Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi launched Operation Sindoor to "punish" Pakistan after blaming it for the Pahalgam militant attack without offering any evidence. He then quickly proceeded to seek and accept a US-brokered ceasefire within 100 hours of launching military strikes on Pakistan. Now he claims that India has succeeded in its objectives for Operation Sindoor.
Let's examine Mr. Modi's claim of victory after seeking and accepting a ceasefire so soon after launching a large military operation. In terms of diplomacy, India clearly failed to prove its allegations against Pakistan to gain the support of the international community. Many of India's closest friends, including the US and Israel, condemned the Pahalgam attack but none held Pakistan responsible for it. At the same time, Pakistan's closest friends China and Turkey stood solidly with Pakistan.
Militarily, India incurred heavy losses, including the loss of its most advanced Rafale fighter jets in a major aerial battle with the Pakistan Air Force. In fact, Mr. Modi was stunned by the robustness of Pakistan's retaliatory precision strikes with high-speed missiles and drone swarms. He said: "Instead of supporting India's strike against terrorism, Pakistan started attacking India itself". He clearly wasn't expecting it when he ordered missile strikes against Pakistan.
As to Mr. Modi's other claims about India's Operation Sindoor's "successes" against Pakistan, here's a good summation of their reality as seen by a veteran Indian diplomat MK Bhadrakumar:
"The bottom line is, Pakistan has demonstrated its nuclear deterrent capability. It is as simple as that. If Operation Sindoor were to be repeated every now and then, it would only have the same results and be halted unceremoniously within 100 hours. Eventually, it will not only lose all novelty to our ecstatic TV audience, but a troubled nation may eventually start blaming an inept leadership. Pakistan is a major military power. Creating potholes in an odd runway or rendering a radar dysfunctional temporarily will not intimidate that country. Succinctly put, it must be far better for India to take help from Trump, who harbors no animus against us, to solve the problem and move on with life".
Related Links:
Haq's Musings
South Asia Investor Review
Pakistan Downs India's French Rafale Jets in a Major Aerial Battle
Pakistan's Cyber Attack and Defense Capability
IDEAS2024: Pakistan Defense Industry Expo
Pakistan's Aircraft Exports
Pakistan Navy Modernization
West's Technological Edge in Geopolitical Competition
Modi's India: A Paper Elephant?
Pahalgam Attack: Why is the Indian Media Not Asking Hard Questions?
Ukraine's Lesson For Pakistan: Never Give Up Nukes!
Pakistan Economy Nears Trillion Dollars
Pakistan's Sea-Based Second Strike Capability
Riaz Haq Youtube Channel
VPOS Youtube Channel
64 comments:
This time he looks bad. All those kisses and hugs, deep down a hater.
He has made India a land of hate.
New York Times says both sides, more drama and less damage.
Sushant Singh
@SushantSin
"Chinese weapons gave Pakistan a new edge against India
America and its allies are now scrambling for details"
This is what the headline from
@TheEconomist
is that will be read globally. And not the cringeworthy WhatsApp uncle PIB release of yesterday.
https://x.com/SushantSin/status/1923039592627712062
-------
For military officials from outside the region, the most intriguing one was Pakistan's use of advanced Chinese fighter jets and missiles in aerial combat with Western-made counterparts. What's more, Pakistan claims that its Chinese J-10C fighters and their PL-15 air-to-air missiles prevailed
https://www.economist.com/asia/2025/05/15/chinese-weapons-gave-pakistan-a-new-edge-against-india
Sushant Singh
@SushantSin
Not one analysis in our newspapers so far says what is obvious to everyone, that the events of the last few days have been one big diplomatic failure for India. All those Vishwaguru and Vishwamitra boasts, and nasty speeches in falsetto have come to nought.
https://x.com/SushantSin/status/1922854977266930027
---------
Loss of face as far as diplomacy is concerned: Former External Affairs Minister Yashwant Sinha
By Preethi Nair
https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2025/May/15/loss-of-face-as-far-as-diplomacy-is-concerned-former-external-affairs-minister-yashwant-sinha
NEW DELHI: India has suffered some major diplomatic losses during the India-Pakistan conflict and one of them was the ‘internationalisation of Kashmir and the efforts to hyphenate the two by other countries, said former External Affairs Minister Yashwant Sinha.
In a conversation with this newspaper, Sinha said, “Our diplomacy has taken a hit as Pakistan has not been condemned by any countries” for sponsoring cross-border terrorism against India and being responsible for the killing of 26 innocents in the Pahalgam attack.
Sinha, who served as a minister in the Vajpayee government from 2002-2004, said during the Kargil war, the entire world supported India. Quoting an interview of Vajpayee, Sinha said that Vajpayee turned down an invitation by Washington during the Kargil war.
“Nobody ever told us that we were wrong, or that Pakistan was right, or that we should ask our troops to call off the operations. The most telling example is that the then US President Bill Clinton invited Vajpayee to Washington and to settle the issue as Nawaz Sharif was also there. But he refused to go,” said Sinha.
However, India stood isolated during the current conflict, he said. Despite strong opposition by India, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) allotted a loan package to Pakistan. “No other country stood with us even as we abstained from the meeting.”
Pakistan had the clear support of China throughout the conflict, he said. “Pakistan could not have used Chinese equipment without their permission. During that period, even Nepal was advising us to de-escalate. The fact of the matter is that Pakistan had the open support of Turkey and Azerbaijan,” he added.
While the US claims that it has averted a ‘nuclear war between the two countries by its effective intervention, Sinha said that it is a departure from the stated position taken by India since 1972.
Sinha asserted that by entering into a conditional ceasefire, India has raised the threshold. “Gola and golie rhymes very well, but that raises the threshold. It means that if they fire a bullet at us, we’ll fire a cannon at them. We raised the threshold for ourselves by this statement.”
Sushant Singh
@SushantSin
From the
@lemonde
edit on India-Pakistan. Forget the stenography on Indian newspapers’ pages, this is what the global narrative is.
https://x.com/SushantSin/status/1922880838812762576
-------------------
Le Monde India-Pakistan: A clash for nothing
https://www.lemonde.fr/en/opinion/article/2025/05/13/india-pakistan-a-conflict-for-nothing_6741224_23.html
Not only did the clash between the two neighboring regional powers – the most serious in decades – not have a victor, but Narendra Modi's intended deterrent effect on Pakistan and terrorist groups remains to be seen.
In four days of drone strikes, missile launches and artillery fire, India and Pakistan came dangerously close to the worst possible outcome. The ceasefire, which was secured on May 10 with the United States's assistance, remains fragile, according to a speech Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi gave two days later. He said that the punitive operation against its neighbor had only been suspended.
Modi, who had told Vladimir Putin in 2022, after the invasion of Ukraine, that "this is not the time for war," now nearly led his country into yet another conflict with Pakistan. He sought to avenge a particularly heinous terrorist attack carried out on April 22 against Indian tourists in Kashmir. The attackers had asked the men to declare whether they were Hindu or Muslim, before cold-bloodedly gunning them down, point blank, in front of their families.
The Indian prime minister chose force over diplomacy by attacking alleged terrorist targets in Pakistan's Punjab region. Without providing any evidence that Islamabad was involved in the Pahalgam attack, Modi considered that his enemy was guilty as long as it tolerated the presence of terrorist groups on its soil. As expected, the Pakistani army immediately retaliated. The two sworn enemies entered a dangerous escalation, which was, fortunately, halted.
Neither of the two belligerent parties demonstrated their military superiority over the other during these confrontations. This conflict, the most serious in nearly three decades, produced no winner. The intended deterrent effect on terrorist groups remains to be demonstrated, as does the effect on Pakistan.
Modi's ineffectual Kashmir policy
The confrontation did, however, expose India's weaknesses, as it lies stuck between two adversaries, Pakistan and China, both of whom contest some of its territory in the Himalayas.
Read more Subscribers only After the ceasefire, lessons from the worst India-Pakistan clash in 20 years
The Pahalgam attack also highlighted the ineffectual nature of Modi's Kashmir policy, which was supposed to bring peace and security. His normalization policy actually stems from the theories of Hindutva, an ideology created by far-right ideologues a century ago and promoted by Modi in order to Hinduize India. Since 2019, he has placed Kashmir, the only Muslim-majority region in India, under Delhi's direct control, revoking the constitutional autonomy it had enjoyed since 1947 and ending the local land regime that had solely allocated land to Kashmiris. This was an affront to Pakistan.
Pakistan stocks soar to record high amid budget buzz, IMF tranche
https://www.arabnews.com/node/2600857/business-economy
ISLAMABAD: Bulls took charge of the local bourse today, Thursday, as the Pakistan Stock Exchange surged to new heights, fueled by optimism surrounding upcoming budget announcements and the release of a $1 billion tranche by the IMF, analysts said.
Pakistan on Wednesday received the second tranche of special drawing rights worth 760 million ($1,023 million) from the IMF under an extended fund facility (EFF) program. The IMF last week approved a fresh $1.4 billion loan to Pakistan under its climate resilience fund and also approved the first review of its $7 billion program, freeing about $1 billion in cash.
Pakistan’s federal budget for the next fiscal year, starting July, will be finalized within the next four weeks, with scheduled budget talks with the IMF to take place from May 14-23, according to the finance ministry.
The benchmark index witnessed a remarkable intraday rally, climbing as much as 1,453 points before closing with an impressive gain of 1,425 points at 119,961, marking a 1.20% increase and setting a new all-time high.
“Refinery stocks ended the day in the green amid sector-specific developments,” brokerage house Topline Securities said in a daily market review.
“The government is working to finalize a binding legal framework between oil marketing companies and refineries, with key clauses like take-or-pay aimed at resolving ongoing disputes over product upliftment and HSD imports — a move expected to bring greater clarity and stability to the supply chain.”
Market participation also picked up, with total traded volume reaching 695 million shares and a traded value of Rs39.01 billion. Pakistan Refinery Limited topped the volume chart with 50.8 million shares traded.
Samiullah Tariq, head of research and development at Pak Kuwait Investment Company Ltd, said the market was positive due to recent inflows from the IMF, noting the “expectations of further inflows on the back of the IMF Board approval.”
Thursday’s bullish momentum also comes as the market continues to recover from upheaval brought by the most intense military row between Pakistan and India in years last week. The two nuclear-armed nations agreed to a US-brokered ceasefire on Saturday.
One has to agree with MKB. But Modi is too vested in hate of Muslims at the moment. Maybe he will see the light soon?
@Riaz you always say Pak better. Can your media match this?
https://www.economist.com/asia/2025/05/15/indias-broadcast-media-wage-war-on-their-audience
Evidence Emerges of S-400 System Components Destroyed in India: Operator’s Obituary Published - Militarnyi
by Roman Pryhodko
https://militarnyi.com/en/news/evidence-emerges-of-s-400-system-components-destroyed-in-india-operator-s-obituary-published/
Indian media have published an obituary for an operator of the S-400 air defense system component that Pakistan destroyed.
The First Bihar media reported on this.
During repeated strikes between the countries, Pakistan targeted one of the components of the Indian Armed Forces’ S-400 surface-to-air missile system.
According to Indian media, the incident occurred on May 13, 2025, and the deceased was identified as serviceman Rambabu Kumar Singh — a native of the village of Vasilpur, Bihar state.
As the media noted, the serviceman had recently, on April 10, started a new assignment in Jammu and Kashmir and was scheduled to be transferred to Jodhpur. However, he continued his service in that area due to the worsening situation on the border between the countries.
The deceased was an operator of the S-400 surface-to-air missile system, which India purchased from Russia. These systems are actively deployed in the border regions between India and Pakistan.
It should be noted that a few days ago, Pakistan Air Vice Marshal Aurangzeb Ahmad stated during a briefing on targets hit in India that the Pakistani Air Force had succeeded in destroying components of India’s S-400 air defense system during combat operations.
As confirmation of this, the Air Vice Marshal presented satellite images showing that the airbase had been struck in two locations.
For comparison, he also provided satellite images of the same area taken before the start of the conflict.
Meanwhile, India attempted to debunk this information. As part of a working visit, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi traveled to the Adampur air base to refute the reported strike and appeared in front of one of the S-400 air defense system’s launchers.
In doing so, he arguably confirmed the damage to components of the system more than he denied it. This is because Pakistan had claimed it struck a radar and command post, not a launcher, of which there can be up to 12 units in a single regiment.
In total, India ordered five regimental sets of this system in 2018, for a total cost of approximately $5.5 billion. The first systems began arriving in the country in the fall of 2021.
In the fall of 2024, it was reported that Russia was delaying the delivery of S-400air defense systems to India due to its own needs, specifically, the large number of system components destroyed by the Ukrainian Defense Forces.
Post by Arnaud Bertrand:
https://x.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1921600758887399540
Its (India's) strategy of multi-alignment, both with the Global South and the West, is meant to court people on both "sides" but the result - illustrated by the global reaction to the altercation with Pakistan - is much the contrary: everyone sees India as hedging its bets rather than standing on principle, ultimately breeding distrust from all quarters rather than the support it seeks to cultivate.
Let's be real: in the Global South people almost universally see India as the weak link in the BRICS, the country trying to undermine collective South-South cooperation whenever it conflicts with its parallel ambitions of being embraced by Western powers.
India's strong Islamophobia also obviously doesn't help when such a huge proportion of the Global South is Muslim...
And in the West it's much the same story: people look at things like Modi's record at home, its strong ties with Russia, and view India as a player that they don't really identify with.
And on top of that, when it comes to the West there's the fact that India is a) at a very different stage of economic development than they are and b) has a very different culture and historical context.
All this means that there's bound to be a persistent undercurrent of othering in how the West approaches its relationship with India: they tend to see India with a mix of colonial condescension and strategic necessity. And the gap in respective conditions and development status would anyhow prevent India from being fully embraced as a "natural ally" despite superficial diplomatic overtures.
Layered on top of this is the corrosive media environment in India itself and the experience most people have when they interact with many nationalist Indians on social media: to remain polite, one gets the impression that there's an insurmountable gap between how India sees itself on the world stage and how others perceive it.
I'm not going to be paternalistic myself and tell India what it ought to do but one thing is clear: when someone claims 'International Media has turned viciously against Bharat,' they should maybe reflect on whether it isn't the inevitable result of a multi-alignment strategy that has ultimately aligned India with nobody's true interests but its own. And whether the knee-jerk defensive victimhood narrative prevents honest self-reflection about precisely that.
#Modi Under Increasing Pressure From Top 3 World Powers. #Russia Joins #US, #China in Urging #India-#Pakistan Talks Resumption. #Kashmir #NuclearWeapons #Bunyanunmarsoos https://www.deccanherald.com//world/after-china-russia-joins-us-in-nudging-india-to-restart-stalled-dialogue-with-pakistan-3544545
By Anirban Bhaumik
New Delhi: Russia has joined the United States in nudging India to restart dialogue with Pakistan, even as a four-day-long cross-border flare-up earlier this month put the two South Asian nations on the brink of war.
