Strategic Repercussions of the 2025 Indo-Pak Conflict
The astounding success of Operation Bunyan ul Marsoos (OBM) has severely dented the ‘Hindutva’ ideology in general and hurt its proponents in particular. The modern day India and its governance have over-arching influence of not only Hindutva ideology bit also draws inspiration from the centuries old Chanakya ideology. This convergence of ultra-fundamentalist ideologies have led to an irrational idea that is commonly termed as “Akhand Bharat”. In general terms Akhand Bharat seeks the hegemony of Hindus over the entire sub-continent as visualised by Hindutva and Chanakya ideologies. Theoretically, Hindutva asserts that all people who consider India as both their fatherland (Pitribhumi) and holy land (Punyabhumi) are true Indians. This excludes communities like Muslims and Christians whose holy lands lie outside India. Moreover the Territorial Nationalism of Hindutva stresses the geographical unity of India and views the entire subcontinent as a sacred and indivisible homeland for Hindus. Thirdly the Political Hinduism seeks to establish a Hindu-majority state where Hindu values and culture dominate the political and social landscape. Consequently when these fundamentalist principles have come in the hands of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP), and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), it has led to the formation of “saffron terror” or Hindutva terrorism. The Pulwama and the Pahalgam incidents are both manifestations of saffron terror. Historically, it has been seen that whenever BJP or RSS are in the government or face an uncertain election, False Flag operations like Pulwama and Pahalgam are launched to re-ignite their fundamentalist ideologies. Surveys carried out by independent agencies of India cite larger following of these parties in the rural and tribal areas of India pointing to the lack of education and truthful understanding of the moral ethics of a civilised state. Within India itself, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, a Dalit (the untouchables caste) and best known as the chief architect of the Indian Constitution was a vocal critic of Hindu orthodoxy and Hindutva ideology, which he saw as oppressive to lower castes and minorities. To sum up, as long as the BJP and its allies remain in power or plan to implement their ill-founded Hindutva ideology, Pakistan would have to remain on its toes for any eventuality. The Armed forces of Pakistan gave a befitting reply to India after exhibiting a lot of restraint that has also been acknowledged globally. The short and swift war has not only brought the Indian hegemony to its knees but also revealed some stark features of Indo-Pak war both within and outside Pakistan.
External Elements
Israel has been a vocal supporter of Indian atrocities in Kashmir but its involvement in the current war has never been so glaring. India extensively used Israeli-made drones such as: IAI Heron Mk2 UAVs, IAI HAROP drones and SkyStriker loitering munitions. Skystriker is developed by Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) in collaboration with India’s Alpha Design Technologies. In addition, intelligence sharing and diplomatic alignment between India and Israel is an ongoing process.
Israel has long been a staunch enemy of the ideological grounds on which Pakistan was created. The OBM has brought Israel to stand alongside India with clarity – it is expected that this would put to rest the calls for friendship by many quarters are still delusional for Zionist-Pakistan relations. The armed forces of Pakistan have now another dimension of its conflict-planning strategy, to include Israel as an adversary in any future war. Despite its close defense ties with India, Israel maintained a deliberate silence during the 2025 India–Pakistan conflict. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other top officials issued no public statements, to avoid straining relations with Muslim-majority nations in the Gulf. Analysts suggest that Israel also provided cyber-intelligence assistance. Israeli media praised India’s operations, reinforcing the perception of deep strategic alignment. This low-profile approach reflects Israel’s balancing act between defense cooperation and regional diplomacy. India and Israel have drawn strategic and ideological parallels. Their deepening cooperation spans defense, surveillance, and counterinsurgency, often framed as counterterrorism. Many critics rightly argue that this alliance helps both states justify aggressive policies while deflecting international scrutiny. In Gaza, Israel’s ongoing military campaign has escalated into what many human rights groups now call a genocide, with tens of thousands of civilian casualties. Meanwhile, Kashmir remains heavily militarized under Indian control. Together, their actions reflect a shared model of occupation and repression under the guise of national security. To this end, the drawing of parallels and the mirror imaging of policies and actions point to the popular notion that Israel is the actual player behind New Delhi’s policies. There is no doubt that only Israel was found supporting the Indian stance during the OBM.
