Escalation Dominance Backfires: A Personal Account of the 2025 India-Pakistan Conflict

By -



On May 6, 2025, India initiated Operation Sindoor, targeting nine locations in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir. This was presented as a measured response to the April 22 Pahalgam attack, which claimed 26 lives. India emphasized the precision and non-escalatory nature of these strikes.

However, the reality on the ground told a different story.

The Human Cost: A Personal Account

Among the targeted areas was Bahawalpur, where a missile strike near a mosque resulted in the death of a child and injuries to two others. The attack caused widespread emergency, prompting Bahawal Victoria Hospital to call in all available medical personnel. However, knowing people, quite a few were in a casual mood; there wasn't any panic.

This tragedy hit close to home. My mother-in-law resides in Bahawalpur, and the proximity of the missile strike caused immense distress. My wife, living with me in Adelaide, was deeply upset, worrying about relatives back home. Due to the fluidity of the situation, I advised them in Bahawalpur not to go out unless necessary and to store essential items, just in case.

"Wars are not headlines. They are someone's home."

Missile Capabilities: A Comparative Analysis

India's Missile Arsenal:

  • Agni Series: Ranges from 700 km (Agni-I) to over 5,000 km (Agni-V), capable of carrying nuclear warheads.

  • Prithvi Series: Short-range ballistic missiles with ranges up to 350 km.

  • BrahMos: Supersonic cruise missile with a range of 290 km, developed jointly with Russia.

  • SCALP and HAMMER Missiles: Deployed during Operation Sindoor for precision strikes.

Pakistan's Missile Arsenal:

  • Shaheen Series: Ranges from 750 km (Shaheen-I) to 2,750 km (Shaheen-III), capable of carrying nuclear warheads.

  • Ghauri Series: Medium-range ballistic missiles with ranges up to 1,500 km.

  • Babur Cruise Missile: Subsonic cruise missile with a range of 700 km.

  • Nasr (Hatf-IX): Tactical nuclear-capable missile with a range of 70 km.

Visual representations of these missile ranges can be found in the CSIS Missile Threat project.

The Doctrine of Escalation Dominance: A Flawed Strategy

India's strategy, influenced by the Israeli doctrine of escalation dominance, aimed to assert control through overwhelming force. However, this approach failed to account for Pakistan's capabilities and resolve. Unlike non-state actors, Pakistan possesses:

  • A credible nuclear deterrent.

  • Advanced delivery systems.

  • Strategic alliances, notably with China.

By responding proportionately and strategically, Pakistan altered the rules of engagement, undermining India's assumptions and exposing the limitations of escalation dominance in this context.

Pakistan’s Strategic Response: Operation Bunyan Ul Marsoos

In the face of aggression, Pakistan launched Operation Bunyan Ul Marsoos, a calculated military response that:

  • Targeted Indian military installations, avoiding civilian areas.

  • Publicly declared the nuclear option as off the table, demonstrating restraint.

  • Employed strategic communication to manage both domestic and international narratives.

This approach defied the stereotype of Pakistan as a volatile state, showcasing a battle-hardened military with over two decades of experience post-9/11, adept in psychological operations and strategic planning.

Delayed Yet Deliberate Response

Unlike immediate retaliatory actions, Pakistan's response was notably delayed. In war like this, hours are days. This interval was marked by intense public pressure, with citizens demanding a robust reply to India's strikes. The delay, however, was strategic, allowing Pakistan to calibrate its response to avoid unnecessary escalation while asserting its defense posture.

Contrasting Military Briefings: Symbolism and Substance

In the aftermath of Operation Sindoor, the Indian military's decision to have Colonel Sofiya Qureshi of the Indian Army and Wing Commander Vyomika Singh of the Indian Air Force lead the press briefing was notable. Both officers are highly accomplished; Colonel Qureshi has a distinguished service record, and Wing Commander Singh is a seasoned helicopter pilot with over 2,500 flying hours. Their presence was seen as a powerful statement of women's evolving roles in the Indian Armed Forces.

