Pakistan is a peace-loving nation that respects the sovereignty of other countries and refrains from interfering in their internal affairs. Unfortunately, Pakistan has long been a victim of terrorism and continues to make significant sacrifices in its fight against this global menace.
There is credible evidence pointing to Indian involvement in supporting terrorist activities within Pakistan, particularly through groups like the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA). The arrest and confession of Indian spy Kulbhushan Yadav stand as a testament to India’s role in destabilizing Pakistan. Despite these serious violations, Pakistan has consistently chosen the path of dialogue and peace.
Meanwhile, the human rights situation in India, especially regarding minorities, has drawn global concern. The safety, dignity, and rights of minorities are frequently at risk, and incidents of violence and extremism in India often stem from deep-rooted internal issues. Rather than addressing these challenges domestically, India has repeatedly attempted to externalize blame—often pointing fingers at Pakistan without credible evidence.
Examples include the Pulwama attack and the Samjhauta Express tragedy, where accusations were made against Pakistan without proper investigations. India ended up being both the victim and the sole authority—acting as judge, jury, and executioner. This behavior undermines regional stability and reflects a broader pattern of irresponsibility.
Pakistan, in contrast, has consistently urged India to share verifiable evidence and pursue diplomatic channels, but India has refused. Furthermore, India’s alleged involvement in acts of international terrorism, including assassination plots uncovered in the US and Canada, has raised serious questions on the global stage.
The issue of Jammu and Kashmir remains a longstanding international dispute, recognized by the United Nations. However, India continues to treat it as an internal matter while attempting to internationalize its domestic challenges, such as terrorism. This contradictory stance has only complicated the prospects for peace.
Despite repeated provocations, Pakistan has shown restraint and maturity. Whether it was the conflicts of 1965 or 1971, history shows that Pakistan did not initiate these wars. In the aftermath of the recent Pahalgam incident, the people of Pakistan once again advocated for peace and calm.
However, as a sovereign nation, Pakistan reserves the right to defend its people and territory. The response in the form of Operation Bunyan Al-Marsoos was a defensive measure taken in response to Indian aggression, aimed at protecting innocent civilians. It sent a clear message: while Pakistan is committed to peace, any act of aggression will be met with a firm and proportional response.
Pakistan’s Armed Forces are professional and dedicated to defending the country against all threats—internal or external. The state maintains a zero-tolerance policy towards terrorism and remains committed to regional peace and stability.
Both India and Pakistan, as nuclear-armed neighbors, bear a responsibility toward the safety and future of over 1.6 billion people. There is no room for war. What is needed now is mutual maturity, dialogue, and a commitment to resolving disputes peacefully in accordance with international law.
During the recent conflict with India, Pakistanis viewed the military’s performance with a sense of pride and reassurance. In what has been described as one of the largest air battles of the 21st century, involving 112 aircraft equipped with beyond-visual-range (BVR) technology, Pakistan claimed a decisive advantage. While India reportedly lost five fighter jets—including three Rafale aircraft—Pakistan emerged without confirmed losses in the aerial combat.
The Pakistan Air Force also successfully countered the largest swarm drone attack in the region’s history, neutralizing all 77 hostile drones using a mix of soft-kill (electronic disruption) and hard-kill (kinetic) methods. In addition, Pakistani air defenses intercepted multiple ballistic missiles, including the technologically advanced BrahMos. Despite its hypersonic speed and precision, the majority of BrahMos missiles were either destroyed or deflected, marking a significant milestone for Pakistan’s growing air defense capability.
India launched strikes on nine locations, whereas Pakistan responded by targeting 26 strategic sites across India, demonstrating both technological prowess and operational confidence. This conflict reinforced Pakistan’s ability to fight effectively on both its eastern and western fronts. Rather than limiting itself to a proportional response, Pakistan elevated its strategy, executing both defensive and offensive operations with calculated precision.
The combined strength of Pakistan’s Army, Air Force, and Navy was on full display. Analysts noted that had Pakistan not demonstrated such military competence and restraint, the conflict might have escalated uncontrollably. The show of force played a key role in preventing immediate escalation, making clear that a full-scale India–Pakistan war was not only unsustainable but unacceptable to the international community.