Not only Moscow and Washington DC, but Beijing too recently expressed hope that India and Pakistan would build on the momentum of the May 10 understanding to halt cross-border military actions and “avoid the recurrence of conflict, properly handle differences through dialogue and negotiation, and return to the track of political settlement”.
Moscow consistently advocates the resumption of dialogue and an increase in the level of mutual trust between India and Pakistan, Maria Zakharova, the spokesperson of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, told journalists. She was responding to a question on Russia’s position on the understanding India and Pakistan reached on May 10 to stop the cross-border military offensives and counter-offensives.
The US has also been calling for “direct talks” between India and Pakistan. “What we are happy to see is a ceasefire, and that’s where our focus remains. We want to see direct talks (between New Delhi and Islamabad),” Tommy Pigott, the principal deputy spokesperson of the US State Department, said in Washington, D.C. He referred to President Donald Trump’s words of applause for Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India and Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif of Pakistan “for choosing the path of peace”.
Trump has been repeatedly claiming over the past few days that his administration brokered the ‘ceasefire’ between India and Pakistan and thus avoided the death of millions of people in a nuclear war by threatening the two South Asian nations that the US would suspend trade with both if they continued the cross-border military offensives and counter-offensives. India strongly and repeatedly rejected the US claims and stressed that its Director General of Military Operations and his counterpart in Pakistan had worked out an understanding to halt the military actions and counteractions.
New Delhi also dismissed the US claim that India had agreed to have dialogues with Pakistan on a broad set of issues in a neutral venue.
The calls from Moscow, Washington, D.C., and Beijing for resumption of direct talks appear to be endorsing Pakistan’s plea for resumption of its “composite dialogue” with India – a process, which remained suspended for the past 12 years.
Not only did Sharif, himself, express Islamabad’s willingness to start peace talks with New Delhi, but his deputy and foreign minister, Ishaq Dar, also told the Pakistan Senate on Thursday: “We have told the world that we will hold a composite dialogue (with India).” He, however, reiterated that any attempt by India to block Pakistan's water would be treated as “an act of war.” India put in abeyance its Indus Water Treaty with Pakistan, in response to the April 22 killing of 26 people, mostly tourists at Baisaran near Pahalgam in Jammu and Kashmir by the terrorists owing allegiance to The Resistance Force, a front of the Lashkar-e-Tayyiba (LeT) based in the neighbouring country.
The words of Sharif and Dar were echoed by Russia, China and the US, the three permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, even as Prime Minister Narendra Modi made it clear that if his government would ever hold talks with the neighbouring country’s government, only two issues would be discussed – the end of anti-India cross-border terrorism from the territory of Pakistan and the end of Pakistan’s illegal occupation over the areas of the Indian Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir.
Pakistani cyber team caused severe damage to Indian communications, disabling official govt emails, OTP infrastructure
https://tribune.com.pk/story/2546050/security-sources-reveal-details-of-pakistans-massive-cyberattack-against-india
Security sources has shared details regarding major cyber counter-offensive by Pakistan, under Operation Bunyanum Marsoos, launched in response to Indian aggression, targeting key infrastructure sectors across India.
The cyber wing of Pakistan’s armed forces was “actively involved” in the operation, inflicted significant disruptions across multiple Indian domains, including power infrastructure and petroleum systems, they added.
Sources revealed that the Pakistani cyber team caused severe damage to Indian communications, disabling official government emails and the OTP infrastructure, adding that national communications suffered heavy disruption.
Sources stated that India’s surveillance systems were also compromised. Hackers destroyed communication hardware and defaced numerous Indian websites, they said.
Servers at Indian airports were taken down, impacting the Indian Air Force’s communications and interrupting railway systems across several regions, security sources revealed.
Sources further said the Pakistani team gained access to India's national, eastern, northern, and western load dispatch centres, temporarily disabling systems, adding that the breach cut electricity to approximately 80% of Indian consumers for a limited period.
According to internal reports, over 4,600 power feeders in Maharashtra, 3,600 in Uttar Pradesh, and more than 600 in Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IIOJK) were hacked and disconnected.
In Indian Punjab, two AI-powered servers at the load dispatch centre were disabled. Meanwhile, in Karnataka, more than 235 solar and wind grid stations were hacked and rendered inoperative, they added.
Sources also confirmed that databases of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (HPCL) and Indraprastha Gas Ltd (IGPL) were targeted, adding that over 4,400 government and public-sector communication routers were also brought down.
They added that a large-scale Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attack was launched on major Indian government, military, air force, stock exchange, and public-sector servers, which paralysed internal communications and email/OTP workflows.
“More than 3,500 CCTV cameras installed in government buildings, hospitals, highways, and public zones were also reportedly hacked,” sources said. In IIOJK, over 250 key ISP routers were compromised, resulting in localised internet outages, they added.
The operation accessed and extracted data from over 90 government and corporate sector websites, including those belonging to the Indian Air Force, Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., Border Security Force, Unique Identification Authority of India, and Indian Railways.
Airport servers in Mumbai, Delhi, and Kolkata were among those hacked, sources shared. The Indian Air Force’s communication systems across its northern, southern, and western commands were also disrupted while Indian Railways experienced operational delays due to compromised servers, they added.
Pakistan Armed Forces conducted Operation Bunyanum Marsoos on May 10 as part of the military conflict 'Marka-e-Haq' in response to Indian military’s dastardly attacks that began on the night of May 6 and 7, resulting in the loss of innocent civilian lives, including women, children, and the elderly.
On May 10, Pakistan launched Operation Bunyanum Marsoos and deployed its Al-Fatah missile and targeted multiple Indian military installations. However, after the intervention of US President Donald Trump, a full and immediate ceasefire was reached between India and Pakistan.
Red Marker - پیرِ ٹویٹر
@RedMarkar
Embarrassment of #India continued, this time an article from Switzerland 🇨🇭.
Downing of French Rafale during #Indian attack on #Pakistan offers lessons for West
https://x.com/RedMarkar/status/1923406110410613160
-------------------
https://www.nzz.ch/english/downing-of-indian-fighter-jet-offers-lessons-for-west-ld.1884492
During last week's attack against targets in Pakistan and Pakistani-controlled Kashmir, India lost at least one modern French-built jet to a Chinese-made fighter. The loss represents a call for Europe to examine its own military strategies.
Georg Häsler, Cian Jochem
A Rafale with tail number BSD 001 shortly after delivery in 2020. A jet of this kind was shot down during last week's Indian mission against Pakistan.
Summary
The reported downing of an Indian Rafale jet by a Pakistani air-defense system made in China raises concerns about the effectiveness of Western military technologies.
Europe's strategic autonomy relies heavily on the French-made Rafale, while countries like Australia have opted to use the more versatile American-made F-35 stealth attack fighter.
Experts caution that Western air forces must improve their readiness against Russian and Chinese defense systems, as relying solely on modern technology without good situational awareness is insufficient. On social media, enthusiasts and experts are sharing photos and videos of wreckage from an Indian Air Force Rafale fighter jet, including a tail fin and engine nearby. Pakistan is said to have shot down the French-made plane in combat, presumably with a Chinese Chengdu J-10 multi-role fighter, a model known as the «Mighty Dragon,» and a PL-15E air-to-air missile.
For India, the operation – code-named "Sindoor" – appears to have turned into a disaster. Instead of being able to take out their targets quickly, unnoticed and without losses – as the Americans and Israelis have typically done – the Indian pilots faced fierce resistance. Islamabad claims to have shot down a total of three Rafale fighters and two other Soviet-built jets, although these assertions have not been verified.
Evidence of what in fact happened has been plain for everyone to see. However, Delhi continues to deny the losses, and maintains that Operation Sindoor was a complete success. According to the government, the IAF used precise airstrikes to destroy training camps and weapons depots maintained by two Pakistani terrorist cells. India attributes responsibility to these groups for a mid-April attack in Kashmir that killed over two dozen tourists.
Little information on Rafale's air-to-air combat capabilities
Delhi asserts that the government in Islamabad backed the April attacks in the Himalayas. But instead of teaching Pakistan a lesson with its response, India suffered heavy losses. The news that a Rafale had been shot down immediately pushed down share prices for Dassault Aviation, the fighter jet's Paris-based manufacturer. At the same time, shares of Chengdu, the company that manufactures the J-10, rose.
Investors are not the only ones who are unsettled by the events. In the current geopolitical environment, the Rafale is of significant strategic importance to Europe. What if the system is not up to the task of engaging in air-to-air combat against Russian and Chinese air defenses? What would that mean for Europe's efforts to reach a point of strategic autonomy, which are heavily reliant on the Rafale?
During last week's attack against targets in Pakistan and Pakistani-controlled Kashmir, India lost at least one modern French-built jet to a Chinese-made fighter. The loss represents a call for Europe to examine its own military strategies.
Georg Häsler, Cian Jochem
https://www.nzz.ch/english/downing-of-indian-fighter-jet-offers-lessons-for-west-ld.1884492
France's «armée de l'Air,» as its air force is called, would use Rafale jets to fly potential missions carrying the country's own nuclear bombs. This means they serve as the backbone of the country's nuclear deterrence capabilities. French President Emmanuel Macron has raised the prospect of expanding this deterrence program, which is largely directed against Russia, to the whole of Europe. This would be particularly critical if the United States were to withdraw from NATO, and especially if Washington were to retract its commitment to protect Europe under the U.S. nuclear umbrella. In purely technical terms, the Rafale and the Chengdu J-10 are comparable – but the Rafale does have some advantages. Both jets belong to the class of so-called 4.5-generation fighters, meaning they are consistently upgraded with the latest capabilities, although their signature is (mostly) visible on radar, unlike that of the American-made F-35 stealth strike fighter. Among other things, the Rafale has a "multi-sensor data fusion" capacity, which provides pilots with a highly detailed description of the tactical situation drawn from multiple sources, with the system automatically combining these streams of information in the background.
Controlling the narrative
Most of the information available about the fighter jets comes from manufacturers' descriptions. However, this says little in practice about their practical air-to-air combat capabilities. The information that has come to light about the deployment of the Rafale jets in the early hours of May 7 lends itself to more revealing conclusions.
According to India's Defense Ministry, the mission began at 1:15 a.m. local time, and lasted exactly 23 minutes. For the first time since 1971, India flew attacks within Pakistan's internationally recognized borders. This was a deliberate provocation based on an incomplete assessment of the situation, as India underestimated Pakistan's capabilities and relied too heavily on its own perceived technological superiority.
Behind the so-called Line of Control, the frontier between the Indian-controlled and Pakistani-controlled parts of Kashmir, Pakistan has developed integrated, multi-layered air defense capabilities. These include Chinese ground-to-air systems and a network of airfields from which fighter planes can take off at a moment's notice. Radar systems, reconnaissance aircraft and possibly also intelligence data transmitted via China appear to enable very quick reaction times.
Some of the Indian pilots managed to penetrate this defensive shield and carry out their mission in Pakistan. However, fierce air battles appear to have taken place over Indian territory. Open-source intelligence sources indicate that around 100 fighter jets were involved. The wreckage of the Rafale and the Chinese-made missile that may have hit the jet were discovered and secured on the Indian side of the Line of Control.
Whether the Pakistani air force pursued the attackers as they raced back to India, or whether Pakistan was able to mount an active defense in the forward-lying areas thanks to its high state of readiness, is a matter of dispute between India and Pakistan. Each of them has sought to secure control of the narrative of the events.
During last week's attack against targets in Pakistan and Pakistani-controlled Kashmir, India lost at least one modern French-built jet to a Chinese-made fighter. The loss represents a call for Europe to examine its own military strategies.
Georg Häsler, Cian Jochem
https://www.nzz.ch/english/downing-of-indian-fighter-jet-offers-lessons-for-west-ld.1884492
Operational planning as a key factor
At a news conference in New Delhi on May 9, Wing Commander Vyomika Singh, an Indian Air Force spokesperson, said that the Pakistani military had attacked India with drones and ballistic missiles hours before Operation Sindoor was launched. «Pakistan did not close its civil airspace,» Singh stressed, adding that Islamabad was thus «using civil airliners as a shield, knowing fully well that its attack on India would elicit a swift air-defense response.»
Nevertheless, it was India that ultimately drove the escalation. An operation on the scale of «Sindoor» is not carried out spontaneously, as it requires a certain amount of lead time to prepare. According to experts on the Rafale jet, the errors that led to the jet's downing appear to have occurred precisely during this period of operational planning.
On the one hand, the IAF may have underestimated the capabilities of the J-10 in combination with those of the PL-15 guided missile, as well as the degree to which Pakistan and China were sharing intelligence. On the other hand, the Rafale’s role in the attack formation – or "strike package" – raises questions. Open sources suggest that the French jet was used in a dual role: both as an interceptor with air-to-air missiles and for ground combat using SCALP cruise missiles.
This kind of operation is typically carried out in strike forces made up of several combat and specialized aircraft. These often include bombers, jet fighters escorting them to protect them from enemy fighter jets, tanker aircraft for in-flight refueling and aircraft to contend with the enemy's air defenses. However, according to the information available, India's Rafale jets seem to have been practically on their own in the critical moments of the deployment.
Probable Indian Air Force strike package
Aircraft Role Assignment
Rafale Air-to-ground with SCALP and air-to-air with Meteor Attacking ground targets, alternating with air combat
MiG-29 Air-to-air combat Escort with limited sensors
Su-30 Air-to-air combat Air superiority
Heron Mk2 Reconnaissance drone Surveillance and reconnaissance
Phalcon or Netra Coordination Early warning and control
IL-78 Tanker Mission sustainability
Basis: Existing Indian Air Force fleet in combination with standards
NZZ / geo.
In other words, even a cutting-edge fighter aircraft is vulnerable when it has incomplete situational awareness and risky operational planning. Specialist publications also say that Pakistan appears to have superior aircraft for airborne early warning and control.
Lessons learned in Australia
For potential conflicts between Western air forces and China or in Europe's operational surroundings, the events offer several specific lessons:
During last week's attack against targets in Pakistan and Pakistani-controlled Kashmir, India lost at least one modern French-built jet to a Chinese-made fighter. The loss represents a call for Europe to examine its own military strategies.
Georg Häsler, Cian Jochem
https://www.nzz.ch/english/downing-of-indian-fighter-jet-offers-lessons-for-west-ld.1884492
Conventional air warfare is not a thing of the past: At present, complex, large-scale operations cannot be carried out using only drones and new types of guided weapons. Rather, they still require a pilot's power of judgment. Given this fact, Europe's militaries must continue to procure manned bombers and fighter jets.
China is catching up: While defending itself against India’s attacks, Pakistan benefited from a wide array of Chinese technology. It evidently proved possible for Pakistan to network its air defenses on the ground and in the air so efficiently that the IAF was not able to exploit its own advantages fully. NATO and the militaries of European countries should be prepared for the fact that Russia has also increasingly begun relying on Chinese know-how since the war in Ukraine. This makes having real-time situation awareness and encrypted communications just as important as having enough of the right arms and ammunition.