Turkiye & Azerbaijan
Pakistan received full diplomatic support from both the brotherly nations during the OBM. Turkiye and Pakistan have strong historical, religious and military relations and were in full swing during this campaign. Türkiye praised Pakistan’s “measured and restrained” response to the Indian strikes, emphasizing the importance of diplomacy and regional stability. OBM also marked the first successful deployment of YIHA-III drone jointly developed with Turkiye. The success of the drone operation during OBM is owed to the Turkish drone technology. Azerbaijan on the other hand provided strong diplomatic and symbolic military support to Pakistan. It is to be kept in mind that Azerbaijan is part of the Türkiye–Pakistan–Azerbaijan trilateral military alliance, which includes joint military exercises and intelligence coordination. This support was amplified by public celebrations in Baku, where citizens waved Pakistani flags and praised the military operation. Türkiye’s vocal support for Pakistan launched a widespread, unofficial boycott of Turkish goods and services in India. Although no formal sanctions have been imposed, Indian distributors, retailers, and travel agencies have severed ties with Turkish companies, significantly impacting imports of Turkish coffee, chocolates, textiles, and processed foods. The boycott has also extended to tourism, with a sharp decline in Indian travel to Türkiye. The All India Consumer Products Distributors Federation, representing over 13 million stores, declared a total boycott, while social media campaigns like #BoycottTurkey have amplified public sentiment. This economic backlash underscores the growing strategic rift between India and Türkiye amid shifting regional alliances.
GCC Countries
Despite its long-standing religious and cultural affinity with Pakistan, Saudi Arabia refrained from publicly condemning the Indian aggression during the 2025 conflict. While the Kingdom has historically maintained close ties with Islamabad, its response to the crisis was marked by diplomatic neutrality. Saudi officials, including Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Adel Al-Jubeir, engaged in shuttle diplomacy between New Delhi and Islamabad, urging restraint and dialogue. However, no official statement was issued denouncing India’s actions, reflecting Riyadh’s careful balancing act between its traditional alliance with Pakistan and its expanding strategic and economic partnership with India.
Similarly, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), despite its historically warm ties with Pakistan, adopted a measured and neutral stance during the 2025 conflict. While the UAE expressed concern over the escalation and called for restraint, it did not issue any condemnation of Indian military actions. Instead, Emirati officials emphasized the importance of regional stability and diplomatic engagement, offering to mediate between the two nuclear-armed neighbours. This cautious approach reflects the UAE’s broader geopolitical balancing act—maintaining its strategic partnership with India, particularly in trade and defense, while also preserving its religious and cultural rapport with Pakistan.
Qatar, traditionally a neutral actor in South Asian affairs, maintained a low-profile diplomatic stance during the 2025 India–Pakistan conflict. It did not issue any public condemnation of Indian actions. Instead reports emerged of U.S. military flights departing from Al Udeid Air Base in Doha and landing in Indian airbases, raising questions about logistical support or intelligence coordination between the U.S. and India during the conflict. Although Washington maintained a public posture of neutrality, these flights suggested a quiet alignment with India, further complicating perceptions of U.S. impartiality in the region. Clearly the Arab Gulf states prioritized regional stability and economic pragmatism over religious or ideological alignment. Thus, while emotionally disappointing for some in Pakistan, the GCC’s neutrality was not entirely unexpected when viewed through the lens of realpolitik and shifting global alliances.
