&w=3840&q=100)
A pause, not peace: India and Pakistan at a crossroads
Unless Pakistan changes its jihadi course, the India-Pakistan ceasefire may prove untenable and the peace remains fragile read more
This is a defining moment in South Asia. The post-Cold War geopolitics is carving a new line after 'Operation Sindoor'. India conducted a series of precision air and missile strikes on May 7, 2025, targeting nine sites in Pakistan. These strikes were in retaliation for the April 22 terrorist attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, which resulted in the deaths of 26 Indian tourists. India identified the targeted locations as terrorist infrastructure associated with groups like Jaish-e-Mohammed. Pakistan has also fired missiles in which seven civilians are killed in India.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Tensions were escalating, and most likely the war seemed imminent. UN Secretary-General António Guterres called for maximum restraint from both India and Pakistan, emphasising that 'the world cannot afford a military confrontation between India and Pakistan.' The other big powers added the same language of restraint and demanded peace.
But the ceasefire happened on May 10. US President Donald Trump wrote on X, 'After a long night of talks mediated by the United States, I am pleased to announce that India and Pakistan have agreed to a FULL AND IMMEDIATE CEASEFIRE. Congratulations to both countries on using common sense and great intelligence. Thank you for your attention to this matter!'
However, there were reports of ceasefire violations from Pakistan's side, but as per the India Today report, 'The Indian Army, in an official statement, said the ceasefire along the LoC is intact and continues to be observed as per the understanding between both the armies.'
Moreover, the ceasefire may prove untenable; under such circumstances, a comparative assessment of India and Pakistan's diplomatic and military strengths and weaknesses becomes imperative.
Comparative Diplomatic and Military strengths
India has cultivated strategic partnerships with multiple major powers, including the United States, Russia, France, and Israel, providing access to diverse military technology and diplomatic support. In any confrontation between India and Pakistan, a multitude of factors come into play, spanning conventional military strength, nuclear capabilities, economic endurance, technological advancements, and geopolitical dynamics.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
While both nations possess formidable armed forces, a comparative analysis reveals several areas where India holds a significant advantage, alongside specific strengths that Pakistan leverages for its defence posture. As of early 2025, India is consistently ranked as the 4th most powerful military globally, while Pakistan holds the 12th position according to the Global Firepower Index.
India maintains a considerably larger active military force, with approximately 1.4 to 1.46 million personnel, compared to Pakistan's roughly 654,000. India also has a larger pool of reserve personnel (around 1.15 million) and available manpower (estimated at over 650 million reaching military age annually compared to Pakistan's 108 million). This numerical superiority is underpinned by a significantly larger defence budget. India's defence expenditure for 2024-2025 is in the range of $79 billion to $86.1 billion, making it one of the world's top military spenders. In contrast, Pakistan's defence budget is estimated to be between $7.6 billion and $10.2 billion.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Chinese Perspectives
China has already confirmed strong diplomatic and material support for Pakistan, particularly at forums like the United Nations Security Council, where it might block or dilute anti-Pakistan resolutions. Beijing may blame India for triggering the crisis, especially if it relates to Kashmir, and push for international intervention — which India traditionally resists.
China may mobilise troops along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) to divert Indian military attention and resources. China could provide Pakistan with real-time intelligence, cyberwarfare capabilities, and surveillance data to enhance Pakistan's battlefield awareness. China is very shrewd in its display of diplomacy; its actions will be merely limited to verbal support unless its own interests are not being targeted.
Russia's Views in Times of War between India and Pakistan
If an all-out war breaks out between India and Pakistan, Russia's response would be shaped by its historical ties with India, growing ties with Pakistan, its strategic autonomy, and its interest in regional stability. Historically, Russia (and previously the Soviet Union) has been a trusted strategic partner of India, especially during the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War. In a modern conflict, Russia would likely maintain official neutrality but offer behind-the-scenes diplomatic support to India. Russia might oppose any UN sanctions or resolutions against India and work to prevent the internationalisation of the conflict, in line with India's traditional stance.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
European Countries
If an all-out war breaks out between India and Pakistan, the response of European countries would be guided by their core foreign policy principles—conflict prevention, nuclear non-proliferation, human rights, and strategic alliances. While the European Union (EU) may issue a unified response, key individual countries like the UK, France, and Germany may also act independently.
Role of Islamic States
If the ceasefire is breached and the war starts, the Islamic countries' responses would not be uniform. While many would express solidarity with Pakistan, the degree of political, military, or economic support would vary based on national interests, bilateral ties with India, geopolitical alignments, and sectarian divisions (Sunni vs Shia). Turkey under Erdoğan has been consistently supporting Pakistan, especially on Kashmir at UN forums. Despite religious solidarity, geoeconomic realities, sectarian divides, and diplomatic pragmatism ensure that most Islamic countries will not support Pakistan beyond words and andwill avoid alienating India—a major economic and strategic partner.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Nuclear Dangers
Estimates of nuclear warhead stockpiles vary, but both countries are believed to possess a comparable number, with Pakistan (around 170-172 warheads) potentially having a slight numerical edge over India (around 165-180 warheads). Both nations have sophisticated ballistic and cruise missile programmes capable of delivering nuclear warheads.