The F-35 is the key system of Europe's air forces: Pilots can see further using the sensors carried by this fifth-generation fighter than is possible for a fourth-generation jet. In addition, as a kind of data center on wings, the F-35 also requires far fewer escort aircraft to fly counterattacks deep behind enemy lines. Given these facts, the Europeans will continue to be dependent on American technology for conventional deterrence.
Australia, which is directly exposed to the disputes in the Indo-Pacific region, has consistently geared its air force doctrine toward deterring China with precise "deep strike" capabilities. These are based on use of the F-35, which can simultaneously carry out reconnaissance and attack missions as a networked platform. Australia also has plans to use autonomous escort drones, or what are called "loyal wingmen." Close cooperation with the U.S. and other partners remain a crucial aspect of the country's plans.
For now, the downing of India’s Rafale jet has sent a warning to the Europeans that modern technology alone is no longer enough to enable them to stand up to China or Russia effectively. The events show that it will be crucial to deploy resources in close coordination with reliable partners. India tried to go it alone – and failed.
Rabia Akhtar
@Rabs_AA
With all due respect...to claim that India has 'defused' Pakistan’s nuclear deterrent by pushing conventional strikes deeper over successive crises is to conflate tactical success with strategic stability. The absence of nuclear retaliation is not proof of deterrence failure, to me, it is proof of its function: to prevent escalation to the unthinkable. Pakistan’s restraint should not be misread as weakness but understood as part of a deliberate doctrine of calibrated signaling paired with counterforce readiness and countervalue restraint.
Moreover, this framing oversimplifies the risks of normalizing cross-border military action in a nuclear environment. Precision strikes do not remove the dangers of cumulative escalation, especially in a context with compressed geography, politicized publics, and absent escalation control mechanisms.
The suggestion in this article that Pakistan’s deterrence is now void ignores a central fact: India is still calibrating its responses, issuing post-hoc disclaimers about restraint, and most importantly, accepting mediated ceasefires. If deterrence were truly defused, that caution wouldn’t exist.
Folks! Strategic restraint is not submission. It is a responsibility. And the test of deterrence isn’t whether war starts, it’s always whether it stays limited. By that measure, Pakistan’s full-spectrum deterrence remains intact and functional.
Quote
IndiaToday
@IndiaToday
·
May 16
#OPINION | India has defused Pak's biggest weapon - its ability to cry nuclear wolf
By @manpreetsethi01
https://x.com/Rabs_AA/status/1923535899389739342
Did Pakistan just win against India?
By Rafia Zakaria
https://thehill.com/opinion/international/5302672-did-pakistan-win/
There are many reasons for Pakistan to claim victory. First, it was able to show the strength of its strategic partnership with China, which has been supplying Pakistan with military hardware such as the PL-15 missiles that downed the Rafales with AI-guided precision, without ever having to leave their own territory.
Second, Trump intervened at a time when Pakistan had just finished its retaliatory operation against India and successfully caused damage to Indian military targets. This allowed it to claim that India had capitulated because of the strength of these strikes.
Third, the fight brought the issue of the embattled Kashmir region — a Muslim-majority area that has been occupied by Indian forces since 1947 and whose residents deplore the excesses of the tens of thousands of Indian troops stationed there — back on the international stage.
Fourth, the intervention by the U.S. as a mediator weakened India’s claim that America was backing its fight against Pakistan and would look away while India slammed Pakistan with strikes under the pretext of eradicating terrorism.
In a May 11 press conference, India’s military top brass was asked again and again about the downed planes — queries that were not met by denials, but with the Air Force chief noting that “losses are part of combat” and that details would be revealed at appropriate times. In Parliament, Rahul Gandhi, the main opposition leader, questioned the rationale of Modi’s ruling party, calling the whole operation a massive foreign policy blunder that had succeeded in uniting Pakistan and China to create a formidable front against India.
Terrorist camps, as some commentators noted, can be set up almost anywhere, and a few drone attacks would not make a difference. America, after all, still lost in Afghanistan despite thousands of drone strikes.
In Pakistan, the military — whose popularity had waned in recent years following its involvement in the arrest and detention of former Prime Minister Imran Khan — is ascendant again, feted and festooned with praise from the people. It was a David versus Goliath match up, given that the Indian military has five times the budget and military might as Pakistan. David appears to have won.
How the Indian Media Amplified Falsehoods in the Drumbeat of War
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/17/world/asia/india-news-media-misinformation.html
NYT slams Indian media for airing fabricated news
https://www.radio.gov.pk/17-05-2025/nyt-slams-indian-media-for-airing-fabricated-news
US based daily newspaper, the New York Times has slammed Indian media for amplifying falsehoods and airing fabricated news during war with Pakistan.
In a report, the paper noted that while social media news are often fake, disinformation on mainstream Indian media has served a severe blow to journalism in India.
The paper wrote that even some long-trusted media outlets and journalists reported unverified and concocted information, having no evidence or facts to corroborate.
Later on, like Indian attack on Pakistani nuclear base, downing of Pakistani fighter jets and blasting part of Karachi port. None of the stories was true.
The paper quoted how prominent Indian TV channels aired the story of Indian Navy attacking Karachi and fact-checkers eventually found that those visuals were from Gaza.
The New York Times quoted Prof Sumitra Badrinathan that social media misinformation was rife during India-Pakistan tension in 2019 but this time even the credible journalists and mainstream news outlets ran straight-up fabricated stories.
Exclusive: Lammy says UK, US working to ensure enduring India-Pakistan ceasefire, dialogue | Reuters
https://www.reuters.com/world/lammy-says-uk-us-working-ensure-enduring-india-pakistan-ceasefire-dialogue-2025-05-17/
Lammy says countries should respect treaties after India suspends water pact
India-Pakistan ceasefire is fragile, say diplomats, analysts
UK's Lammy accuses Russia of 'obfuscation' over Ukraine
ISLAMABAD, May 17 (Reuters) - Britain is working with the U.S. to ensure a ceasefire between India and Pakistan endures and that "confidence-building measures" and dialogue take place, foreign minister David Lammy said on Saturday.
Pakistan has said Britain and other countries, in addition to the United States, played a major role in de-escalating the worst fighting in decades between the nuclear-armed South Asian rivals, which erupted last week. A rapid diplomatic effort to broker the ceasefire succeeded on May 10, but diplomats and analysts say it remains fragile.
"We will continue to work with the United States to ensure that we get an enduring ceasefire, to ensure that dialogue is happening and to work through with Pakistan and India how we can get to confidence and confidence-building measures between the two sides," Lammy told Reuters in Pakistan's capital Islamabad at the end of a two-day visit.
Pakistan and India fired missiles onto each other's territory during weeks of tensions after a deadly attack on tourists in the contested region of Kashmir that New Delhi blames on Islamabad. Pakistan denies involvement.
U.S. President Donald Trump said after the ceasefire was struck that talks should take place in a third-country venue but no dates or location for the talks have been announced.
"These are two neighbours with a long history but they are two neighbours that have barely been able to speak to one other over this past period, and we want to ensure that we do not see further escalation and that the ceasefire endures," Lammy said.
Asked about India's suspension of the Indus Water Treaty, potentially squeezing Pakistan's water supply, Lammy said: "We would urge all sides to meet their treaty obligations."
Delhi said last month it had "put in abeyance" its participation in the 1960 pact, which governs use of the Indus river system, a move Pakistan says it would consider an act of war if it disrupted access to water in the agriculturally dependent nation.
Lammy said Britain would also continue to work with Pakistan on countering "terrorism", saying that it is "a terrible blight on this country and its people, and of course on the region."
'OBFUSCATION' BY RUSSIA ON UKRAINE
Lammy accused Moscow of obfuscating after talks between Ukraine and Russia on a possible ceasefire ended in less than two hours and Trump said "nothing could happen" until he had met directly with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Indus Waters Treaty cannot be unilaterally suspended: World Bank president
Pakistan formally responds to India’s recent communication regarding the Indus Waters Treaty
https://tribune.com.pk/story/2545864/indus-waters-treaty-cannot-be-unilaterally-suspended-world-bank-president
The Indus Waters Treaty cannot be unilaterally suspended or altered, World Bank President Ajay Banga said last week, emphasising that any changes to the agreement require mutual consent from both India and Pakistan.
In an exclusive interview with CNBC-TV18, Banga said the World Bank’s responsibilities are limited to administrative functions established at the treaty’s inception. He stated that the Bank plays no decision-making role in the Indus Waters Treaty and acts solely as a facilitator
“We have to pay the fees of those guys through a trust fund that was set up at the Bank at the time of creation of the treaty. That’s our role. We have no role to play beyond that,” he added. He noted that any amendment or suspension of the agreement requires mutual consent from both countries.
“There is no provision in the treaty to allow for suspension the way it was drawn up. It either needs to be gone, or replaced by another one, and that requires the two countries to want to agree,” he said.
Banga confirmed that the World Bank has not received any formal communication from either government regarding new developments.
https://x.com/MDUmairKh/status/1922598383652339856
Meanwhile, Pakistan has formally responded to India’s recent communication regarding the Indus Waters Treaty, affirming that the agreement remains fully operational and binding on both parties, according to the Foreign Office.
In a statement issued on Wednesday, Foreign Office spokesperson Shafqat Ali Khan stated that Pakistan has made it clear that any violation of the treaty will be deemed unacceptable.
“The Indus Waters Treaty is a legally binding international agreement, and both parties are obligated to uphold its provisions,” he said.
FO spokesperson said Pakistan reiterated that it would continue to defend its rights under the agreement at all international forums.
Following the attack in Pahalgam, Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IIOJK), India suspended the Indus Waters Treaty with Pakistan and shut down the Attari-Wagah border crossing — a key point for trade and civilian movement between the two nations — with immediate effect.
Quote from My Enemy's Enemy: India in Afghanistan from the Soviet Invasion to the US Withdrawal by Avinash Paliwal
“Pakistan, on the other hand, despite its unhealthy interference in domestic Afghan affairs, has nearly convinced the world of its indispensability for bringing peace in that country. To other observers however, India is waging a well-calibrated, low-level proxy war against Pakistan through Afghanistan. Allegedly, Indian intelligence agencies run training camps for militant Baloch separatists on Afghan soil in order to foment insurgencies in Pakistan. 11 Given the deep historical antipathy between Kabul and Islamabad, India’s presence in Afghanistan typifies the quintessential case of the Machiavellian perfidy. 12 Archetypical of ‘my enemy’s enemy is my friend,’ not just India’s four consulates (in Jalalabad, Kandahar, Mazar-e-Sharif, and Herat) but also its humanitarian aid and developmental assistance to Afghanistan is viewed with suspicion by Pakistan. 13 Those who subscribe to the latter view are convinced that hostility between India and Pakistan lies at the heart of the current war in Afghanistan. 14 After all, the friendships that India cultivated in Afghanistan are indicative of its anti-Pakistan bias. For starters, India’s political, moral, and military support to the erstwhile anti-Taliban and anti-Pakistan United Front during the 1990s is an open secret"
--------
“On 2 January 2016, four militants belonging to the United Jihad Council, a militant organisation based out of Pakistan-administered Kashmir (and allegedly supported by the Pakistani intelligence services), attacked the Pathankot Air Force Station, part of the western air command of the Indian Air Force, killing seven Indian security personnel, one civilian, and the four attackers. 13 Resulting in national outcry, and severe criticism of the government in mishandling the defence of the air base, the attack derailed the India-Pakistan thaw. Complicating the situation further, a former Indian naval officer, Kulbhushan Jadhav, was caught, allegedly, entering Pakistan via Iran. He gave a video recorded confession, parts of which were made publicly available by Pakistan, and declared that he was commissioned to the R& AW from the navy in 2003 and had opened a small business in Chabahar, Iran, from where he undertook subversive activities in Karachi and Balochistan"
----------
“In July 2009, at a meeting in Sharm-el-Sheikh, Manmohan Singh met his Pakistani counterpart, Yousuf Raza Gilani, to assess the possibility of resuming dialogue. India had offered a dossier of evidence showing how the 26/ 11 attacks were planned and executed from Pakistan’s soil and its lone survivor, Ajmal Kasab, was a Pakistani national. In return, Gilani allegedly told Singh that Pakistan had three Ajmal Kasab’s to show in Balochistan and had a dossier on the same, and thus, it would be prudent for India to address Pakistan’s concerns about Balochistan. 146 Gilani had been cautious and limited in his allegations, but the salvo worked. Singh agreed to discuss Balochistan and the associated role of Indian consulates in Afghanistan and issued a joint statement to that effect. 147 The move backfired domestically with the BJP, the CPM, and government allies such as the Samajwadi Party coupled with members of the Congress terming it a sell out"
Quote from My Enemy's Enemy: India in Afghanistan from the Soviet Invasion to the US Withdrawal by Avinash Paliwal
"On 8 July 2016, the Indian army had killed a young Kashmiri militant belonging to the Hizbul Mujahideen (and social media icon) Burhan Wani in an operation. 16 The Kashmir valley erupted in protests, leading to more police firing, and even more deaths and injuries. More than fifty protestors, and two policemen were killed, whereas pellets and rubber bullets wounded nearly 674 persons in a single day, many of whom (mostly teenagers) were blinded by the pellets. 17 Instead of initiating a serious political dialogue, India began to blame Pakistan, a peripheral actor in the protests, for causing the unrest in the first place. In response, on 15 August 2016, the seventieth independence day of India, Modi articulated a shift in India’s approach towards Pakistan from the ramparts of the historic Red Fort as such: ‘I want to express my gratitude to the people of Balochistan, Gilgit, and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, for the way they wholeheartedly thanked me, the way they expressed gratitude to me … people of a distant land I haven’t even seen … when they thank the Indian prime minister, it’s an honour for the 125 crore people of the country’. 18 What for, and how, the people of these regions had thanked Modi was left unsaid. The implicit message was that India was capable of, and perhaps already exercising (both via Afghanistan and otherwise), covert intervention in Pakistan’s internal troubles. The mention of Pakistan’s domestic fault-lines at the Independence Day celebrations in response to unrest in Kashmir, among other issues, was unprecedented. Whether this was empty rhetoric, as in the 1960s when Indian parliamentarians sought to support the Pashtun and Baloch insurgencies in the wake of the 1965 war, or a true shift in India’s security practices like the early 1970s when Indira Gandhi proactively supported the Baloch insurgency, is yet to be seen. But if one is to go by optics, India was now intent on exploiting Pakistan’s fear of strategic encirclement and India’s role in exerting diplomatic pressure on Pakistan’s human rights violations in Balochistan and Gilgit-Baltistan. That this statement came at a time of high toxicity in Afghanistan-Pakistan relations made it even more potent. Parallel to worsening India-Pakistan relations, Kabul’s relations with Islamabad also took a nosedive after December 2015. Afghan outreach had been dependent on Pakistan’s willingness and capacity to bring different Afghan Taliban factions to the table, not all of which were interested in talking”
-------
“Pakistan’s allegations of an Afghan-Indian nexus in Balochistan. Sometime in 2009, the Hindu-nationalist fringe group called the Bhagat Singh Kranti Sena, led by R. S. N. Singh and Tejender Singh, provided shelter to Balaach Pardili in New Delhi. 153 A Baloch from Afghanistan, Pardili represented the BLO and was linked to the Hyrbyair Marri group. His presence in India was exposed by The Hindu newspaper on 8 October 2015.154 The MEA, while confirming Pardili’s presence on Indian soil, categorically denied that it supported a policy of hosting Baloch separatists in India"
Quotes from "My Enemy's Enemy: India in Afghanistan from the Soviet Invasion to the US Withdrawal" by Avinash Paliwal
“Another unverified (and perhaps unverifiable) dimension of India’s covert actions against Pakistan was its association with the robust Afghan immigrant community in New Delhi (and the various Afghans who visit Indian hospitals such as Max and Apollo for medical treatment). 163 Mostly settled in south Delhi’s Lajpat Nagar, Jung Pura, and Saket areas, these Afghan exiles, according to various interviewees speaking on condition of strict anonymity, provided a pool of recruits for Indian intelligence agencies. Trained in spy-craft, sabotage, and other lethal skills, these recruits, or their networks on the ground in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border areas, were utilised to gather intelligence and even undertake targeted killings of anti-India militants based in Pakistan. While there is no easy way to authenticate this aspect of India’s covert actions, confidential assertions of the very existence of such programmes highlight how New Delhi may have engaged with Afghan diaspora settled in India. T, for instance, confirms that the R& AW was making ‘efficient use’ of the Afghan students in India for intelligence gathering purposes. 164 Though unaware of offensive covert operations undertaken by India as alleged by Pakistan, he does not reject all Pakistani allegations (even if he would temper down some such allegations).”
