequently, both nations have engaged in heavy exchanges of artillery and gunfire along the Line of Control (LoC) in Kashmir, resulting in reported civilian casualties on both sides.

The escalating situation has prompted widespread international concern regarding the heightened risk of a broader war between these two nuclear-armed neighbors. In response to the escalating tensions, both countries have taken significant steps, including closing their airspace, suspending trade relations, and expelling diplomats. While neither side has formally declared a full-scale war, the current hostilities represent the most intense period of conflict since 2019 and carry a significant risk of further escalation if not urgently contained. Not to mention, there is another war which is news and social media propaganda that spreads lots of information regarding the war that needs heavy fact checking.

The cross-border shelling has reportedly killed 36 people and injured approximately 100. From the Pakistani side, at least 31 civilians were killed and 46 wounded due to Indian missile strikes. India, from its side, reported at least 15 to 16 civilian deaths caused by Pakistani cross-border artillery fire.

International Sidings and support:

The intense polarization seen in the aftermath of the Israel-Hamas war, where support for one side often leads to accusations of aligning with terrorism, is also evident in the international reactions to the India-Pakistan conflict, revealing underlying ideologies and perceptions. The “Pro-Palestinian” label being conflated with “Pro-Hamas” has led to deportations in countries like the US and Germany.

A similar dynamic is at play with the Indo-Pakistani conflict, where some Pro-Israel voices are now supporting India’s right to self-defense against what they perceive as a terrorist state in Pakistan. This perception is unfortunately fueled by negative associations, such as the “Grooming Gangs” scandal in the United Kingdom last year, where the Pakistani nationality of the perpetrators unfortunately strengthened a terrorism-linked image for some.

In contrast, India generally enjoys a more positive international image, owing to the contributions of its diaspora and the absence of similar large-scale criminal scandals. The background of UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, of Indian origin, further underscores this positive perception.

On another note, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, a Hindu, has notably shared messages commemorating Christian holy days on his social media, a gesture appreciated by many right-wing and conservative figures in the West as a sign of respect from a non-Christian leader.

Beyond these public divisions and perceptions, official government stances vary. Israel has explicitly voiced its support for India’s right to self-defense, with its ambassador stating unequivocally that terrorists should have nowhere to hide.

While the U.S. has not taken a direct side, it has reaffirmed its support for India’s counterterrorism efforts and called for the perpetrators of the Kashmir attack to be brought to justice, while also urging restraint and dialogue.

France has similarly acknowledged India’s right to defend itself against terrorism but has also emphasized the need for restraint and civilian protection.

Conversely, Türkiye has publicly sided with Pakistan, condemning India’s “provocative steps” and attacks on civilians and infrastructure, while also supporting Pakistan’s demand for an investigation into the April 22 attacks.

Echoing Türkiye’s stance, Azerbaijan has also offered its support to Pakistan.

Malaysia has expressed support for Pakistan’s call for an independent investigation into the Pahalgam incident and has offered to play a constructive role if needed.

Meanwhile, a number of countries are prioritizing de-escalation and peaceful resolution. China has called for restraint from both sides, stated its opposition to all forms of terrorism, and offered to mediate or facilitate investigations. While China is a major arms supplier to Pakistan and has blocked India’s attempts to designate Pakistan-based groups as global terrorists, its official statements emphasize de-escalation.

The UN, the UK, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Russia, and Iran have also offered to mediate peace talks, urging both nations to engage in dialogue and exercise restraint.

China’s military advances and European military declines

Beyond the immediate ground and diplomatic battles, the current India-Pakistan conflict is also revealing a critical shift in the regional air power balance, underscored by the surprising performance of Chinese military technology.

According to a Reuters report, a significant development in the ongoing conflict has been the Pakistani Air Force’s claim of successfully shooting down three Indian Rafale fighter jets during a recent air battle. This reported success was achieved with the aid of advanced Chinese PL-15 Very-Long-Range Air-to-Air Missiles (VLRAAMs).

Although the Indian Rafale fighters were equipped with the latest European long-range Meteor air-to-air missiles, the Chinese PL-15 missiles reportedly demonstrated a clear advantage in this confrontation, attributed to their longer range and advanced technical capabilities.

This development marks the first reported instance of a Rafale fighter being shot down in such a direct engagement, prompting serious questions about the Indian Air Force’s preparedness against modern aerial threats and, more broadly, the efficacy of European long-range missile technology when facing advanced Chinese counterparts.

This outcome in the skies underscores the escalating air arms race in the region and highlights China’s growing role as a key military technology provider, potentially altering the balance of power in long-range air engagements. 

Unique Political Factors at Play in 2025 Between Pakistan and India

While the enduring conflict between India and Pakistan has deep historical roots, the current crisis in 2025 is being significantly shaped by a unique set of political factors on both sides of the border. The conflict is a legacy of the 1947 Partition of British India, which created the two nations and ignited a long-standing dispute, primarily over the region of Jammu and Kashmir, claimed by both in full but controlled in part. While the two nations have engaged in multiple wars previously, the current standoff in 2025 is distinct due to several critical political dynamics.

A particularly concerning development in the current crisis is India’s suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty, a vital water-sharing agreement. This move, allowing India to pursue hydro projects without prior restrictions, carries the potential for severe consequences for Pakistan’s agricultural heartland in Punjab by significantly restricting water flow. In a reciprocal move, Pakistan has suspended the Shimla Agreement, the cornerstone of peaceful dispute resolution and diplomatic engagement established after the 1971 war.

Domestically, Pakistan is navigating a period of fragile political stability, with a coalition government between the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) and the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) facing underlying tensions and ongoing friction with the powerful military. While the current crisis has temporarily fostered a sense of national unity, bringing together civilian and military leaders, as well as opposition parties like Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), this unity remains precarious. There is a risk that various political factions will exploit the conflict with India to bolster their domestic legitimacy and divert attention from internal divisions.

An important point to highlight is that both countries’ roughly equal nuclear capabilities serve as a precarious deterrent against an all-out war. India is estimated to have about 172 nuclear warheads, while Pakistan has roughly 170, according to the Arms Control Association.

India adheres to a formal No First Use (NFU) nuclear doctrine, committing to using nuclear weapons only in response to a nuclear attack. However, recent statements from Indian officials have hinted at a potential reassessment of this policy given the evolving security landscape. In contrast, Pakistan does not subscribe to an NFU policy and reserves the right to employ nuclear weapons preemptively if it perceives an existential threat, particularly in the context of a large-scale Indian conventional military advance.

Compounding these challenges, the mutual expulsion of diplomats, suspension of visas, border closures, and reduction of diplomatic staff to minimal levels have severely eroded existing crisis management mechanisms. This lack of communication channels significantly elevates the risk of miscalculation and unintended escalation in an already volatile situation.