Tariq Mahmood Awan

The recent flare-up in tensions between India and Pakistan following the killings at Pehlgam has once again placed both nuclear-armed neighbors on the brink of a serious military confrontation. What makes this situation especially concerning is that the level of escalation—particularly from India—is unprecedented, even in comparison to the three wars the two countries have previously fought. From suspending the Indus Waters Treaty to sealing border crossings, India’s aggressive posture marks a significant departure from past patterns. Pakistan, in turn, has responded with actions like closing its airspace, signaling that this confrontation is rapidly evolving into something far more dangerous than a border skirmish.

In such a volatile scenario, even a small miscalculation could ignite a full-scale war. And war—regardless of who initiates it—is a brutal and destructive affair. While both nations have engaged in armed conflict in the past, they have so far been spared the kind of devastation witnessed during the World Wars. That could change if things spiral out of control now. Unfortunately, 77 years after their partition, it appears that neither country has fully absorbed the lessons of history. However, the consequences of a war today would be fundamentally different—and far more complex—especially for India.

At the heart of this is the difference in strategic objectives. Pakistan’s military doctrine is largely defensive in nature: to protect its sovereignty and respond with enough strength to deter or repel an Indian advance. India’s strategy, however, is rooted in achieving dominance. For India to meet its objectives, it cannot simply hold its ground or deliver a symbolic blow. It must win decisively. That’s a much bigger and more difficult task.

While Pakistan’s economy is fragile and its ability to sustain a long war is limited, it does possess credible deterrents. Its nuclear capability and advanced missile systems give it the power to inflict serious damage on India, even in a losing scenario. This fact alone shifts the entire calculus. Pakistan doesn’t need to win in a conventional sense; it only needs to hold its ground long enough or make the costs high enough that India is forced to rethink its ambitions.

Please subscribe to the YouTube channel of republicpolicy.com for quality podcasts:

India, by contrast, faces a far more complicated equation. Beyond just winning militarily, it must also meet the political and psychological expectations that come with its image as a regional powerhouse. The Indian government and military would be under immense pressure to demonstrate overwhelming superiority—not just a stalemate or limited gain. Anything less would undermine its global perception as an emerging superpower.

This pressure is not just external but internal as well. The Indian public, driven by nationalist sentiment and media hype, would expect quick and decisive victory. Any perceived delay, setback, or disproportionate cost could quickly erode public support and create political instability. A war with Pakistan is not just a test of military strength but also a test of India’s national resilience—socially, economically, and politically.

Furthermore, recent events have exposed some cracks in India’s strategic posture. The border standoff with China, for instance, highlighted that India’s military might—while large—is not infallible. Critics argue that the perception of India as a dominant power is more myth than substance, driven by economic growth and strategic alliances rather than battlefield performance. A conflict with Pakistan could further expose those vulnerabilities, especially if Pakistan manages to drag the war out or trigger international concerns over nuclear escalation.

Unlike in 1971, when India had a clear strategic advantage and a divided Pakistan, the current situation is much more nuanced. Today, Pakistan is more unified and possesses far more advanced military technology. It is prepared for both conventional and asymmetric warfare. Any Indian military misadventure could invite retaliatory strikes that disrupt not only India’s military plans but also its economy, infrastructure, and social fabric. In short, Pakistan’s deterrence strategy is designed precisely to make a conventional Indian victory both costly and unlikely.

Moreover, India’s geography, with densely populated urban centers and critical economic zones within striking distance, makes it highly vulnerable to even limited Pakistani missile attacks. The stakes are not just about territorial gains but about maintaining national stability in the face of massive potential disruptions. India would need to wage a comprehensive war across multiple domains—land, air, cyber, economic, and diplomatic—to claim a decisive win. That’s an incredibly tall order.

In contrast, Pakistan’s goal is simpler: survive, defend, and retaliate enough to make continued aggression untenable for India. From that perspective, Pakistan may actually be better positioned strategically, even if it lacks the economic or military depth of India. The psychological and political cost of failing to achieve a comprehensive victory would fall entirely on New Delhi, not Islamabad.

Please subscribe to the Republic Policy monthly English/Urdu magazines.

Lastly, the global context matters. In an era where international opinion and economic stability carry as much weight as battlefield success, India would face immense scrutiny. A war—especially one that risks nuclear escalation—would destabilize the region and draw intense international condemnation. India’s ambition of becoming a global economic leader and strategic partner for the West would be severely damaged. Pakistan, by virtue of its defensive posture, would not face the same reputational risks.

In sum, while both countries have much to lose in any war, the burden of winning—and being seen to win—falls disproportionately on India. It must weigh the consequences of military action not only in terms of territorial or strategic gain but also in terms of the broader national and international expectations tied to its image. For Pakistan, survival and deterrence are sufficient. For India, anything short of comprehensive victory would be seen as failure.

Given the stakes, it is imperative that both countries—especially India—step back from the brink. War is not just a matter of weapons and troops; it is a matter of human lives, national futures, and global peace. The only sustainable path forward is dialogue, resolution of core issues like Kashmir, and a collective commitment to stability. Otherwise, both nations risk stepping into a conflict that neither can truly afford—and that history will not forgive.