However, this move also sparked discussions about the timing and underlying messaging. Just a month prior, following the Pahalgam attack, there was a nationwide discourse questioning the loyalty of India's Muslim community. In this context, the choice of Colonel Qureshi, a Muslim officer, to front the briefing was perceived by some as a strategic attempt to project inclusivity and secularism. Critics argued that while the gesture was symbolic, it did little to address the deeper societal issues and sentiments of alienation felt by the community.

In contrast, Pakistan's response through Operation Bunyan Ul Marsoos was presented by Lieutenant General Ahmed Sharif Chaudhry, the Director-General of Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR). His briefing was characterized by a straightforward delivery, focusing on operational details without theatrical elements. The emphasis was on unity, professionalism, and a measured approach, reflecting Pakistan's intent to handle the situation with restraint and strategic depth.

This juxtaposition highlights the differing communication strategies adopted by the two nations during heightened tensions. While India opted for a presentation rich in symbolism, aiming to convey messages beyond the immediate military context, Pakistan maintained a traditional and direct approach, focusing solely on the operational aspects.

Drone Warfare: The Israeli Connection

India's acquisition of Israeli drones, notably the Heron TP and Harop loitering munitions, was intended to bolster its surveillance and precision strike capabilities. These unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) are known for their long-endurance missions and advanced targeting systems. However, during the recent conflict, Pakistan claimed to have shot down multiple Indian drones, including these Israeli-made models, over various targeted  regions.

Cultural Resilience

One particular incident that garnered widespread attention involved a Pakistani civilian who reportedly shot down a drone while on his way to purchase yogurt. The story quickly went viral, symbolizing the nation's resilience and turning into a meme that resonated with many. Another widely circulated video depicted a man in Lahore's DHA Y Block area placing a downed drone on the front (tunkey) of his 125cc motorcycle and riding off, further highlighting the public's engagement and the lighter side amidst serious tensions.

These anecdotes underscore the Pakistani populace's adaptability and humor in the face of adversity. Having endured the prolonged impacts of the post-9/11 era and the subsequent regional instability, the Pakistani people have developed a unique blend of resilience and levity. As a light-hearted observation, it seems that Lahore has taken the lead in this cultural expression, showcasing a spirited response that perhaps outshines other regions (read Karachi).

An Empire of Calculated Detachment

April 22, 2025: Pahalgam Terror Attack

During his official visit to India, U.S. Vice President JD Vance emphasized the strengthening of strategic and economic ties between Washington and New Delhi. Just as his family was wrapping up the trip, the Pahalgam terror attack occurred, killing 26 civilians. While still in India, Vance issued a carefully worded statement that echoed India’s framing:
“India has every right to defend itself against terrorism. We hope Pakistan cooperates in rooting out groups operating from its soil.”
It was a familiar refrain — often heard in U.S. positions on Israel-Gaza escalations. The tone was supportive, but carefully distanced.

May 6–7, 2025: India’s Operation Sindoor

In retaliation, India launched Operation Sindoor, targeting what it described as terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir. This marked a dangerous escalation between two nuclear powers. Vance reaffirmed America’s position with near-identical language:

“India has every right to defend itself against terrorism. We hope Pakistan cooperates...”

May 8, 2025: The Pivot

Two days later, after Pakistan launched Operation Bunyan Ul Marsoos — a restrained but firm military response — Vance abruptly shifted tone:
“We’re not going to get involved in the middle of a war that’s fundamentally none of our business.”
The contrast was stark. From affirmation to avoidance — the pivot was swift, almost clinical.

May 10, 2025: Brokered Ceasefire

Despite earlier claims of non-involvement, the United States played a decisive role in brokering a ceasefire. President Donald Trump announced a “full and immediate” halt to hostilities, following diplomatic efforts led by Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President Vance.

Strategic Realism Over Sentiment

This wasn’t confusion — it was calculated detachment. A foreign policy driven not by loyalty, but by leverage.