USA
In the lead-up to the 2025 India–Pakistan conflict, the United States initially adopted a hands-off approach, with Vice President JD Vance stating the crisis was “fundamentally, none of our business”. However, this stance shifted dramatically as the conflict escalated, particularly after India suffered significant losses, including the reported downing of five Rafale fighter jets by Pakistani air defences. These losses were a major blow to India’s military prestige and prompted New Delhi to quietly reach out to Washington for diplomatic intervention. Responding to the urgency, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and other senior officials engaged in rapid shuttle diplomacy, speaking with both Indian and Pakistani leadership. This culminated in a U.S.-brokered ceasefire announced on May 10, with President Trump taking credit for ending the hostilities. While India did not publicly acknowledge U.S. mediation, the timing and tone of the ceasefire suggest that Washington’s pressure played a decisive role, especially after India’s battlefield setbacks and growing international concern over escalation between two nuclear powers. The US approach is clearly defined by recent Congress documents wherein it states that “Congress and four successive presidential Administrations have acted to broaden and deepen U.S.-India ties. U.S.- Pakistan relations, a close alliance during the Cold War, have thinned over the past 15 years as Pakistan’s strategic relevance to the United States arguably has declined.” This has been obvious since 2005 when the United States and India pursued a strategic partnership—in part as a counter to China’s growing influence—and bilateral security cooperation is much expanded after decades of Cold War-era estrangement.
Moreover, Israel’s longstanding suspicion of Pakistan stems from its identity as the only Muslim-majority nuclear power and its unwavering support for the Palestinian cause. Israeli leaders such as Ehud Barak and Avigdor Lieberman have historically viewed Pakistan as a latent strategic threat, often grouping it within the broader “Islamist threat” narrative. Despite the absence of formal diplomatic ties, Israel has reportedly monitored Pakistan’s missile and nuclear programs through indirect channels, often leveraging U.S. intelligence. This adversarial posture reinforces Israel’s reliance on the United States for strategic protection. In turn, the U.S. obligation to safeguard Israeli security—rooted in decades of military and political alliance—inevitably positions Pakistan as a country of concern within Washington’s broader Middle East calculus.
China
China proved to be a friend indeed during the OBM. Not only the technology withstood the test of time and endurance but Pakistan enjoyed all the moral and diplomatic support from its time-tested friend. Chinese technology included weapons like the J-10C fighter and the PL-15 air-to-air missile that had never seen documented live fighting before, and have since been the talk of the town. The excellent handling of the Chinese technology by the Pakistani aviators have boosted the confidence for both the nations. The most recent reports cite Chinese offer of equipping the Pakistan Airforce with fifth-generation Shenyang J-35 stealth aircraft. Beijing has also offered to provide Islamabad with the Shaanxi KJ-500 airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) aircraft and the new Hong Qi-19 (HQ-19) surface-to-air missile (SAM) system. Defence journals have reported that China also played a crucial role in supporting Pakistan through real-time intelligence sharing and technical assistance. Chinese military satellites provided Pakistan with high-resolution imagery and surveillance data, enabling it to monitor Indian troop movements and air operations across key sectors. This intelligence allowed Pakistan to anticipate Indian strikes and adjust its deployments accordingly, significantly enhancing its situational awareness during the brief but intense conflict.
In parallel, China assisted Pakistan in reorganizing its radar and air defense systems. This included repositioning radar arrays for optimal coverage of Indian air corridors and integrating Chinese-supplied platforms such as the HQ-9 and HQ-16 systems. In addition, China introduced more business for the Indians. Just days after India and Pakistan agreed to a ceasefire in May 2025, China reignited tensions by releasing “standard” names for 27 locations on the Indian-controlled side of the contested border, primarily in Arunachal Pradesh—referred to by Beijing as Zangnan. These renamed sites included mountains, rivers, residential areas, and passes, prompting a swift rejection from New Delhi. Although both countries had agreed to a border thaw in late 2024, reducing troop deployments, the region remains heavily militarized. While publicly calling for de-escalation and offering to mediate peace between the nuclear-armed neighbours, China simultaneously reaffirmed its “ironclad friendship” with Pakistan. Foreign Minister Wang Yi emphasized Beijing’s support for Pakistan’s sovereignty and security interests, signalling China’s strategic alignment even as it positioned itself as a regional peacemaker.
Conclusion of the 96 Hour war (OBM)
Pakistan has demonstrated to be a powerful country alongside with China and its closed brotherly allies Türkiye, Azerbaijan, and Bangladesh. The Arab allies must realize this new reality about Pakistan and consider deeper strategic and economic ties with Pakistan.
This 96-hour war has clearly demonstrated Pakistan’s victory over India. A very fine combination of air expertise and cutting-edge technology made Pakistan Air Force as one of the most powerful air forces in the entire world. Pakistan has secured a strong position in the new world order after the 96-hour recent war with India as global and regional drawing boards have been modified/ updated/altered.
