Was it a war or conflict? A battle of semantics

Hindustan Times

11-05-2025

Were we in a war with Pakistan? Depends on who you ask.
The government's preferred term for the military exchanges with neighbour Pakistan that started May 7 and ended May 10 is 'limited conflict'.
This choice of semantics has its advantages. Academic and editor, INDIA'S WORLD, a foreign affairs magazine, Happymon Jacob points out that when you call a conflict a war, it becomes legal phraseology. International bodies get involved, which has all kinds of bilateral and legal implications. 'Calling it 'limited conflict' makes it easier for the government to navigate things as they deem fit,' says Jacob. According to him, another reason the war tag was avoided is that it would in some respects put the two countries on a par, which India wanted to avoid at any cost.
Then there are the technicalities. Neither the Indian Army, nor the Navy, nor the Air Force, crossed the international border or the Line of Control (LoC). The modern weaponry used meant that India hit targets deep inside Pakistan, such as Bahawalpur in Pakistan's Punjab province, without ships or planes crossing over or using troops on the ground.
Second, unlike a traditional war, there isn't any territory at stake. India's clear objective was to disable terror infrastructure that enables attacks like Pahalgam. There wasn't a defined area of conflict unlike in the 1999 Kargil War which India had to recapture or dismantle. Operational manoeuvres were characterised as proportional responses to previous attacks.
Sometimes, the semantics change over the course of a conflict. During the Kargil War, the Pervez Musharraf-led Pakistan Army sent in troops across the LoC to take over strategic high-altitude positions in Kashmir. This led to a conflict that lasted two months and ended only in July 26 of that year, when the Army regained control of key positions such as Tiger Hill.
If we go through the news reports at the time, the terms used to describe Kargil in May 1999 were 'conflict' or 'crisis'. As the details emerged, India also referred to it as incursions or simply referred to it as Operation Vijay. But as the conflict extended, as the troops moved in and the casualties started climbing, the term 'war' became unavoidable. And by the time India claimed back its positions and evicted the enemy from Kashmir in July 1999, the Kargil War was sealed in our collective memory for good. It was a good association: After all, we had won the war. The term was then made official as India announced war-time gallantry awards for the soldiers who died fighting it.
'No two wars are the same, so comparisons are unfair; every war has its own intensity and dynamic,' says retired Lt General Syed Ata Hasnain. The 2025 exchanges between India and Pakistan were indeed a 'limited conflict', he says, since the definition of war and conflict is on a spectrum.
But away from the semantics, two things stand out in contrast to Kargil. The attacks and retaliation in 2025 spanned the length of the international border and the LoC — from shelling in Baramulla in Kashmir in the north to downed drones in Sir Creek in Gujarat in the west. That scale is comparable to the last major war of 1971, the last time the international border was breached.
The second difference is that Kargil's isolation limited the scope of civilian casualties. This time, given the advanced munitions deployed and extended range of their deployment, there were greater chances of more civilians being caught in the line of fire, had the conflict dragged on.
Thankfully, the debate now will be on the semantics of a ceasefire.
The views expressed are personal