India's Agni series of missiles includes the Agni-V, an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) with a reported range of 7,000–8,000 km, capable of reaching deep into neighbouring territories. India has also successfully tested Multiple Independently Targetable Reentry Vehicle (MIRV) technology for the Agni-V, allowing a single missile to carry multiple warheads. Pakistan's missile arsenal includes the Shaheen and Ghauri series of ballistic missiles, with the Shaheen-III having a range of up to 2,750 km, capable of targeting all of India. Pakistan has also been developing MIRV technology for its Ababeel missile (range 2,200 km). It also possesses cruise missiles like the Babur and Ra'ad, which can be launched from ground, air, and sea platforms.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
A significant difference lies in their declared nuclear doctrines. India adheres to a 'No First Use' (NFU) policy, pledging not to initiate a nuclear attack but reserving the right to a massive retaliatory strike if attacked with nuclear weapons. Pakistan, on the other hand, does not have an NFU policy and maintains a stance of 'credible minimum deterrence,' which is widely interpreted to include the possible first use of tactical or strategic nuclear weapons to counter a large-scale Indian conventional attack. This doctrine aims to offset India's conventional military superiority.
Conclusion
In a conventional conflict scenario, India holds a clear quantitative and qualitative military advantage over Pakistan across its army, air force, and navy. However, Pakistan's nuclear arsenal and its 'first use' policy serve as a potent deterrent against a full-scale conventional war. Nevertheless, in the event of the failure of a ceasefire, India's economic clout, strategic importance, democratic credentials, and anti-terrorism narrative give it a significant advantage in the global diplomatic arena.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Satish Kumar teaches Political Science at IGNOU and Bhavana Panday is principal of Dayal Singh College Evening. The views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the authors. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost's views.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
32 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Himanta says drive to identify foreigners to be 'accelerated'; AAMSU protests 'harassment'
Guwahati, Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma on Saturday asserted that the process of identifying illegal foreigners, which was "paused" due to NRC-related matters, will be accelerated, even as protests were witnessed in different parts of the state during Eid prayers on Saturday over "pushback" and "harassment" of minorities in the name of detecting illegal immigrants. Sarma maintained that the state government was looking into the details of an old law, which allows it to "push back" the declared infiltrators without having to mandatorily approach the judiciary. Speaking to reporters on the sidelines of a programme in Nalbari, Sarma said that a constitutional bench of the Supreme Court, while hearing a case on Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, had said that there is no legal requirement for the Assam government to always approach the judiciary in order to identify foreigners. "There exists an immigrants expel order, which is an old law. The Supreme Court has said that this law is in force and a deputy commissioner can give permission for immediate pushback under it," he maintained. "For whatever reason, our lawyers had not informed us and we too didn't know about it. The entire matter has come to light in the last few days. We will now discuss it further," he added. The chief minister said pushing back illegal migrants will continue, adding that the process of identifying foreigners, which had been paused due to NRC-related matters, will now be accelerated. "And when the identification of a foreigner happens, there will be no need to send the case to any tribunal. We will directly push them back. We have been preparing for it," he added. Sarma said the process of pushback will continue, though no person with a case pending before the court will be sent back. Meanwhile, members and supporters of the All Assam Minority Students' Union wore black badges and displayed placards against the purported recent pushback of Bangladeshis in the state. They carried out the protest in different parts, including Chirang and Jogighopa, after Eid namaz. AAMSU president Rejaul Karim Sarkar maintained that more intensified protests will be carried out if the government does not stop "harassment" of genuine citizens. "We have seen cases where the entire family is Indian but one member is taken away as an illegal foreigner. Such acts are against humanity. The government should stop harassment of genuine citizens, else we will carry out more agitations in a democratic manner," he said.