National Interest
@TheNatlInterest
China’s narrative and material backing of Pakistan throughout the current Kashmir crisis is worrying India’s overstretched military.
https://x.com/TheNatlInterest/status/1923815944612163610
-----------------
India’s Two-Front Dilemma
May 9, 2025
By: Anushka Saxena
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/silk-road-rivalries/indias-two-front-dilemma
China’s narrative and material backing of Pakistan throughout the current Kashmir crisis is worrying India’s overstretched military.
India and Pakistan are embroiled in hostilities in the aftermath of a terror attack on civilians in Pahalgam, Kashmir on April 22. India’s military response is the result of Pakistan’s military-jihadi complex perpetrating terrorism and discord in Kashmir. With Operation Sindoor, India has set a new normal by expanding the scale of its response to terrorism. This includes moving beyond Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) and terror camps and sites to striking targets closer to military installations across Pakistan.
This operation was undertaken to respond to Pakistan’s escalation on May 7, wherein it retaliated to India’s counterterrorism response by shelling border areas. India has also demonstrated a willingness and capability to undertake drone warfare, including the liberal use of loitering munition. On May 10, Pakistan claimed Indian missiles hit three air bases within the country. As the conflict continues, the international community has engaged with both India and Pakistan, seeking de-escalation. The path to a thaw, however, remains elusive.
India faces two overlapping security dilemmas—how to manage both the naval and continental theaters and how to face its two most troublesome neighbors—Pakistan and China. As a regional power, a strategic ally of Pakistan, and a threat actor for India, China is developing its own response to the hostilities. Chinese government officials and media are shaping rhetoric on what India-Pakistan tensions mean for each of the actors specifically and for regional stability in general. Beijing is also enhancing Pakistan’s defense arsenal. In this regard, it becomes vital to understand China’s position and role in the matter.
The China Angle
Under the fog of war, information is skewed, manipulated, and hidden. However, reporting indicates that Pakistan has deployed Chinese defense systems against India in the ongoing conflict. The arsenal likely includes the JF-17 and J-10 jet fighters as well as the HQ-9P air defense missile system. In general, China is one of Pakistan’s most vital economic partners, and China itself has continued to invest in Pakistan as a proxy against India. Beijing sustains support even though Islamabad cannot guarantee the security of Chinese assets, including the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) infrastructure in Balochistan, from internal ethnic insurgencies.
In the current context, China’s posturing revolves around three dimensions. First is its implicit backing of Pakistan’s narrative. Though often framed as a commitment to regional peace and stability, China’s position is fundamentally aligned with Islamabad’s interests. Chinese narratives tend to amplify Pakistan’s viewpoints and policy positions, all the while casting doubt on New Delhi’s responses to terrorism by frequently characterizing India’s actions as irrational or excessive. Official Chinese coverage has referred to the Pahalgam attack as a “recent incident in Pahalgam of Indian-controlled Kashmir,” thus denying either terrorism or Pakistani involvement. This approach undermines India’s legitimate security concerns and bolsters Pakistan’s stance on the international stage.
Second, Beijing has sought to project itself as a potential “mediator” between India and Pakistan. However, this posture appears largely symbolic. The primary objective behind the pitch to mediate seems to be to internationalize the issue. This is something that Pakistan welcomes, but India resists.
Husain Haqqani
@husainhaqqani
For Indian friends voicing disappointment with United States policy: The problem lies in unrealistic expectations of support in matters that might be critical to you but are not deemed by your partner to be in their interest.
https://x.com/husainhaqqani/status/1923668182667231512
-------------
Shashi Tharoor
@ShashiTharoor
Mr Trump’s post is disappointing for India in four important ways: First, it implies a false equivalence between the victim and the perpetrator, and seemingly overlooks the US’ own past unwavering stance against Pakistan’s well-documented links to cross-border terrorism. Second, it offers Pakistan a negotiating framework which it certainly has not earned. India will never negotiate with a terrorist gun pointed at its head. Third, it “internationalises” the Kashmir dispute, an obvious objective of the terrorists. India rejects the idea of a dispute and sees the problem as an internal affair of India’s. India has never requested, not is likely to seek, any foreign country’s mediation over its problems with Pakistan. And fourth, it “re-hyphenates” India and Pakistan in the global imagination. For decades now, world leaders had been encouraged not to club their visits to India with visits to Pakistan, and starting with President Clinton in 2000, no US President had done so. This is a major backward step.
https://x.com/ShashiTharoor/status/1921962732972302677
Waronomics: India-Pak wars won’t stop at LoC, they’ll hit the economy hard, from trade to balance sheets - The Economic Times
By M. Muneer
Synopsis
A potential India-Pakistan conflict poses significant economic risks to India, potentially wiping out a substantial portion of its GDP. Key sectors like trade, tourism, and energy face disruptions, impacting businesses and investor confidence. Preparedness through liquidity, supply chain diversification, and robust communication is crucial for businesses to navigate wartime economic challenges and ensure resilience.
Read more at:
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/opinion/et-commentary/waronomics-india-pak-wars-wont-stop-at-loc-theyll-hit-the-economy-hard-from-trade-to-balance-sheets/articleshow/121218911.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst
https://m.economictimes.com/opinion/et-commentary/waronomics-india-pak-wars-wont-stop-at-loc-theyll-hit-the-economy-hard-from-trade-to-balance-sheets/articleshow/121218911.cms
All wars are economically destructive. A full-blown India-Pakistan conflict would be no different. Its consequences wouldn't stay limited to LoC. They would jolt India's economy, the world's fastest-growing large economy, rupturing key arteries and showing up clearly on balance sheets. Therefore, India has more to lose than Pakistan, and a war would result in industries haemorrhaging, investor sentiment shaken and GDP growth limping.
Today's wars are not waged solely with tanks and missiles. They scorch fiscal budgets, fracture trade corridors and unsettle capital markets. Economists forecast that a sustained India-Pakistan conflict could wipe out 1.5-3% of India's GDP. Based on anticipated FY26 GDP of ₹300 lakh cr, that's an economic loss of up to ₹9 lakh cr, roughly the size of some national budgets. Since border tensions escalated earlier this month, the rupee has plunged to ₹85.57 a dollar, its steepest fall in recent years. FIIs have pulled out $1.7 bn within two weeks. Historical warnings paint a clear picture:
Kargil war (1999) cost over ₹5,000 cr. That's a fraction of what a modern-day conflict would demand.
Galwan clash (2020) with China caused momentary market tremors. But a two-front war involving Pakistan could inflict deeper, longer scars.
Uri surgical strikes (2016) triggered an immediate 2% decline in equity indices, and 1.6% fall in the rupee.
Analysts fear that today, with greater capital market exposure and tighter global interlinkages, the same events would have 2-3x the financial impact. Many sectors are vulnerable to immediate shocks.
Trade and logistics: Although formal trade with Pakistan remains symbolic post-2019, war hampers vital trade infra. Kandla, Mundra and Mumbai face threats of shipping insurance premiums and logistical bottlenecks. India's connectivity with Central Asia, already under strain, may be choked
tourism and hospitality: In FY24, the sector generated over ₹16 lakh cr in revenue. A full-scale war could vaporise ₹2 lakh cr from this, with cancellations cascading across airlines, hotels and allied services.
Energy and commodities: India imports more than 80% of its crude oil. In the event of war, crude prices could soar by $10-15 a barrel, inflating India's CAD by 0.4% of GDP and stoking consumer inflation by up to 0.6%, according to RBI estimates.
Transport network: Disruptions in road, rail and air networks, coupled with volatile raw material prices, could cripple MSMEs, as many of them lack the capital buffers to survive prolonged crises. Many analysts estimate a potential 20% contraction in output if war drags beyond six weeks.
Finance: Capital markets abhor uncertainty. In previous episodes of conflict, equity indices slid by 5-8% in the immediate aftermath of escalation. While domestic institutions have stabilised recent declines, foreign investors remain skittish. Global funds with ESG mandates are reassessing allocations, wary of reputational and regulatory risks.
Shashank Joshi
@shashj
Indian police arrest a political science professor for remarks about the Indian military operation “under charges that point to sedition”. It’s a remarkable charge because his comments are broadly supportive of the strikes and totally innocuous.
https://x.com/shashj/status/1924035635326701717
------------
Full Text | Ashoka University Professor Ali Mahmudabad's Posts that Haryana Police Calls ‘Sedition’
https://thewire.in/rights/full-text-ashoka-university-professor-ali-mahmudabads-posts-that-haryana-police-calls-sedition
War is brutal. The poor suffer disproportionately and the only people who benefit are politicians and defence companies. While war is inevitable because politics is primarily rooted in violence – at least human history teaches us this –we have to realise that political conflicts have never been solved militarily.
Lastly, I am very happy to see so many right wing commentators applauding Colonel Sophia Qureishi, but perhaps they could also equally loudly demand that the victims of mob lynchings, arbitrary bulldozing and others who are victims of the BJP’s hate mongering be protected as Indian citizens. The optics of two women soldiers presenting their findings is important, but optics must translate to reality on the ground otherwise it’s just hypocrisy.
When a prominent Muslim politicians said “Pakistan Murdabad” and was trolled by Pakistanis for doing so – Indian right wing commentators defended him by saying “he is our mulla.” Of course this is funny but it also points to just how deep communalism has managed to infect the indian body politic.
For me, the press conference was just a fleeting glimpse – an illusion and allusion perhaps – to an India that defied the logic on which Pakistan was built. As I said, the grassroots reality that common Muslims face is different from what the government tried to show but at the same time the press conference shows that an India, united it its diversity, is not completely dead as an idea.
Jai Hind
Shashank Joshi
@shashj
Indian police arrest a political science professor for remarks about the Indian military operation “under charges that point to sedition”. It’s a remarkable charge because his comments are broadly supportive of the strikes and totally innocuous.
https://x.com/shashj/status/1924035635326701717
------------
Full Text | Ashoka University Professor Ali Mahmudabad's Posts that Haryana Police Calls ‘Sedition’
https://thewire.in/rights/full-text-ashoka-university-professor-ali-mahmudabads-posts-that-haryana-police-calls-sedition
War is brutal. The poor suffer disproportionately and the only people who benefit are politicians and defence companies. While war is inevitable because politics is primarily rooted in violence – at least human history teaches us this –we have to realise that political conflicts have never been solved militarily.
Lastly, I am very happy to see so many right wing commentators applauding Colonel Sophia Qureishi, but perhaps they could also equally loudly demand that the victims of mob lynchings, arbitrary bulldozing and others who are victims of the BJP’s hate mongering be protected as Indian citizens. The optics of two women soldiers presenting their findings is important, but optics must translate to reality on the ground otherwise it’s just hypocrisy.
When a prominent Muslim politicians said “Pakistan Murdabad” and was trolled by Pakistanis for doing so – Indian right wing commentators defended him by saying “he is our mulla.” Of course this is funny but it also points to just how deep communalism has managed to infect the indian body politic.
For me, the press conference was just a fleeting glimpse – an illusion and allusion perhaps – to an India that defied the logic on which Pakistan was built. As I said, the grassroots reality that common Muslims face is different from what the government tried to show but at the same time the press conference shows that an India, united it its diversity, is not completely dead as an idea.
Jai Hind
Salam Sir
Thanks for this post, agree that PAF did a great job using these Chinese made jet fighters but the question is that why is now the Western media started to compare the Western millitary and it's defence technologies with those of China?
Sir do you really think their is a competition going on between Western millitary and defence technologies and those of China's millitary technologies?
And this comparison is being drawn specially because Rafael which were made by French company were being shot down but PAF and as you know Rafael is a French aircraft.
Sir if we go into the history we will see that their was also war between India and Pakistan in 1965, and even at that time PAF( Pakistan Airforce) gave a very hard time to IAF(Indian Airforce) and according to some study and analysis, PAF shot down at least 120 or little more IAF planes and IAF shot down only 35 PAF aircrafts in the war of 1965.
Sir after this defeat of IAF by PAF in the war of 1965 , why didn't the Western media made any comparison between Western millitary and defence technology with the Russian millitary and defence technologies because at that time PAF was using mostly American airforce planes and IAF( Indian Airforce) was only using mostly Russian made aircrafts?
I hope my questions are clear.
Thanks
FJ
@Natsecjeff
Yet more evidence that in all likelihood Pakistan did in fact successfully hit the Indian S-400.
Indian journalist Vishnu Som: Pakistan launched two hypersonic missiles from a JF-17 fighter jet to target S-400 base in Adampur. We can confirm that one of the missiles missed the target and we are not sure about the other.
(this would align with what we have heard from Pakistani + independent sources about a single Pakistani missile hitting the S-400 radar and control system)
https://x.com/Natsecjeff/status/1924466726462185628
Indian defense expert Pravin Sawhney terms operation Sindoor a Blunder for India
https://mmnews.tv/indian-defense-expert-pravin-sawhney-terms-operation-sindoor-a-blunder-for-india/
In an interview with Kiran Thapar, Sawhney said that Operation Sindoor was not India’s mistake but a blunder. He said that the importance of the ground army has decreased in modern warfare and the air force has become very important.
According to him, the air force is now the frontline force, and Operation Sindoor exposed the limitations of the Indian air force to Pakistan. He also said that Pakistan shot down four Indian aircraft, including at least one French-made Rafale.
He also spoke expertly about the deadly combination of Chinese-made J-10 fighter jets and PL-15 missiles that Pakistan has, which, according to him, shot down the Rafale aircraft.
