The world has changed, and so has the nature of warfare. From the massive tank battles of the mid-twentieth century to the precision-driven air duels of today, the South Asian security landscape has witnessed a profound transformation. Yet, despite this evolution, one constant remains: Kashmir continues to lie at the heart of Indo-Pak confrontations. The 1965 war and the May 2025 conflict, separated by six decades, show how the tools of war have shifted from armored columns to fighter jets, drones, and electronic warfare, while the core dispute remains unresolved.
The 1965 war was largely defined by ground operations. When India launched its offensive across the Lahore front, Pakistan countered with fierce resistance, leading to one of the largest tank battles since World War II at Chawinda. The conflict was characterized by territorial advances, attrition, and heavy casualties, but it also marked the emergence of the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) as a decisive force. Despite being outnumbered, Pakistani pilots downed a significant number of Indian aircraft, demonstrating skill and resilience.
By contrast, the May 2025 confrontation unfolded at lightning speed. Following the Pahalgam attack in April, which India blamed on Pakistan, New Delhi launched “Operation Sindoor” on May 7, targeting nine sites in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir. Islamabad denied the allegations, citing civilian and military casualties from Indian strikes. In retaliation, the PAF downed six Indian aircraft, including at least three Rafale fighters, leveraging its modern J-10C jets and Chinese-supplied integrated air defense systems. Unlike 1965, where tanks dominated, this crisis showcased the primacy of the skies, where precision, technology, and information warfare dictated outcomes.
This transformation, from tanks to jets, captures how modern war is fought. The 1965 war began with ground offensives but expanded to the air; the 2025 crisis started with air duels, missile strikes, and electronic warfare. Modern conflicts in South Asia are measured less in territorial advances than in control of the skies and dominance in the information space.
The Pakistan Air Force has remained central across both eras. In 1965, its pilots’ courage tilted the balance in Pakistan’s favor. In 2025, it demonstrated mastery of integrated multi-domain operations. According to the Global Firepower Index (2025), the PAF commands a fleet of 1,434 aircraft, ranking among the strongest in the world.
Decades of modernization through the JF-17 Thunder program, induction of J-10Cs, and adoption of electronic warfare systems have transformed the PAF into a formidable, adaptable force.
India’s performance in 2025 revealed contradictions. Initially, New Delhi dismissed Pakistani claims of downed aircraft as “disinformation.” Yet mounting evidence forced senior Indian officials to admit to losses, though they attempted to downplay the extent. Contradictory statements from political leaders and military officers exposed disunity, with some blaming political restrictions on the armed forces and others accusing Pakistan of receiving Chinese assistance. These inconsistencies damaged India’s credibility.
Indian media compounded the problem by amplifying exaggerated claims of victories that were later retracted. Hyper-nationalist propaganda dominated headlines, but international observers quickly saw through the façade. In contrast, Pakistan issued evidence-based statements, maintaining a defensive posture while projecting professionalism. This disparity reinforced Pakistan’s credibility and highlighted India’s immaturity in handling both war and narrative-building.
Diplomatic responses also underscored key differences. In 1965, the United Nations mediated a ceasefire. In 2025, Washington intervened directly, with the U.S. president claiming to have brokered the ceasefire announced on May 10. Although India insisted on bilateralism and rejected third-party involvement, the episode exposed the limits of that stance. The May 2025 standoff was a sobering reminder of the fragile stability in South Asia. It underscored unresolved disputes, particularly Kashmir, and persistent mistrust between India and Pakistan. Washington’s rapid mediation prevented escalation, reopened discussion of Kashmir, and created new diplomatic avenues for Pakistan-U.S. relations.
Pakistan’s role as a capable middle power became more visible during this crisis. Field Marshal Asim Munir’s subsequent visit to the U.S. for CENTCOM’s change of command signaled Pakistan’s re-emergence as a significant international actor. For Washington, Pakistan was no longer viewed solely through the lens of conflict but as a stabilizing partner. This recognition strengthened Islamabad’s diplomatic standing and emphasized its relevance in shaping regional dynamics.
Comparing 1965 with 2025 highlights how both countries approach war differently. In 1965, Pakistan’s resilience secured survival against a larger adversary. In 2025, its preparedness, technological capability, and disciplined strategy again proved decisive.
India, despite possessing advanced Rafales and BrahMos missiles, struggled with coherence, exposing gaps in planning and execution. These differences underline that true military strength lies not merely in acquiring advanced hardware but in integrating it effectively within a strategic framework.
Despite Pakistan’s military achievements, one truth remains unchanged: Kashmir continues to ignite confrontations without resolution. The shift from tanks to jets, from artillery to drones, has not altered the fundamental instability rooted in this dispute. India’s contradictions, immature media behavior, and reliance on propaganda may satisfy domestic audiences, but internationally, they erode credibility. Pakistan, by contrast, has emphasized professionalism and evidence, strengthening its case diplomatically even while defending militarily.
As Pakistan reflects on sixty years since 1965, it takes pride in its armed forces’ adaptability and courage. Yet it also recognizes that the lessons of history remain unheeded. Whether in tank battles or aerial duels, military victories have failed to resolve the Kashmir issue. The absence of political settlement ensures that each confrontation risks escalation, regardless of the changing technologies of war. Until the dispute is addressed politically, South Asia will remain vulnerable to cycles of crisis, where even advanced jets cannot guarantee lasting peace.
The writer Is supervisor at Kashmir Institute of International Relations (KIIR) Internship Program, and the founder of HEAL Pakistan, an initiative focused on education empowerment, awareness, and leadership.
He can be reached at habibmail.1947@gmail.com
Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.