Indian Express
37 minutes ago
- Indian Express
‘Despite its flaws, the Collegium system preserves judicial independence,' says SC judge Justice Surya Kant
Strongly defending the collegium system of judicial appointments, Supreme Court judge Justice Surya Kant said on Saturday that, 'despite its imperfections, it serves as a crucial institutional safeguard … preserving the Judiciary's autonomy.' Speaking at Seattle University on the topic 'The Quiet Sentinel: Courts, Democracy, and the Dialogue Across Borders,' Justice Kant noted that the collegium 'significantly limits interference by the Executive and Legislature, thereby preserving the Judiciary's autonomy and insulating judges from extraneous pressures that could otherwise compromise their impartiality.' He acknowledged that the system 'has been subject to sustained criticism—particularly regarding the opacity of its deliberative processes and the lack of publicly articulated criteria—but recent efforts by the Supreme Court signal a growing commitment to enhancing transparency and public confidence in it.' Referring to proactive judicial interventions that advance constitutional compassion, he asked in his June 4 address, 'How far can courts go in shaping policy?' and 'Is judicial creativity a virtue or a vice?' 'The answer, I believe, lies in intent and integrity. When courts act to empower the powerless, grounded in constitutional text and moral clarity, they do not usurp democracy—they deepen it,' he said. Justice Kant conceded that the judiciary 'has not remained impervious to criticism that at times it breaches the fine line between judicial activism and judicial overreach' and added that 'in recent years, there has been a discernible shift toward greater institutional self-restraint in select domains. The Court has increasingly sought to nudge rather than command, and to engage with other branches of government in efforts to increase dialogic remedies. This evolving balance reflects an awareness that judicial authority is most enduring when it is exercised with a sense of humility—when the Court is seen not as an omnipotent arbiter but as a co-traveller in the democratic journey, grounded in constitutional values.' He described the judiciary as 'the sentinel of constitutional morality' and said it 'has been instrumental in shaping this very democracy's moral spine.' Recalling past challenges, Justice Kant observed that 'the Indian judiciary, too, traversed periods of profound trial and transformation. Particularly during the Emergency, the Court grappled with serious challenges to its independence and, at times, exhibited troubling deference to executive power. Yet, this phase of institutional strain gave way to a renewed judicial consciousness.' He added that 'the judiciary's evolving relationship with its own independence lies at the very heart of how India's vast, pluralistic democracy continues to function with remarkable cohesion. It is not merely the existence of judicial independence that is noteworthy, but rather the degree and contours of that independence—how it is asserted, negotiated, and exercised—that renders the Indian experience particularly distinctive within the global constitutional landscape.' On the role of courts in a democracy, he said, 'constitutional democracy is … a system where majorities are checked, where minorities are protected, and where principles cannot be sacrificed at the altar of popularity,' and 'in such a system, courts cannot function as mere referees.' He stressed, 'in a democracy as vast and diverse as India's, it is only when the judiciary wears its power lightly, and its conscience visibly, that it can remain not only the last word, but also a trusted voice among many in our collective democratic journey.' 'Judiciary may not be the most visible arm of the state, it may not command battalions or shape budgets, but it performs a task more difficult: it keeps alive the promise of justice. In India, this task has often been thankless, occasionally triumphant, and always essential. The judiciary is not a saviour; it is a sentinel. It does not march. It watches. And when necessary, it speaks—not to please, but to preserve.' Earlier, during a visit to the Washington State Supreme Court's Temple of Justice in Olympia on June 3, Justice Kant highlighted the SC's defence of free speech rights, noting that 'pre-censorship and vague notions of public order cannot trump the right to free expression,' and adding, 'these are not merely legal precedents; they are constitutional declarations—that democracy without dissent is a contradiction, and that silence in the face of injustice is not neutrality, but complicity.' Drawing parallels between the Indian and American judiciaries, he said, 'in both countries, the Judiciary has consistently pushed back against the temptation to suppress dissent under misguided and deceptive notions that the Executive may hold … Both our systems were designed not to trust power blindly, but to restrain it.' At a fireside chat at Microsoft Corporation headquarters on June 6, Justice Kant touched on the rise of technology such as artificial intelligence in the judicial process. He said he was 'firmly convinced that any contemplation of AI must be guided by a deep moral compass. Shaping the future demands more than innovation—it calls for an unwavering adherence to foundational values. Transparency, equity, responsibility, and respect for human dignity must not be afterthoughts, but the pillars upon which all technological advancement rests.' He warned that 'technology, if left unchecked, can reflect and reinforce societal inequities. AI is not a perfect technology and it can perhaps never replace the human element that the entire Rawlsian theory of justice hinges on,' and added, 'technology must remain subordinate to our higher commitments to fairness, equity, and human dignity' and 'must adapt to the lived realities of the people it seeks to serve.' Ananthakrishnan G. is a Senior Assistant Editor with The Indian Express. He has been in the field for over 23 years, kicking off his journalism career as a freelancer in the late nineties with bylines in The Hindu. A graduate in law, he practised in the District judiciary in Kerala for about two years before switching to journalism. His first permanent assignment was with The Press Trust of India in Delhi where he was assigned to cover the lower courts and various commissions of inquiry. He reported from the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court of India during his first stint with The Indian Express in 2005-2006. Currently, in his second stint with The Indian Express, he reports from the Supreme Court and writes on topics related to law and the administration of justice. Legal reporting is his forte though he has extensive experience in political and community reporting too, having spent a decade as Kerala state correspondent, The Times of India and The Telegraph. He is a stickler for facts and has several impactful stories to his credit. ... Read More
Deccan Herald
38 minutes ago
- Deccan Herald
India central to key supply chains; must be part of G7 discussions: Canada's Mark Carney on inviting PM Modi
Carney's comments came after some of his political opponents in Canada criticised him for inviting Prime Minister Narendra Modi to the G7 summit in view of a probe into allegations of Indian links to the killing of a Khalistani separatist in 2023.