It is worth noting that the Indian government has banned Sawhney’s 11-minute video review of Operation Sindoor, in which he confirmed that the Pakistani Air Force had shot down four Indian aircraft, as a threat to Indian security. His recent interview is very detailed. This 32-minute interview was broadcast on the YouTube channel, and the number of viewers has reached 225K viewers in a few hours.
China reveals tech ‘breakthrough’ behind Pakistan’s hypersonic strike on India | South China Morning Post
By Zhang Tong
Chinese missiles were used by Pakistan to destroy an Indian air defence system last week in what is believed to be their first combat use
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3310320/china-reveals-tech-breakthrough-behind-pakistans-hypersonic-strike-india
Chinese state media has hailed what is believed to be the first combat use of the country’s hypersonic missiles, after Pakistan claimed they were used to destroy an Indian S-400 air defence system last week.
Describing it as the dawn of a new era in warfare, official news agency Xinhua reported on Saturday that Pakistan’s air strike had destroyed India’s Russian-built air defence system in Adampur, in the border state of Punjab.
--------------
https://armyrecognition.com/focus-analysis-conflicts/army/conflicts-in-the-world/pakistan-india-conflict-2025/analysis-pakistans-use-of-chinese-cm-400akg-missile-against-indian-s-400-signals-new-threats-to-global-air-defense-systems
The CM-400AKG, a missile developed by China's state-owned China Aerospace Science and Industry Corporation (CASIC), represents a new generation of precision strike weaponry. Though typically labeled a hypersonic weapon for its Mach 5-plus speed, it more accurately fits the description of a quasi-ballistic missile due to its steep terminal dive attack profile and high-altitude cruise trajectory. The missile is specifically designed to defeat high-value, heavily defended targets such as naval vessels or strategic ground-based air defense systems. This makes it a particularly destabilizing asset in the hands of operators like Pakistan, who are facing adversaries equipped with some of the world’s most advanced defense networks.
The Indian S-400 Triumf, supplied by Russia, is among the most revered air defense missile systems globally. With a detection range of 600 kilometers and the capability to engage aerial targets at up to 400 kilometers, it has been the centerpiece of India's airspace security. It is designed to intercept everything from enemy aircraft and drones to ballistic missiles. Its reputation has made it a system of choice not only for India, but also for nations like China and Turkey, despite the geopolitical complexities surrounding such acquisitions.
If a Chinese missile like the CM-400AKG has indeed neutralized an S-400 system in a real-world combat scenario, the implications are far-reaching. This event would not only mark the operational debut of Chinese hypersonic munitions in conflict, but it would also raise critical concerns among Western military planners. For the United States and NATO members who rely on air defense architectures such as the Patriot, Aegis, or even the THAAD and the forthcoming NGI systems, the notion that a relatively low-cost, air-launched Chinese missile could defeat a flagship Russian defense system is a sobering one.
The effectiveness of the CM-400AKG could signal a broader shift in the global military balance. Hypersonic weapons, by virtue of their speed, flight profile, and maneuverability, are notoriously difficult to detect and intercept. Western nations have invested heavily in missile defense capabilities to counter traditional threats, but the advent of hypersonic and quasi-hypersonic systems from China adds a new layer of complexity. If these systems are capable of bypassing the S-400, a system engineered with multi-band radar networks and advanced interception missiles, there is growing concern that even the most advanced U.S. and European defenses may require substantial upgrades to remain credible.
Rabia Akhtar
@Rabs_AA
I write on Pakistan’s strategic dilemma with a reckless India, more worried than outraged, about what it means to live next to a state that escalates, denies, and distorts.
https://x.com/Rabs_AA/status/1924603982682427830
---------------------
https://pakistanpolitico.com/trapped-next-door-pakistans-dilemma-of-living-with-a-reckless-nuclear-armed-india/
The current May 2025 crisis between India and Pakistan has now laid bare an uncomfortable and dangerous truth that we have known for the past ten years or so but ignored: Pakistan is trapped in a volatile security environment with a nuclear-armed neighbor, India, that increasingly exhibits ideological rigidity, strategic immaturity, and a troubling disregard for escalation risks. Since the crisis began on May 6-7, much of the international commentary has focused on how war was averted. However, that narrow lens misses the deeper, systemic problem. India’s behavior, as witnessed by the entire world during this crisis, was not just escalatory, it was irrationally escalatory, cloaked in the legitimacy of national security but fueled by political ideology and information warfare.
Is this normal? Absolutely not. This is no longer simply a case of strategic competition between India and Pakistan. What we are witnessing is the normalization of a Hindutva-driven nuclear signaling posture, one that does not conform to the tenets of credible minimum deterrence or rational cost-benefit calculation. Instead, India is increasingly relying on performative escalation, disinformation, and public spectacle to shape both domestic opinion and international perception. The danger for Pakistan, and also for the region at large, is not just in India’s capability, but in the absence of credible voices within India who are willing, or allowed, to question this strategic trajectory.
A New Level of Recklessness
The latest exchange of missile and drone strikes across international borders pushed South Asia into uncharted territory. For the first time since both countries became overt nuclear powers, we saw a direct military confrontation that went well beyond Kashmir, targeting critical military infrastructure in each other’s heartlands. Pakistan’s response, Operation Bunyan-un-Marsoos, was calibrated, conventional, and proportional to India’s Operation Sindoor.
But what followed was deeply alarming and extremely disturbing. India not only denied the reality of Pakistan’s retaliation but actively spread disinformation about it falsely claiming that a Shaheen missile had been used, knowing well that such a system carries dual-use implications.
India’s denial of Pakistan’s retaliatory actions, despite reporting, poses a direct threat to the credibility of deterrence in South Asia. Deterrence functions not just through action, but through acknowledgement of cost imposed. When a nuclear-armed state retaliates in a calibrated, conventional manner and the adversary refuses to acknowledge it, the signaling loop is broken. Such denial by India, as we have seen, has emboldened domestic narratives in India that no price was paid, reinforcing a cycle of miscalculation. The result is a dangerously unstable equation where strategic messages are ignored, and escalation becomes the only language understood, a logic which is antithetical to stable deterrence.
India’s distortion of reality is not an isolated incident. It is part of a disturbing pattern of weaponized narrative control, whereby India has created its own facts, denied its military losses, and manufactured legitimacy for future escalation. The goal is not clarity, but confusion. And confusion in a nuclearized dyad is a recipe for disaster.
Outsourcing Escalation Control
Once again, de-escalation between India and Pakistan came not through bilateral restraint but through third-party intervention, primarily by the United States. India, the self-styled regional hegemon, had to be nudged into a ceasefire by external actors after its own brinkmanship failed to deliver the desired outcomes.
After the crisis - Newspaper - DAWN.COM
by Amb Maleeha Lodhi
https://www.dawn.com/news/1911922
Pakistan sees its kinetic response in the crisis to have demonstrated that conventional deterrence worked as it prevented India from escalating to an even bigger conflict and thwarted India’s effort to expand space for conventional war under the nuclear overhang. India’s loss of several Rafale aircraftsymbolised the costs imposed by Pakistan’s retaliation. That and its ability to strike at multiple targets in the Indian mainland showed its conventional capabilities were able to force a ceasefire and neutralise India’s aims of ‘limited war’.
The reality is that India failed to achieve its military objectives in the conflict in spite of Modi’s unsubstantiated assertions of having destroyed “terrorist infrastructure”. It miscalculated the consequences of its actions. Its resort to a military ‘solution’ for a terror attack backfired. The claim that a new norm has been created by India flies in the face of facts.
The assertion that henceforth India would respond militarily if there is another terror attack is easier said than done, given the unedifying outcome of the latest crisis for New Delhi. With the credibility of Pakistan’s conventional deterrence re-established if not strengthened, the costs for India could be even higher the next time around for it to consider similar action. India got a new normal but not the one it wanted.
Defense Intelligence
@DI313_
Indian🇮🇳 journalist Vishnu Som reports that Pakistan🇵🇰 fired two CM-400AKG hypersonic missiles from a JF-17 jet targeting Adampur Airbase, which holds key Indian air defense assets like the S-400 system. One missile reportedly missed, while the outcome of the second is unclear.Notably, Som added that certain sensitive details could not be publicly disclosed.
https://x.com/DI313_/status/1924476944550125844
AKD Securities
@akdsecurities
𝐏𝐚𝐤𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧 𝐣𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐔𝐒$𝟒𝟎𝟎 𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐆𝐃𝐏 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐠𝐮𝐞
Pakistan's 2025 GDP estimated at $411 billion
https://x.com/akdsecurities/status/1924774821826543723
-------------------
AKD Securities
@akdsecurities
𝐏𝐚𝐤𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧’𝐬 𝐩𝐞𝐫 𝐜𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐭𝐚 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐡𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐚 𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐜 𝐡𝐢𝐠𝐡 𝐨𝐟 𝐔𝐒$𝟏,𝟖𝟐𝟒
https://x.com/akdsecurities/status/1924798326920065387
Modi’s Escalation Trap
https://www.yahoo.com/news/modi-escalation-trap-152642266.html
by Vaibhav Vats
The crisis and its aftermath have demonstrated how India’s national security has become almost entirely captive to burnishing the personality cult of its leader. The result is a country that comes across to others as at once boastful about its growing power and prickly about criticism of its human-rights record.
----------------
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has forged a new counterterrorism doctrine during his decade in power: Any terrorist attack emanating from Pakistan will face a scorching Indian-military response. The policy carries inherent risk, both internationally and domestically.
That it can easily commit India to a spiral of escalation was demonstrated during the exchange of hostilities with Pakistan two weeks ago. On the domestic side, the counterterrorism policy is of a piece with Modi’s effort to project himself as a strongman, which carries its own escalatory risks because it depends on both stoking ultranationalism and keeping it under control.
For four days starting earlier this month, exchanges of fire between India and Pakistan gathered intensity and scope, with the theater of engagement extending deeper into both countries than it had in five decades. At home, Modi had encouraged a climate of heightened emotion among his followers. Pro-government networks and broadsheets portrayed Pakistan as an archenemy that Indian forces would soon vanquish. Media outlets reported, for example, that the port of Karachi, Pakistan’s largest city and financial capital, had been destroyed—one of many breathless stories that did not turn out to be true.
Then, on the evening of May 10, President Donald Trump announced a cease-fire between the two countries on Truth Social. The American intervention came as a surprise—one that did some damage to the Indian prime minister, who has projected himself not only as a fierce advocate for India’s strategic interests but also as a global statesman deliberating on weighty geopolitical questions, such as the war in Ukraine.
Many of the Indian prime minister’s followers felt that allowing the Trump administration to broker a deal was a humiliation and a capitulation to a foreign power. For that reason, New Delhi did not acknowledge the American intervention in its public statements on the cease-fire, even as the Pakistani side hailed Trump’s role in ending the fighting. Still, right-wing social-media accounts turned on the Modi government and its officials with expletive-laden tirades, many of which assailed the personal life of their intended targets. They attacked India’s foreign secretary as a traitor and doxxed his daughter. (The secretary promptly switched his X account to private, to shield himself and his family from a barrage of invective.)
That any cease-fire was necessary was a surprise and a letdown for Modi’s base, which had expected a swift victory based on a combination of misinformation and what was likely an overestimation of India’s military strength and operational superiority. Such illusions should have been punctured during the conflict, when Pakistan downed at least two Indian jets and unleashed drones and missiles that matched Indian capabilities. In the first week of May, India launched nine air strikes into Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir.
Past skirmishes with Pakistan had allowed Modi to construct a triumphalist narrative of strength that played to his domestic audience. A 2019 air strike into Pakistan helped propel him to reelection for a second term with an enhanced majority. But this latest exchange had a far less satisfying denouement: an uncertain military outcome and a diplomatic embarrassment, in the eyes of Modi’s nationalist base.
Modi’s Escalation Trap
https://www.yahoo.com/news/modi-escalation-trap-152642266.html
by Vaibhav Vats
Trump made a bad situation worse with another Truth Social post less than a day after the cease-fire announcement, in which he offered to mediate the Kashmir dispute. Mediation is a delicate subject in India because of the country’s bruising colonial experience; it is often equated with an assault on Indian sovereignty. The 1972 Simla peace agreement, signed between India and Pakistan after a war the previous year, stipulated that all disputes between the two countries be addressed bilaterally—language long understood as a bar to third-party mediation. American diplomacy played an important role in tamping down previous conflicts over the territory in 1999 and 2019, but President Bill Clinton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, respectively, were careful not to trumpet their interventions in those cases.
Trump’s pronouncements immediately led to a volley of criticism from India’s opposition parties and independent voices, which began comparing Modi unfavorably with Prime Minister Indira Gandhi: She delivered a decisive victory in the 1971 war with Pakistan despite frosty relations with President Richard Nixon. A newspaper owner in Modi’s home state of Gujarat was arrested for making the comparison.
In remarks delivered at the White House two days after the cease-fire announcement, the U.S. president further gloated about stopping a potentially nuclear conflict that could have killed millions of people.
That evening, Modi addressed India in a prime-time speech for the first time since the conflict began. Absent was the measured restraint that might have lowered the temperature after such an unnerving conflict. Instead, Modi told the public that India’s military offensive had brought Pakistan to its knees to beg for a cease-fire. He reaffirmed India’s position on retaliatory military action as a response to terror attacks, declared that he had called Pakistan’s nuclear bluff, and warned that he had not abandoned the military operation but merely suspended it. Modi followed these prime-time remarks with another belligerent speech the next day, belittling Pakistan’s military capabilities when he visited an Indian air base.
The bellicosity of these two speeches, at a time when the cease-fire was still tenuous, seemed to reflect Modi’s need to appear muscular in the face of public criticism and after being undermined by Trump’s swagger. (Trump would recount his role in ending the conflict several more times during his Middle East trip, with each new utterance compounding the domestic problems for Modi.)
But if the prime minister’s aggressive demeanor played well to his domestic base, it also alienated a number of India’s South Asian neighbors. Many of these governments worry about the Modi regime’s propensity for bullying, and not one has spoken in favor of India’s military actions. Last week Modi’s government, normally intolerant of its political opposition, conscripted it into a campaign for damage control: It put together delegations of representatives from all of the country’s political parties, with the intention of sending them to foreign capitals to make India’s case.
The crisis and its aftermath have demonstrated how India’s national security has become almost entirely captive to burnishing the personality cult of its leader. The result is a country that comes across to others as at once boastful about its growing power and prickly about criticism of its human-rights record.
A few hours before the cease-fire came into force, the Indian government fine-tuned its new counterterrorism doctrine, classing incidents of cross-border terrorist violence as “acts of war.” Any such attack, the policy makes clear, will incur an Indian-military response.
Modi’s Escalation Trap
https://www.yahoo.com/news/modi-escalation-trap-152642266.html
by Vaibhav Vats
The timing of the announcement suggests that Modi seeks to overshadow the end of the fighting with a display of strength and a deterrent warning. But the doctrine may be just as apt to make conflict between India and Pakistan more likely and recurrent, rather than less, as it raises the stakes of any skirmish—particularly after this last four-day conflict, which passed previous thresholds of violence between the nuclear-armed rivals.
In the past, India prided itself on being a responsible power that respected human rights and international law—an island of stability in a volatile region. Modi’s embrace of Hindu nationalism and his tilt toward authoritarianism have since stained the country’s reputation for pluralism and democracy. Now they are leading the Indian prime minister to lean into a military adventurism that could make him a danger to the entire region.
Husain Haqqani
@husainhaqqani
India (& Pakistan) need to take out emotion from discussion of geopolitics. Always thought provoking
@mahbubani_k
sums up the India-China-Pakistan equation while talking to
@BDUTT
https://x.com/husainhaqqani/status/1926166740527919575
----------------------
Husain Haqqani
@husainhaqqani
If a chess player thinks he is about to checkmate the other, would he agree to just end the game because the other asks him to? 🤔
https://x.com/husainhaqqani/status/1926185778784186522
Prof John Mearsheimer on India Pakistan tensions
https://youtu.be/wDou5m_s638?si=_nweRcM7-JSK9bdU
By Operation Sindoor, India has responded like it has in the past. Don't think India wants a major war with Pakistan, it can't dominate on the lower or middle rungs of the escalation ladder.
China-Pakistan relations are quite good. The Chinese are providing excellent weaponry to Pakistan and will provide even better weapons in future.
When it comes to countering China, India is the most important country for the US in South Asia. But the US wants to maintain good relations with Pakistan to try to peel it away from China.
I don’t think China wants an India-Pakistan war but it wants to see significant tensions between India and Pakistan to get India to devote a lot of its strategic thinking and resources against Pakistan.
-----------
https://www.youtube.com/live/1UkhQXITKio?si=w4yqeWkYe6D-Z3hb
John Merasheimer on India Pakistan tensions
"There is really no military solution to this problem. The only way this can be solved once and for all is through a political solution that both sides find acceptable"
Julia Kendrick
@JuKrick
"India couldn't deter Pakistan. It found itself in an embarrassing situation and wanted someone to deescalate the tensions. The jingoistic Indian media became a laughing stock to the world."
– Dr Christine Fair
https://x.com/JuKrick/status/1925942767982608882
-----------------------
Jayant Bhandari
@JayantBhandari5
Rogues are in charge of India and are backed by deluded Indians. In their stupidity, they have made one after another strategic mistake. The American woman is correct. India will be a disaster of unimaginable proportions.
https://x.com/JayantBhandari5/status/1925773937255813609
Jayant Bhandari
@JayantBhandari5
India has become the laughingstock of the world.
https://x.com/JayantBhandari5/status/1926534868881539283
----------------
Indian Mass Delusion Syndrome on Full Display
What leads people to celebrate defeat as victory?
https://www.unz.com/bhua/indian-mass-delusion-syndrome-on-full-display/
by Hua Bin
Since I wrote “the DeepSeek moment of moder air combat”, more details have come out about the battlefield outcome from the May 7 and 8 Pakistan India clash.
In addition to the 3 Rafales, 1 Su-30, 1 Mig-29 and 1 Heron UAV covered in my essay, Pakistan also shot down an Indian French-made Mirage 2000. Pakistan Air Force destroyed 2 batteries of the Russia-made S400 air defense system (the command center and one radar unit) with China-made CM400akg hypersonic land-attack missiles launched from JF-17, a fighter jet produced jointly with China.
Since this is the first truly high-tech large scale air combat in the 21st century and the first beyond-visual-range (BVR) air war, military experts and commentators are studying the battle in minute detail. I plan to write another short piece on the tech behind the Pakistan victory soon.
However, another aspect of the war has come to the forefront immediately after the war. That is the mass delusion indulged by the Indian government and press about the conflict. Rather than acknowledging its setback and reviewing its strategy, tactics and battlefield lessons, the Indians are trying to mask their defeat through outright fabrications and lies on a massive scale. It is going so far as to claim the clash an unqualified victory.
Indian government, its TV media (400+ channels), and social media are filled with made-up battlefield successes, destruction in Pakistan, and superiority of the Indian military. The wild claims include –
No Indian aircrafts were lost and no damage to S400 (though wreckage of a Rafale jet was filmed with its tail number and two burial ceremonies were held for Indian soldiers operating S400 systems. Indian report said they were shot during border skirmishes, which defies any common sense)
Indian air force shot down 8 Pakistan F-16 jets and 4 JF-17 fighters (no US-made F-16 even took off during the conflict as the US forbid Pakistan to use F-16 in conflicts with India)
Karachi, the largest port city in Pakistan, was firebombed by Indian navy and one third of the city was destroyed (the footage shown on Indian TVs was later fact-checked to be Israeli’s bombing campaigns in Palestine)
A coup d’etat happened in Pakistan and the army chief was arrested
A retired Indian air force marshal claims the Chinese air force cannot use the China-made weapons as well as Pakistan so India has nothing to worry about a conflict with China
Indian Mass Delusion Syndrome on Full Display
What leads people to celebrate defeat as victory?
https://www.unz.com/bhua/indian-mass-delusion-syndrome-on-full-display/
by Hua Bin
Right after the air war, the Indian government called in diplomatic staff from 70+ countries to announce its heroic victories; Modi went on a tour of the frontline and announced a 10-day national celebration. The Indian military was tasked to go on a national tour to share their battlefield successes with patriotic citizens.
When American and French officials confirmed some of the battlefield losses suffered by India, the Indian media, led by the famous BJP promoter and TV personality Palki Sharma, went into a frenzied attack on the inferiorities of US and European weaponry. They bombasted Trump for claiming to broach a ceasefire between the two belligerents. Their argument is India would have dealt an even bigger defeat to Pakistan without the ceasefire meddling.
To this day, most Indians are under the delusion that the Indian military has dealt Pakistan a deathly blow and emerged totally victorious and unscathed.
While shrill and high octane “news” reporting is par for the course in India, and BJP, under Modi, has long shaped and exploited wide-spread jingoistic Hindu nationalist fervour, the Bollywood-like mass delusion is over the top and probably without a parallel in military history.
It is interesting to explore what lies behind such mass hysteria that is completely divorced from reality and what this means for India and its population.
A quick AI search tells you the medical or psychological term for “self-fooling” is self-deception.
Self-deception refers to the process of misleading oneself to accept as true or valid what is false or invalid. It involves cognitive biases, denial, or rationalization to maintain certain beliefs or avoid uncomfortable truths.
While not a formal medical diagnosis, self-deception is studied in psychology and psychiatry as part of defense mechanisms (e.g., denial or repression) that protect the ego from anxiety or distress.
I think this perfectly captures the psychological reasons behind the wildly delusional Indian national mood and character.
Since BJP took power, Modi and his cronies have intentionally fostered a ultra-nationalistic narrative about India’s greatness and Hindu superiority.
India has launched unprecedented repressions of Muslims and deprived the Kashmir region (a Muslim majority region) its long-held autonomous status.
India has embraced the fantasy to replace China as the world’s manufacturing center and top economic growth engine by opportunistically aligning with the US and the west. At the same time, it is exploring the Russia Ukraine war to enrich itself by selling Russian oil at inflated price to the west.
India has boasted its economy has surpassed UK and France and will join the US and China in no time as the largest economies in the world while it is still behind Japan and Germany. To inflate its GDP, India has changed its GDP accounting method twice in the last 10 years and started to count cow dung as part of GDP as agricultural inputs. Grok estimates Indian GDP calculation included the value of cow dung and other manure at $4.7 billion in 2023.
India has attempted to bolster its military by purchasing a hodge podge suite of brand-name weaponries from France, Russia, the US and Israel. India spent 7.8 billion Euros in 2015 to purchase 36 Rafale fighters, or 220 million Euros per jet, making it the most expensive fighter jet ever sold by that time. There was so much corruption by Modi’s cronies in the deal that Wikipedia has an entire entry dedicated to the controversy. Even after the corruption case was exposed, India decided to double down and spent anther $7.4 billion to buy 26 Rafale jets for its navy just this past April. That is a staggering price tag of $285 million per Rafale, a new world record.
This Pakistan India air war was initially intended by India to show off its new found muscle until it has its ass handed back by Pakistan.
Indian Mass Delusion Syndrome on Full Display
What leads people to celebrate defeat as victory?
https://www.unz.com/bhua/indian-mass-delusion-syndrome-on-full-display/
by Hua Bin
This Pakistan India air war was initially intended by India to show off its new found muscle until it has its ass handed back by Pakistan.
Similarly, the Modi regime announced with big fanfare its Make In India campaign in 2015 to replace China as the world’s manufacturing powerhouse. It targeted manufacturing to reach 25% GDP by 2025. Instead, Indian manufacturing GDP was 13% by 2024, down from 17% in 2010. In contrast, according to CSIS, value-added industrial output accounted for nearly 40% China’s GDP (vs. 18% in the US). Given China’s GDP is 5 times of India, that means China’s manufacturing GDP alone is 2 times as big as India’s total GDP or 16 times India’s manufacturing output.
Another interesting statistic – in Paris 2024 Olympics, India won a grand total of 6 medals – 1 silver and 5 bronze, ranking 71st among the 84 countries with medal count. This is India’s third best medal haul after 2020 and 2012, according to Wikipedia. The world’s most populous country ranks between Lithuania (70th, population 2.8 million) and Moldova (72nd population 2.4 million). India’s Gold medal haul (0) was lower than Hong Kong (2). The US and China (ex. Hong Kong) each won 40 Gold medals, and 126 and 91 total medals respectively.
This wild gap between India’s self-perception (or should we say self-delusion) as a great power and the cold reality of its economic and social backwardness is the reason behind the mass delusion.
It’s a sad combination of inferiority complex and unfounded sense of grandeur.
There was a famous character called Ah Q in an early 20thcentury literature work in China. Ah Q is a loser but cannot accept his lowly station in life. So he goes around telling himself he is better than the other people around him, often saying “I was beaten by my bastard son” after losing a fight. In the end, he was framed for a robbery and sentenced to death. When he was signing his death warrant by drawing a circle (since he couldn’t write), he was more upset about the circle not drawn perfectly than the death sentence.
Indians didn’t succeed in copying China’s economic success. Instead, the Indians have fully adopted Ah Q’s delusional “spiritual victory” method of coping with failures and humiliations.
The Indian celebration of their imagined success perfectly reflects Ah Q’s delusional defiance when he tried to sing a heroic song on the road to his execution. He couldn’t sing with his wobbly voice at that point, instead weakly uttered a phrase commonly used by criminals before execution, ”In another 20 years, I shall be another stout young fellow”.
The Indian media obsession with spectacles mirror Ah Q’s morbid disappointment at the crowd at his execution – they were bored because he didn’t sing properly and lamented that he was shot instead of beheaded, denying them the “entertainment” of a decapitation .
India’s celebration of its defeat at the hand of Pakistan encapsulates Ah Q’s entire existence – a blend of farce and tragedy, where self-deception persists until the bullet ends his life.
On a higher level, the dishonest propaganda by the Indian government and media is an information war against its own population. Few foreigners believe the Indian official narrative. The Indian government and media has completely lost any credibility at this point. So the real target of the disinformation campaign is the Indian population itself.
A nation without basic intellectual honesty and suffering from cognitive dissonance will not rise. Instead it will be the butt of jokes by late night comedians.
In the so-called “largest democracy in the world” where the rule is one Rupiah one vote, Modi is resorting to the lowest level of “democratic” playbook – keep the population dumb and get their votes through lies.
Sushant Singh
@SushantSin
So this is being done without any backchannel or official talks with Pakistan, or via a third party interlocutor like the US, when Modi claims that there has been no ceasefire and the military operation is still on.
https://x.com/SushantSin/status/1926512146721980920
-------------------
Pause in India-Pak military action, Army works on plan to ‘rebalance’ troops at border | India News - The Indian Express
https://indianexpress.com/article/india/to-dial-down-army-works-on-plan-to-rebalance-troops-equipment-at-border-10026907/
A fortnight into the pause of military action in the wake of the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack, a proposed plan for “rebalancing of troops” is being discussed within the military to avoid any fresh escalation at the borders, The Indian Express has learned.
This even as Operation Sindoor is on pause and all alerts remain at their heightened levels.
While Indian and Pak armies are focusing on multiple confidence-building measures, plans for de-escalating troops and equipment from the borders within the next fortnight are being considered.
Sources said Pakistan, which carried out major reinforcements of troops and equipment over the last few weeks, will also pull them back to pre-April locations.
Incidentally, India had not ordered large-scale mobilisation or deployment of offensive formations over the last month. Limited equipment and corresponding troops, which had been moved from their permanent locations to operational ones, are now planning to go back to their regular locations.
During Operation Sindoor, the density of troops along the borders had increased but that was more because of curtailing leave and less essential movement. However, sources said, these restrictions have now been lifted. Even short-term courses, which were to be cancelled temporarily, will now continue as per slated schedules.
According to sources, after the first two days following the ceasefire agreement, no aerial violations by Pakistani drones were reported though the occasional stray drones were sighted in Jammu and Kashmir.
They added that there are orders in place to avoid firing on them without appropriate clearances, even as any ceasefire violations at the LoC will be responded to by the troops.
As Prime Minister Narendra Modi had flagged, in his address to the nation, Operation Sindoor is only on pause. This would imply that the military would continue to remain at a heightened state of alertness and operational readiness, while maintaining a strong defensive posture throughout.
There has been no official statement from the government on whether there have been DGMO-level talks on the de-escalation after May 12.
On May 12, DGMO Lieutenant General Rajiv Ghai spoke to his Pakistani counterpart Major General Kashif Abdullah – their second conversation since they agreed to stop all military action—during which it was agreed that both sides would consider immediate measures to ensure troop reduction from the borders and forward areas.
Sources said that stopping aerial violations was also discussed in the meeting.
An Army statement had also mentioned that issues related to continuing the commitment that both sides must not fire a single shot or initiate any aggressive and inimical action against each other were discussed in the talks.
The Indian Express had earlier reported that within days following May 12, both sides were scheduled to exchange plans on the modalities of de-escalation of troops and equipment deployed along the borders.
Two days after the May 12 talks, Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar had claimed that Pakistan had agreed to extend the ceasefire with India until May 18 following DGMO-level talks between the two sides.
Without commenting on whether the two sides spoke, the Indian Army said both sides will continue the confidence-building measures to reduce the alertness level. It clarified that there is no expiry date to the understanding reached between the two militaries on May 10 to “stop all firing and military action from land, air and sea.”
Political handling of Operation Sindoor was incompetent and irresponsible; constant need to claim credit will be our undoing: Ajai Sahni, Executive Director, Institute for Conflict Management, to Karan Thapar for The Wire
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81xS7V0rE8U
..........................................
In an interview that could rattle the government, the Executive Director of the Institute for Conflict Management and one of India’s foremost authorities on terrorism has said that the political handling of Operation Sindoor was incompetent and irresponsible. Dr. Ajai Sahni also said that the constant need to claim credit will be our undoing. He said one of the consequences of India’s policy of treating every act of terror as a declaration of war is that in economic terms “India looks like an excitable and very unreliable partner”. In a comprehensive 45-minute interview to Karan Thapar for The Wire, Dr. Sahni, who is also the Executive Director of the South Asia Terrorism Portal, was asked who had the upper hand when the 4-day conflict between India and Pakistan ended and said “both are losers … measured by the environment we have created”. Dr. Sahni said that “no lasting damage” has been done to the Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed and claims by the Indian Express that 20% of Pakistan’s air force infrastructure has been destroyed are “ludicrous”. Dr. Sahni explains that he does not believe that the LeT and Jaish have been deterred and, worse, the Pakistan army and ISI may increase their efforts to build-up capacity for these groups. It is, therefore, quite possible the problem of terror could get worse. A very significant chunk of this interview is about the reasons why Dr. Sahni believes the political handling of Operation Sindoor was incompetent and irresponsible. I am deliberately not giving you details of what Dr. Sahni said because I think you should hear them for yourself. I am only giving you the headline which Dr. Sahni confirmed two or three times in the interview. I don’t want to run the risk of wrongly paraphrasing or précising Dr. Sahni’s arguments.
Political handling of Operation Sindoor was incompetent and irresponsible; constant need to claim credit will be our undoing: Ajai Sahni, Executive Director, Institute for Conflict Management, to Karan Thapar for The Wire
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81xS7V0rE8U
18:49
Pakistani response and all reports indicate that China is already
to a far more vigorous support You know Pakistan is a great investment for
18:56
China in this sense Uh first of all they get to test all their weapons They get
19:01
to showcase all their weapon systems to the world and already the world has taken
19:07
notice Secondly what they are doing is without any losses to themselves in terms of
19:14
life or uh significant material what they are uh doing is securing their
19:22
strategic objectives in the South Asia region which is to contain
19:29
India through their support to Pakistan So Pakistan will do whatever fighting is
19:35
necessary and India will suffer the consequences And a third factor is that
19:40
the demonstration of their weapon systems will bring them enormous
19:45
financial returns
shoaib daniyal
@ShoaibDaniyal
Remember the Karachi port attack and PAF pilot capture fake news that so many journalists ran?
@AnantGuptaAG
has a behind-the-scenes look into how that happened in this report.
https://x.com/ShoaibDaniyal/status/1926902361756233810
------------------
Who won the media war?
A Scroll analysis of Western media reporting and interviews with experts show that Pakistan had an advantage over India in the information war.
Anant Gupta
https://scroll.in/article/1082684/can-indian-mp-delegations-reverse-pakistans-global-narrative-win
A Scroll analysis of foreign media reporting and interviews with several experts show that Pakistan has indeed edged out India in the information war. Will the Modi government be successful in its effort to fix the global narrative about the conflict and put the focus back on Pakistan’s use of terrorism against India?
View from the West
As far as the foreign press was concerned, the so-called Kashmir dispute was at the heart of the conflict from its very start – a narrative that India has always sought to avoid.
Since the Pahalgam terror attack, The Washington Post has published 21 stories about the escalating tensions between India and Pakistan. Kashmir was in the headlines 10 times. Terrorism did not appear even once.
It may bring solace to India that the The New York Times carried a story about the Lashkar-e-Taiba and the Jaish-e-Mohammed, the two terrorist groups that India claimed to have targeted during Operation Sindoor.
But even so, it is unlikely that New Delhi will be pleased with how America’s newspaper of record saw the result of the fighting: a draw, not an Indian victory. A report that was published in the paper after the ceasefire announcement carried the headline: “India and Pakistan talked big, but satellite imagery shows limited damage.”
The headline to the newspaper’s first storyabout Operation Sindoor was even more damaging. “India strikes Pakistan but is said to have lost aircraft,” it read, highlighting a Pakistani claim that New Delhi has yet to confirm.
The New York Times was not alone. Other international media outlets, such as CNN and Reuters, followed up on Pakistani claims of taking down as many as five Indian fighter jets, state-of-the art French Rafales among them.
India has so far refused to publicly accept or deny any loss of planes. The loud silence made foreign journalists wary of other Indian claims as well.
“I respect anyone who is open about losses and weaknesses,” said Shashank Joshi, defence editor of The Economist. “I then trust them more when they make claims about their successes and their strengths.”
Even as Pakistani claims of downing Indian jets got play in the international press, the Indian assertion of killing over 100 terrorists during Operation Sindoor received little to no attention.
-------
Too little, too late
Given that Pakistan took the lead in shaping opinions in the West, analysts are sceptical about what the MP delegations from India will be able to achieve. Fair, the Georgetown professor, argued that these efforts to set the global narrative should have preceded military action.
“The Indians should have gone to the United Nations first,” she said. “They should have presented their evidence [about Pahalgam]. They should have gone around to global capitals first and then conducted the military operation.”
Sushant Singh, a lecturer in South Asian Studies at Yale University, said it is unclear who the MPs would meet on these visits. But the fact that the government is sending them out is, in itself, an indictment of India’s foreign policy establishment, he said.
“If you require MPs who are not part of the government to talk about cross-border terrorism, then it is clearly a failure of [external affairs minister S] Jaishankar and the whole diplomatic core that we have,” Singh said. “What is it that Shrikant Shinde is going to do that a professional diplomat with 35 years of experience can’t do?”
Pravin Sawhney
@PravinSawhney
Lessons of #OperationSindoor :
1. It has brought India & Pakistan closest to hot war.
2. Showed vivid clarity on the next hot war between India & Pakistan.
3. With this operation, China replaced the US as the dominant power in South Asia.
4. Signaled China's capability to change the status quo of Kashmir.
5. Created China's credible deterrence against the US & western militaries by demonstrating operational superiority of its weapons & capabilities used by Pakistan.
6. Showed China's commitment to stand by a friend (Pakistan) to the Global South nations.
I will do a video & an article on this important issue this week!
https://x.com/PravinSawhney/status/1927255806921134497
Defence Index
@Defence_Index
China ( Victor Gao) has made its stance clear without raising its voice: water is a shared lifeline, not a tool for bilateral leverage. Any move by India to restrict Pakistan’s access could prompt China to do the same to India.
https://x.com/Defence_Index/status/1927331276354158713
Swedish Saab 2000 Erieye’s role in PAF Success
Search Labs | AI Overview
Learn more
Has Sweden given Pakistan more airborne early warning radar ...
The Erieye AEW&C system played a crucial role in the Pakistan Air Force's (PAF) success, particularly during the February 2019 aerial conflict with India. It enabled the PAF to effectively monitor airspace, direct and control fighter jets, and gather intelligence, contributing to its overall air defense capabilities.
Here's a more detailed look at the Erieye's impact:
Airspace Monitoring and Surveillance:
The Erieye's radar system, with a detection range of up to 450 km, allowed the PAF to monitor airspace and detect both air and sea threats. This was particularly important in countering India's terrain masking tactics, which made it difficult for other surveillance systems to detect low-flying aircraft.
Command and Control:
During the 2019 air conflict, the Erieye was used to direct and control 25 fighter jets towards Indian targets, showcasing its command and control capabilities. The Erieye also facilitated communication between the AEW&C and other air and ground assets, enabling coordinated operations.
Intelligence Gathering:
The Erieye's ability to gather intelligence, including electronic intelligence (ELINT), was also crucial for the PAF's overall success.
Decisive Impact:
In conclusion, the Erieye's role in the 2019 aerial conflict and its overall contribution to the PAF's air defense capabilities demonstrate its significant impact on Pakistan's military readiness.
------------------
https://youtu.be/508J-ougyIg?si=zLVQfOCTsJkpRQxe
In this in-depth analysis, we uncover how Sweden’s Saab 2000 Erieye Airborne Early Warning and Control (AEW&C) system became a game-changer for the Pakistan Air Force (PAF), reshaping the balance of power in one of the world’s most volatile military rivalries—India vs. Pakistan.
----------
Pakistan Quietly Inducts a New Erieye AEW&C System - Quwa
https://quwa.org/daily-news/pakistan-quietly-inducts-a-new-erieye-aewc-system-2/
With unit ‘23058’ the PAF’s Erieye fleet has grown to seven to nine aircraft. Quwa was able to visually verify seven aircraft, but public records list serials for eight active units.
To date, the PAF has acquired the Erieye across three orders. The PAF signed its first order in 2006 for six AEW&Cs (plus one standard Saab 2000) for $1.15 billion US. However, this order was reduced to four aircraft due to the 2005 earthquake in Kashmir. The cost dropped to $186 million, indicating that each Erieye (not inclusive of training and logistics costs) was priced at $93 million US in 2007.
Tejasswi Prakash
@Tiju0Prakash
Utterly shameful statement
BJP MLA from Udhampur East, RS Pathania calls INDIAN AIRFORCE, "NALAYAK"/ "WORTHLESS" & and said they were caught sleeping when Pakistan attacked Udhampur airbase.
https://x.com/Tiju0Prakash/status/1928026348095738338
Sushant Singh
@SushantSin
As per CDS's (Chief of Defense Staff Gen Anil Chauhan's) interview to Bloomberg, the IAF didn't fly for two days after the losses on the 7th night. Whether he refers only to Rafale isn't clear.
“we made, remedy it, rectify it, and then implement it again after two days and flew all our jets again, targeting at long range”
https://x.com/SushantSin/status/1928737490740859039
Pravin Sawhney
@PravinSawhney
What this fellow Anil Chauhan is saying is that for two days IAF fleet was grounded. This is enough reason for him to resign - making light of a serious matter.
When for two days out of four, the IAF (which will be the key determinant of war outcome) is not in the air, it needs some guts to say that India did well in #OperationSindoor!
https://x.com/PravinSawhney/status/1929004953353466183
Tejasswi Prakash
@Tiju0Prakash
"India misread, underestimated Pakistan and needs to change the way it views Pakistan."
French political scientist Christophe Jaffrelot
@jaffrelotc
https://x.com/Tiju0Prakash/status/1929055742469759378
----------------
French political scientist Christophe Jaffrelot on recent India-Pakistan military confrontation:
https://youtu.be/M0oFNGU_goQ?si=r8Bi3d4mp4Ka_HyN
um I would first um say that this sense
25:52
of disillusion (in India) has a lot to do with the
25:58
expectations the leaders yeah the leaders of the country are themselves
26:04
nurturing expectations which are completely irrealistic a fight to the
26:10
finish with a nuclear power what does that mean do you think you can really
26:16
break Pakistan create an an independent baluchistan this is complete
26:23
fantasy and of course when you foster this sense of fantasy by
26:31
being almost belligerent belligerent and also there is this sense of hysteria
26:38
that that the that the media are of course also
26:44
cultivating when you expect so much you can only be
26:49
disappointed and and this is really um counterproductive for the BJP to play
26:56
that game because they are bound to create expectations they will never meet
27:02
now will the BJP supporters who are disappointed disillusioned leave BJP
27:09
stop supporting BJP it's too early to say again but
27:15
um where else could they go you know uh it's not as if there were plenty of of
27:22
possibilities now on the other point you raise this comparison between Indira and
27:29
um and and Modi between 71 and and
27:34
2025 there is just no way to compare because in in 71 you did not
27:42
uh destroy Pakistan you helped guerilla
27:50
to become independent it's a completely different game so it's not as if you
27:56
could repeat what was done in 71 in 2025 uh this is this is of course domestic
28:02
politics um but but to return to the to to the number one point that I made and
28:08
I would really like to emphasize that one
28:14
denial vizav Pakistan the kind of imagination of Pakistan that we see
28:21
in India needs to be taken care of you know this is a country that has nuclear
28:28
weapons that is supported by China it will not be finished off it will be
28:34
there and it will be there for a long time so if I say that it's because there
28:40
is one dimension that we have not touched upon yet that worries me a lot and that is the industry
28:47
French political scientist Christophe Jaffrelot on recent India-Pakistan military confrontation:
https://youtu.be/M0oFNGU_goQ?si=r8Bi3d4mp4Ka_HyN
uh question just what treaty is yeah because if you continue to to imagine
28:53
that one day you will get rid of Pakistan one day it will be raised to the ground and of course the idea that
29:01
it does not need the water of the industry
29:07
almost is is is natural and and and you use it you use the weapon you know you
29:12
use water as a weapon that is very dangerous that is terribly dangerous
29:17
this is certainly a cases belly because Pakistan is a country with that is
29:25
affected by hydric stress to a great extent and
29:31
if dams are built if the water of these rivers can't flow to
29:36
Pakistan there'll be more than tensions this is something to think about more
29:43
more well I I do not think that dams can be built in fact India saying you know
29:48
all the you know irresponsible statements that not a drop of water will be allowed to flow into Pakistan are all
29:55
highly irresponsible statement with very poor understanding of our hydrarology
30:00
and about where we can actually you know keep the waters you know uh you can't
30:06
really keep water stop flowing in in rivers you know there will be floods entire indogangetic plane would be
30:13
flooded if we actually put physical barriers and damning these rivers is going to be a very long exercise so I
30:19
guess this will eventually I I hope at least you know that this will eventually hope lead to both countries sitting down
30:26
and renegotiating the terms of the IWT yeah the risk also nan is that if India
30:33
does that to Pakistan China can do something very similar yes exactly yes you are and then then we
30:41
enter in a in a kind of escalation where water plays a very
30:47
dirty role and and there is more to do jointly rather than fighting for the the
30:54
problem is that you know it's you know everything starts coming from the top to the bottom you know if the prime
31:00
minister says that water and blood cannot flow together it starts giving
31:06
rise to different kinds of imaginations which we are seeing which has been said by various people you know uh let me
In his latest for Dawn, @ejazhaider Ejaz Haider argues that Pakistan cannot afford to stay reactive in the face of India’s new playbook. He calls for Islamabad to establish its own 'new normal', preempt aggression, dominate escalation ladders, and raise the strategic cost for New Delhi. South Asia’s stability depends on learning the right lessons not just claiming victories.
https://x.com/Rabs_AA/status/1929174329335464414
------
Ilhan Niaz
@IlhanNiaz
Ejaz Haider argues for preemption from the Pakistani side when the next crisis erupts as India has boxed itself into using military force as a first response. South Asia has entered a post-deterrence era.
Today’s must read:
🇵🇰 & 🇮🇳: Where to from here?
https://x.com/IlhanNiaz/status/1929144008304972279
--------------
What are the lessons to be learnt from the recent military face-off between Pakistan and India? Given India’s escalatory adventurism, its adoption of the Israeli playbook and the continuing war rhetoric coming from Indian PM Narendra Modi, can another conflict be far? And what can Pakistan do in response?
https://www.dawn.com/news/1914673
During the Cold War, there was much talk of fighting under the nuclear overhang and even discussions on whether a limited nuclear war could be fought and won without forcing the other side to resort to a massive response. The Cuban Missile Crisis played a significant role in establishing deterrence, highlighting the risks of escalation and flagging the importance of communication and confidence-building measures between the US and the USSR.
In doing so, the crisis contributed to a stable centre at the heart of which then-West and East Germany were situated. While the periphery was destabilised through proxy wars, the centre remained quiet through a stalemate. This is what is today called the instability-stability paradox.