On the diplomatic front, Pakistan navigated the crisis without losing international support. Despite fears, the IMF did not halt its financial tranche, reflecting confidence in Pakistan’s economic trajectory. While global powers called for restraint, Pakistan gained backing from key allies, notably China and Türkiye. Conversely, Israel—widely viewed in the Muslim world as ideologically hostile—sided with India and provided advanced drones and military support. However, the broader Western response leaned toward neutrality, undercutting India’s perception of itself as the West’s favored strategic partner.
Domestically, the conflict exposed deep-seated issues within India, particularly its treatment of minorities, including Muslims and Sikhs. This drew attention from international media and rights organizations. In contrast, Pakistan saw a unifying effect internally, as political divisions narrowed and national solidarity strengthened. Pakistan’s narrative—based on documented evidence—gained credibility, while India’s claims were widely criticized as unsubstantiated or fabricated.
Importantly, Pakistan used the moment to shed longstanding allegations of being a state sponsor of terrorism. Instead, India came under scrutiny for supporting destabilizing elements in Balochistan, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, and other regions. This marked a significant reversal in international perception.
Regionally, the conflict reset geopolitical dynamics. India’s long-standing effort to “de-hyphenate” itself from Pakistan in global diplomacy was effectively undone. The Kashmir issue, long pushed to the margins, re-entered international discourse with renewed urgency. Indian deterrence suffered a visible and public collapse, as Pakistan effectively countered India’s strikes and asserted strategic dominance.
The Pakistan Air Force’s post-strike briefing became a defining moment. Unlike rhetorical claims, it presented verifiable data—radar logs, satellite images, jamming signals, and missile trajectory spoofing. India’s prized S-400 air defense system at Adampur was mapped and struck, while Rafale jets were reportedly grounded and unable to engage effectively in contested airspace. India’s command-and-control satellite links were jammed mid-battle, crippling their beyond-line-of-sight (BLOS) coordination and fragmenting their operational networks.
Indian drones were either electronically blinded or shot down. Confirmed losses included a Rafale and a Su-30MKI, with debris filmed inside Indian territory. Unexploded SCALP-EG warheads landed in Pakistani fields. Several of India’s retaliatory missiles misfired or crashed within its own borders, with one French M88 engine found in Bathinda and wreckage of a Russian AL-31FP engine scattered across the Akhnoor forests. Satellite intelligence from China’s MizarVision confirmed that Indian strikes on Nur Khan Airbase caused minimal damage, merely scorching ground vehicles rather than achieving mission-critical destruction.
Meanwhile, Pakistan’s precision strikes hit 26 military targets, including BrahMos storage depots at Bas and command hubs at Barnala. The Pakistan Navy maintained underwater dominance, tracking Indian submarines without surfacing its own.
All of this was carried out with calibrated restraint. As Pakistan asserted control over the battlefield narrative, India scrambled diplomatically—reaching out to the U.S., appealing to Saudi Arabia, and seeking a negotiated exit. A public comment by U.S. President Donald Trump internationalized the Kashmir issue, aligning with one of Pakistan’s long-standing strategic goals.
India’s failed “Operation Sindoor” became a case study in miscalculation. Even Indian defense experts—such as retired Army officer Pravin Sawhney—acknowledged Pakistan’s edge in training, strategic thinking, and execution.
As South Asia undergoes profound geopolitical shifts, it has become increasingly clear that for Pakistan, a capable and modern military is not a luxury—it is an imperative. The recent conflict with India underscored the need for readiness, resilience, and strategic foresight. While war remains an undesirable path, sustainable peace must be built on the foundation of strength. A modernized, well-equipped military ensures that Pakistan can protect its national interests, uphold its sovereignty, and contribute meaningfully to long-term peace and stability in the region. The people of Pakistan deeply appreciate the outstanding role played by the Pakistan Army in successfully countering the Indian military across all fronts. There is a strong public desire to see the armed forces become even more powerful, modernized, and well-equipped to face future challenges.
Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.