As a rule of thumb in this power-driven world, only Power speaks by itself, so Pakistan has demonstrated its worth, capacity and resolve. This was all possible due to exercising the golden words Unity, Faith, Discipline and Resilience which entire Pakistani exhibited backing up fully its armed forces. Now, in order to get leverage from this victory, Pakistan needs a paradigm change in foreign policy and move it to be hawkish rather dovish. This is not just a war of narratives, rather this is a war of international law-abiding nations that believe in the UN Charter against a rogue Indian nation that thinks it can do whatever and wherever it can. India made a big miscalculation and the result is that India’s international worth came down to its lowest ever. With Türkiye and Azerbaijan’s full support, a powerful message went across the board. The Pakistan Armed Forces have invented an ART of War by indigenously developing a new “Smart Interface” of the most sophisticated Domains/ Spectrums of the modern war.
Let it be remembered as an Exclusive and Singular Honour achieved by The Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Based on the strategic, military, and geopolitical lessons from the May 2025 India-Pakistan conflict, Pakistan should consider a comprehensive set of policy recommendations across all sectors to enhance national resilience, deterrence, and long-term stability.
1. Defense and Security
– Modernize Air Defense: Accelerate procurement and integration of advanced systems like the HQ-19 and indigenous radar upgrades.
– Cyber and Space Capabilities: Invest in satellite surveillance, cyber defense, and electronic warfare to reduce reliance on foreign intelligence.
– Expand and deepen military collaboration with China to enhance strategic deterrence.
– Recognize Israel as a persistent adversary and prepare for hybrid threats.
2 Foreign Policy and Diplomacy
– Diversify Strategic Partnerships: While maintaining ties with China, deepen engagement with Middle Eastern, Central Asian, and Western powers to avoid overdependence.
– Conflict De-escalation Mechanisms: Establish backchannel diplomacy and crisis hotlines with India to prevent escalation.
– Leverage Multilateral Forums: Use platforms like the OIC, SCO, and UN to internationalize regional security concerns.
– OBM has clarified Pakistan’s position regarding neighbours, Muslim countries, and known adversaries.
– Strengthen alliance with the Turkic Bloc to form a formidable regional coalition.
– Continue to seek dialogue with India while preparing for extreme-level conflict scenarios.
3. Economy and Trade
– Defense-Industrial Base: Promote public-private partnerships to develop indigenous defense manufacturing.
– Resilience Planning: Build economic buffers (e.g. strategic reserves, diversified exports) to withstand wartime shocks.
– Secure Trade Corridors: Strengthen the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) and explore links with the Turkic bloc’s Middle Corridor.
– Focus on political stability to enable economic independence.
– Recognize that all countries prioritize national interests over societal concerns.
4. Technology and Innovation
– R&D Investment: Increase funding for dual-use technologies (e.g. AI, drones, satellite imaging).
– STEM Education: Reform curricula to align with national security and technological self-reliance goals.
– Cybersecurity Infrastructure: Establish a national cyber command and secure critical infrastructure.
– Promote rapid adoption of technology across all sectors and ensure it benefits the wider population.
5. Civil Defense and Public Awareness
– Crisis Communication: Develop a national strategy for public information during conflicts to counter misinformation.
– Emergency Preparedness: Train civilians in basic civil defense and ensure urban centers have shelters and evacuation plans.
– Media Literacy: Promote awareness campaigns to build societal resilience against psychological warfare and propaganda.
– Utilize all media platforms to propagate national narratives and expose enemy agendas
6. Education and National Identity
– Curriculum Reform: Integrate strategic studies, regional history, and civic responsibility into school and university programs.
– Cultural Diplomacy: Use media and arts to project a positive national image and counter regional narratives.
– Regularly expose extremist ideologies such as Hindutva to counter regional destabilization efforts.
7. Health and Infrastructure
– Wartime Medical Readiness: Stockpile medical supplies and train emergency response teams.
– Resilient Infrastructure: Harden critical infrastructure (power, water, transport) against attacks or sabotage.
Contributed by:
