Mubashar Nadeem
On May 7, 2025, the Pakistan Air Force made a decisive move, downing five Indian aircraft—one near Bathinda in Indian Punjab and four in Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir. This action sent a clear message of Pakistan’s military capability and readiness. The very next day, a series of drone strikes targeting both civilian and military installations across Pakistan—from Punjab to Sindh—was intercepted and neutralized in real-time, further showcasing the country’s preparedness for defense. Pakistan’s armed forces have demonstrated their operational efficiency and credible self-defense capacity, leaving no room for illusions in New Delhi about a consequence-free strike campaign. The message was clear: Pakistan will defend itself.
However, despite the temptation to escalate the situation and deliver a proportionate counter-strike, Pakistan must resist the urge to retaliate further. The real victory here does not lie in retaliation or escalation. It lies in choosing to step back from the precipice of further conflict and insulation from a prolonged cycle of volatility. Given the current state of Pakistan’s political, social, and economic condition, the nation cannot afford another prolonged conflict. Escalation would only risk further destabilization, something Pakistan’s people and economy are ill-prepared to handle.
India’s provocations towards Pakistan have steadily intensified since 2016. Beginning with surgical strikes across the Line of Control (LoC), followed by the 2019 Balakot airstrike, and now in 2025, a coordinated missile assault targeting civilian and strategic infrastructure, India’s behavior is concerning. The trajectory of these actions suggests that, if unchecked, India might embolden itself to take even more aggressive actions in the future, including a full-scale ground invasion. Under normal circumstances, this kind of logic would demand a response. Aggression, especially in statecraft, often escalates unless confronted. The fear is that appeasement could embolden the aggressor, which is a valid concern.
Please subscribe to the YouTube channel of republicpolicy.com for quality content:
But in this case, Pakistan has already landed a decisive blow by proving its aerial superiority. The downing of Indian aircraft on May 7 stands as a significant achievement and sends a clear message of Pakistan’s credible defense capability. There is no need for further action. Continuing the conflict would risk taking the situation to an irrecoverable level of escalation. The costs of continuing such a path far outweigh the benefits, and any further action could be a step into a dangerous, uncharted territory.
What differentiates Pakistan from India in this scenario is the absence of a war lobby. Unlike India, where a manufactured sense of jingoism often pervades the public and political discourse, Pakistan does not stand to gain any electoral dividends from televised airstrikes or military action. The Pakistani public, having endured seven years of political and economic crises, does not possess the stomach for another conflict. The nation is still reeling from the constitutional collapse of 2022, an economic crisis that wiped out two years of GDP growth, and an ongoing struggle to recover from the devastating impacts of inflation, natural disasters, and terrorism.
Pakistan faces deep, structural problems. The country is already grappling with currency devaluation, spiraling inflation, energy shortages, and food insecurity. It is ill-prepared for the repercussions of full-scale war. If the situation escalates into a larger conflict, the economic consequences would be catastrophic—food shortages, rising fuel prices, power outages, trade disruptions, and a halt to crucial diplomatic and economic activities would further cripple an already fragile economy. Civilian life would grind to a halt, with schools closed, industries disrupted, and international activities suspended. These are just the preliminary impacts. If the situation continues to escalate, the consequences could be even more severe.
Furthermore, the economic cost of warfare extends beyond immediate military actions. Even a symbolic tit-for-tat retaliation would result in significant economic damage. Foreign investors would flee, bond spreads would widen, and the nation could face sanctions and a downward spiral in both business and consumer confidence. The economic costs of conflict are not isolated from its diplomatic repercussions. A war would undoubtedly strip Pakistan of its carefully cultivated international sympathy, which has been a result of the country’s disciplined self-restraint in the face of provocations.
Pakistan must send a clear message to both India and the international community that its decision to restrain itself is not a sign of weakness but of strength and maturity. On May 7, Pakistan demonstrated its military capability. Now, the focus should be on maintaining that strength while exercising the strategic restraint necessary to prevent further escalation. Escalation would undermine the very achievement that Pakistan has attained—namely, the demonstration of a credible self-defense capability.
The key now is for Pakistan to control the narrative. Pakistan has already proven its military prowess and readiness. Now, it is time to dictate the next move. India must be the first to de-escalate. The ceasefire along the LoC should be restored, and India must halt its aggressive actions and baseless accusations. The suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty by India is a major concern, as it has resulted in the cessation of bilateral consultations and has posed a direct threat to Pakistan’s water security. This unilateral decision by India must be reversed. Pakistan’s access to water from the Indus River System is a fundamental issue of survival and sovereignty, and any diplomatic resolution must ensure the immediate restoration of Pakistan’s water rights under the treaty.
Pakistan’s conditions for de-escalation should also include the initiation of bilateral talks with India and a roadmap for the restoration of the pre-2019 constitutional status of Jammu and Kashmir. While it may not be possible to secure all demands immediately, Pakistan must enter the negotiation process with a firm stance and a clear objective of protecting its interests. The dialogue must also include concrete steps towards resolving the water dispute.
This is where Pakistan’s diplomatic team must step up. The decision not to escalate should be framed as an act of geopolitical responsibility, not as a retreat. As a rational nuclear-armed power, Pakistan must position itself as a stabilizing force in the region. It must own the narrative and portray itself as having acted decisively in self-defense but unwilling to escalate the conflict for the sake of regional and global stability. This will present Pakistan as the responsible actor on the world stage.
Pakistan has the moral and political upper hand. Western and Gulf capitals, which are advocating for de-escalation, must be made to understand that Pakistan’s restraint comes at a cost. The cost is not just an end to Indian hostilities but a concrete shift in policy: a de-escalation along the border, a reversal of the suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty, the resumption of dialogue on the status of Jammu and Kashmir, and a commitment to avoiding future military misadventures.
This is not a call for passivity but a call for strategic, smart power. By choosing restraint while maintaining the upper hand, Pakistan can win twice: once on the battlefield and once diplomatically. The choice is not between war and surrender, but between short-term aggression and long-term victory. This time, long-term victory is choosing not to escalate because, in reality, Pakistan has already won.