No such periphery exists between Pakistan and India. The entire theatre is the centre. Escalation inheres in India’s policy. Given India’s stated position, its government has boxed itself in and, even if it didn’t want to, the entry point of every new conflict will be on a higher escalation rung on the ladder.
Let me quote Nolan again because nothing describes India’s wanton aggression against Pakistan better than these lines: “More often, war results in something clouded, neither triumph nor defeat. It is an arena of grey outcomes, partial and ambiguous resolution of disputes and causes that led to the choice of force as an instrument of policy in the first place.”
India launches global charm offensive after conflict with Pakistan
Analysts say the outreach underscores concern in India that it did not receive strong international support for its military operations against Pakistan.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/05/31/india-delegation-pakistan-conflict-trump/
India is deploying dozens of lawmakers and former ambassadors to more than 20 global capitals in a hastily organized diplomatic blitz aimed at reclaiming the narrative after its recent clash with Pakistan — and at building international support for a more muscular military approach to its archrival.
-------
But in New Delhi, analysts and critics say the outreach underscores a sobering reality: Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government did not receive the support it expected from the international community for its military campaign. India and Pakistan were effectively hyphenated, or treated as equals — a dynamic New Delhi has long tried to avoid — and the violence between them has unsettled a delicate regional balance in ways that no charm offensive can easily fix.
It is “first and foremost an acknowledgment that Mr. Modi’s diplomacy and foreign policy has failed,” said Sushant Singh, who teaches South Asian Studies at Yale University.
The fighting in early May was the most serious between India and Pakistan since they developed nuclear weapons, and brought the countries perilously close to all-out war. Two dozen civilians were killed on both sides. India lost at least two fighter jets and six Pakistani airfields were damaged in Indian strikes, The Washington Post found.
The Indian delegations are made up of members of various political parties, Singh said, in an attempt “to create a consensus within India to show that everybody’s involved.”
But while billed as a show of unity, the effort has not transcended the country’s fractious politics. Opposition parties criticized the Modi government for skipping a parliamentary session on the broader strategic impact of the conflict and for picking delegation members without their input.
As Indian representatives set out for foreign capitals — ranging from Seoul to Doha, Qatar, to Washington — critics say the Modi government remains narrowly focused on domestic politics, to the detriment of its foreign policy.
“We have serious issues to contend with — the China-Pakistan nexus … Kashmir is being raised internationally,” said Jairam Ramesh, a spokesman for the opposition Congress party. “But like everything the prime minister does, this is about optics.”
--------------
India’s handling of the attack has made its position weaker, said an opposition lawmaker, speaking on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized by their party to comment. Indian authorities failed to prevent the assault despite a heavy military presence in Kashmir and, more than a month later, the perpetrators remain at large.
“This is a serious intelligence failure,” the lawmaker said. “But nobody is asking questions because they will get dubbed anti-national.”
On May 7, India’s Foreign Ministry said investigators had “developed an accurate picture of the planners and backers,” but has provided no further update.
A Western diplomat based in New Delhi, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive matters, said there are concerns over India’s lack of transparency, citing its reluctance to share evidence purportedly implicating Pakistan in the Kashmir attack or divulge information about its fighter jets lost in combat. If Indian officials are not more forthcoming, the diplomat said, their foreign charm offensive may prove fruitless.
Sushant Singh
@SushantSin
New Delhi did try to wrangle an invite for Modi, it seems but failed to get one. That's what the ToI is hinting at.
https://x.com/SushantSin/status/1929397003995279481
-----------
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/in-a-1st-in-6-years-pm-modi-unlikely-to-be-part-of-g7-meet-hosted-by-canada/amp_articleshow/121556213.cms
For the first time in 6 years, PM Narendra Modi is unlikely to be a part of the G7 summit that is being hosted this year by Canada June15-17. There’s no official invitation yet from Canada for the meeting in Alberta but Modi in all likelihood would not have travelled to the North American country in any case, especially when India still isn’t sure the new government in Ottawa will be more receptive to its concerns about the activities of Khalistan separatists.
A Canadian G7 spokesperson didn’t confirm to TOI late on Sunday if Modi was going to be invited.
Any eleventh-hour invitation is unlikely to be considered by India because of logistical constraints, likely efforts by the separatists to disrupt the visit and the strained bilateral ties that both Modi and his Canadian counterpart Mark Carney have committed to improve. A bilateral meeting on the margins could have provided an opportunity for the leaders to jointly reaffirm their commitment to rebuilding ties.
Canada hasn’t officially announced the names of the guest leaders for the summit, which will see the heads of government of major world economies in attendance, but reports in the Canadian media say Ottawa has invited the leaders of Australia, Ukraine, South Africa, Ukraine and Brazil. This will be the first time that he won’t be at the meeting of the economically most advanced group of nations since France invited him for the summit in 2019. His presence at the summit of what is also an informal grouping of like-minded democracies has been seen as a sign of India’s growing role in shaping up the global agenda and addressing transnational issues.
The Sikh separatists last week called upon the Carney government to not invite the Indian PM, citing India’s alleged reluctance to cooperate in the investigations into the killing of separatist leader Hardeep Singh Nijjar. Carney’s predecessor Justin Trudeau blamed the Indian government for the murder without backing up his claim, as Indian has repeatedly said, with any evidence. The diplomatic row that followed saw the relationship hitting an all-time low as both sides expelled each other’s diplomats for activities hostile to the host nation.
Carney has so far not explicitly spoken on the Nijjar issue but, while talking about his plans to use trade to reset ties, has said that Canada is not responsible for the strain on the relationship with India. India is hoping that Carney will act more responsibly than Trudeau in his handling of the case and has said it is ready to work with Ottawa based on mutual trust and sensitivity. India wants Canada to ensure foolproof security for Indian diplomats and also crack down on extremists and secessionists indulging in anti-India activities.
FJ
@Natsecjeff
I say this very rarely about Pakistan. In fact, I cannot remember when was the last time I said this about Pakistan. But here's the thing: this is one those extremely rare occasions in history when Pakistan appears to have strategically outsmarted India on this scale. Like I said, it has been a strategic retreat for India in every conceivable way. Even the one strategic tool it tried to use - water - is not going to go very far because China is already threatening to do the same to India. India misread the strategic landscape. It miscalculated geopolitical signalling. All because Delhi was thinking politically, not strategically.
The Pakistanis were able to largely neutralise the Indian lobby's influence on Trump when it comes to Pakistan's role in the region. And they played their cards (with crypto, minerals and CT) very smartly - and preemptively. They were able to influence key aides of Trump as well as Trump's family members. They did all of this preemptively, well before the Pahalgam attack. The Pakistani lobbying started in DC right after Trump got elected.
India was expecting this administration to be the most pro-India administration in the US history. And yet, Delhi is fuming right now: Kashmir has been internationalized again after Article 370 abrogation, India once again hyphenated with Pakistan, China for the first time has emerged in total support of Pakistan against India, Trump keeps equating Indian and Pakistani leadership, and more. These are all strategic setbacks for India. China is expected to continue to intervene every time India tries to strongarm Pakistan. Same with the water treaty, same with Kashmir.
None of this even takes into account what happened on that fateful first night, or other tactical successes of Pakistan. What the Indian public was expecting to be a cakewalk has turned out to be a tactical and strategic disaster for Delhi, which continues to try to keep a brave face.
It's really the strategic element of it that requires better understanding as it has been overlooked in most discussions.
https://x.com/Natsecjeff/status/1929449924539605482
Why New Delhi’s Failure to Deter Islamabad Will Fuel Future Violence
by Aqil Shah
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/india/next-war-between-india-and-pakistan
Rather than deterring its rival, India precipitated a retaliation that ended up burnishing the Pakistani military’s reputation and boosting its domestic popularity. Paradoxically, India’s retribution has handed the Pakistani army its biggest symbolic victory in recent decades. And that will hardly discourage Islamabad from reining in the proxy war against New Delhi or from risking future flare-ups between these two nuclear-armed states.
-------
Indian officials underestimated how much the Pakistani military needed to demonstrate its own war readiness and resolve, both to India and to its domestic audience. According to accounts in the Pakistani and international press, Pakistan’s Chinese-made jets and air defense systems shot down several Indian fighter planes, including a French-made Rafale. That amounted to a major symbolic victory for Islamabad. It also encouraged Pakistan to test Indian air defenses with a spate of drone and missile attacks. And it revealed the limitations of India’s presumed air supremacy, renewing the Pakistani military’s confidence that it can hold its own in a limited conflict despite India’s conventional superiority.
-------
Worse for India, its attempt to reestablish deterrence backfired. New Delhi hoped that a punitive response, backed by the threat of economic coercion, might discourage Pakistan from engaging in proxy warfare. Instead, the recent hostilities will likely have the opposite effect. Indian attacks on militant sites in Muridke and Bahawalpur did little to damage Pakistan’s jihadi infrastructure. The military-run Inter-Services Intelligence, Pakistan’s most important intelligence agency, had ample time to relocate its prime assets to safety. In any case, planning and launching terror attacks on India is not dependent on fixed structures vulnerable to enemy fire. Pakistan fully retains its capacity to use terrorism to rattle India.
Indeed, far from deterring the Pakistani military, India’s attacks may suggest to the generals that their provocative strategy is working. The military, which has ruled Pakistan for much of the country’s history, has long used hostility toward India to deflect from its own failings. For example, with little evidence, it has blamed New Delhi for backing the resurgent Tehrik-e-Taliban, a militant group at war with the Pakistani state, as well as separatists in southwestern Balochistan province—India denies all these accusations. Even compared to his recent predecessors, Munir had taken a visibly hard-line approach to India. Less than a week before the Pahalgam attack, he invoked the “two-nation theory,” or Pakistan’s founding idea that Hindus and Muslims are two distinct and fundamentally incompatible civilizations, at a convention in Islamabad. In his words, “Our religions are different, our cultures are different, our ambitions are different.” Describing Pakistan as a “hard state,” he vowed to continue backing the Kashmiris’ “heroic fight” against Indian occupation.
Husain Haqqani
@husainhaqqani
India (& Pakistan) need to take out emotion from discussion of geopolitics. Always thought provoking
@mahbubani_k
sums up the India-China-Pakistan equation while talking to @BDUTT
https://x.com/husainhaqqani/status/1926166740527919575
------------
Indian narrative of Pakistan as Chinese vassal state challenged by International experts
https://www.nation.com.pk/24-May-2025/indian-narrative-of-pakistan-as-chinese-vassal-state-challenged-by-international-experts
India’s portrayal of Pakistan as a subordinate state to China has come under scrutiny, as international experts push back against what they describe as misleading propaganda aimed at deflecting attention from recent setbacks.
Indian media, echoing claims by journalist Barkha Dutt, has framed Pakistan as an extension of China’s strategic ambitions, particularly in the context of a perceived two-front threat involving both nations. However, renowned Singaporean diplomat Kishore Mahbubani has criticized this narrative, asserting that it is shaped by a narrow, India-centric perspective centered on Kashmir and the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC).
Mahbubani argued that if Pakistan were genuinely a client state of China, it wouldn’t have turned to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for financial assistance. He described the “satellite state” label as both inaccurate and politically driven.
He further emphasized that the Pakistan-China relationship is built on shared geopolitical interests, not subservience. Drawing comparisons with other global dynamics, he noted that even ideological rivals like the U.S. and China, or Vietnam and China, have pursued cooperative economic ties when beneficial. “Nations can use relationships with adversaries to strengthen themselves,” he remarked.
Defense analysts also suggest that India’s focus on a two-front war narrative is an attempt to rally domestic sentiment following military and diplomatic challenges. These experts argue that India is deliberately branding Pakistan as a Chinese proxy to divert attention from internal frustrations.
Rabia Akhtar
@Rabs_AA
#India If you can not win your region, how do you expect to win the world?
Mani Shankar Aiyar exposes India’s diplomatic miscalculation and cuts through the BS!
In his article (link below), former diplomat and veteran MP Mani Shankar Aiyar, lays bare a dangerous flaw in India’s post-crisis outreach strategy: ignoring its own neighbourhood. While India dispatches MPs to lobby distant UNSC capitals, it has deliberately sidelined Pakistan and alienated its South Asian neighbours, the very region most affected by Indo-Pak tensions.
Aiyar warns that by bypassing regional diplomacy, India not only violates its own, 'Neighbourhood First' mantra btw, but also risks unraveling the bilateral framework enshrined in the 1972 Simla Agreement opening the door to internationalizing the Kashmir issue, something New Delhi has spent decades avoiding.
India’s gamble isn’t just short-sighted as we can see, it is self-defeating.
Read and engage with his brilliant articulation!
Missions impossible
Parliamentary missions sent abroad aim to build support, but face tough questions on India’s Pakistan policy and nuclear posturing.
https://x.com/Rabs_AA/status/1929967029299401183
------------------
https://frontline.thehindu.com/columns/india-pakistan-diplomacy-unsc-modi-foreign-policy/article69651688.ece
Of course, they do deplore terrorism, but specifically, has any of them gone public about Pakistan-sponsored, Pakistan-supported, Pakistan-financed, or Pakistan-armed terrorism? And were they to do so, what answer would our delegations, constrained by the briefings they have received, give to difficult questions such as: how could we not intercept the terrorists deep on our side of the Line of Control? And why have we apprehended none of them a whole month and more after they committed their dastardly deed? And as three of the six alleged terrorists are Kashmiris, does this reflect “normalisation”?
Even if many of those interacting with our MPs know little of India-Pakistan relations, most would want to know the outcome of the first air battle ever between highly sophisticated Western aircraft like Rafale and little-known Chinese military aircraft. Would they be satisfied, as Indians apparently are, by being blandly told that “losses are expected in combat” and detailed information will be made available at the “right time”? Even assuming that our MPs have been vouchsafed the information of our losses, can they share such information with foreigners while it is being denied to Indians? Will our interlocutors not feel short-changed at their distinguished visitors not imparting to them the vital military information they seek, perhaps even to evaluate for themselves how far China has developed in advanced military technology vis-à-vis the West?
The nuclear option
And will the absence of answers from the Indian MPs make them wary of the answers they get about the one question on which our interlocutors are anxious to satisfy themselves: the nuclear weapons option? After all, even the US Vice President J.D. Vance was distancing himself from involvement so long as it was a question of India acting against cross-border terrorism. But the moment we went beyond terrorist camps in Pakistan and escalated to attacking Pakistan airbases, President Donald Trump took upon himself the task of knocking Indian and Pakistani heads together to halt the escalatory prospect before it crossed the nuclear threshold.
But so long as Operation Sindoor remains open-ended—and not terminated—the possibility remains of another terror attack provoking a resumption of armed conflict at a level higher than what Uri and Pathankot or Pulwama and Pahalgam provoked and taking the world closer to a nuclear confrontation. At that point, the issue remains no longer bilateral but of global concern, for any use of nuclear weapons will have global consequences not limited to national frontiers. Little practical purpose is served by our MPs intoning parrot-like that we will not succumb to Pakistani “nuclear blackmail”.
Post a Comment