“Empires don’t change character; they change tactics.”
— John Mearsheimer, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics

Since the Suez Crisis of 1956, the United States has shown a consistent preference for flexibility over fidelity. It does not bleed for its allies — it balances. JD Vance’s pivot wasn’t hesitation; it was textbook strategic realism:
Support when it’s politically cheap
Withdraw when the cost rises
Return when leverage is high
Where older empires clung to pride, the United States clings to calculus. Its choices are neither moral nor immoral — they are amoral, rational, and adaptable.
This is the behavior of an empire of calculated detachment: emotionally distant, operationally precise, and forever attuned to interest over allegiance.

A Geopolitical Shift: Echoes of the Suez Crisis

This conflict is not just about India and Pakistan — it's a fault line in the global order. Much like the 1956 Suez Crisis revealed the declining grip of British and French imperialism (when U.S. pressure forced their retreat from Egypt), this 2025 confrontation has similarly exposed the limits of American-aligned hegemony in South Asia.

In 1956, Egypt challenged colonial power with strategic cunning and Cold War backing. Today, Pakistan, though weaker economically and institutionally, used Chinese-backed systems — like the J-10C fighter jet, advanced radars, and coordinated missile doctrine — to punch above its weight.

Meanwhile, India, equipped with billion-dollar Rafale jets and Israeli drones, failed to achieve escalation dominance. This wasn’t due to lack of firepower, but because the cost of pushing a nuclear rival too far wasn’t tenable — not in 1956, and not in 2025.

"Empires don’t fall in a day — they bleed credibility, one overreach at a time."

As Mearsheimer warns in The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, rising powers reshape world order not by asking permission, but by shifting the battlefield — technologically, diplomatically, and psychologically. In this case, China played a long game, and Pakistan, by design or default, became a proof point.

Media Narratives and the Battle for Truth

In any modern conflict, the media isn't just a mirror — it's a weapon. And in 2025, it was wielded with force.

Double Standards and the Global Lens

Pakistani Information Minister Attaullah Tarar was grilled live by journalist Yalda Hakim on Sky News, when he denied any terror bases existed in Pakistan. Hakim, drawing on her BBC background, referenced historic Pakistani admissions about prior militant ties — exposing a tension between state denial and public memory.

But this confrontation also raises a fair question:

Will Indian officials ever be asked, on global networks, whether New Delhi is stoking rebellion in Balochistan the same way Hamas is accused of fomenting violence in Gaza?

Western media, particularly legacy outlets like the BBC and CNN, are often accused of reinforcing narratives aligned with their governments — unintentionally or otherwise. The BBC itself admitted to over 1,500 editorial breaches in its coverage of the Israel-Gaza war, often parroting official Israeli claims with limited scrutiny of Palestinian suffering.

In South Asia, Indian media has grown increasingly nationalistic — shouting matches masquerading as journalism, often vilifying dissent. Pakistani media, though more diverse in tone, faces its own limitations, swinging between state influence and populist tropes.

In this digital age, where misinformation can go viral in minutes, the truth often dies in the crossfire.

Conclusion: The Real Battlefield

“Gandhi was the son of the soil. This is not strategy. This is not nationalism. This is stupidity dressed as strength.”

This conflict — between India and Pakistan, America and China, missiles and microphones — reminds us that wars don’t happen in the abstract. They happen in homes, in WhatsApp calls, in the tears of a worried mother, and the silence of a blacked-out skyline.

For many like us, who left home to build safer lives abroad, these escalations are not merely geopolitical chess moves. They are deeply personal. And perhaps, in the distant echo of sirens and air raid alerts, we hear the unspoken duty to one day return — not just with remittances or remembrances, but with real capital: our voices, our children, and the courage to demand better.

References:

  1. Operation Sindoor: India's Missile Strikes on Pakistan

  2. Pakistan's Response: Operation Bunyan Ul Marsoos

  3. JD Vance's Statements on the Conflict

  4. Ceasefire Announcement by President Trump

  5. Missile Capabilities Comparison

  6. India's Acquisition of Israeli Heron Drones

  7. Pakistan's Missile Arsenal Overview

  8. India's Missile Arsenal Overview

  9. India-Pakistan Military Strength Comparison

  10. U.S. Vice President JD Vance's Visit to India


Comments

Post a Comment