In a week marked by rising tensions and fiery rhetoric, the longstanding rivalry between India and Pakistan has once again taken center stage, with leaders from both countries exchanging sharp warnings and historical claims that have reignited regional anxieties. On October 8, 2025, Pakistan’s Defense Minister Khawaja Asif delivered a provocative interview on Samaa TV, asserting that “India was never one united nation, except briefly under Aurangzeb,” and warning that “chances of war with India are real and I am not denying that.” His remarks, broadcast widely and shared across social media, have drawn both criticism and concern, as well as a swift response from Indian officials.
Asif’s comments, which included the claim that “Pakistan was created in the name of Allah,” and that “at home, we argue and compete, but in a fight with India, we come together,” were made against the backdrop of renewed hostilities between the two nuclear-armed neighbors. According to reporting by Indiablooms, the Pakistani minister’s statements came just days after India’s Army Chief, General Upendra Dwivedi, issued a stern warning to Islamabad: “India is fully prepared this time. We will not show the restraint we exhibited during Operation Sindoor 1.0. This time, the action will be such that Pakistan will have to think whether it wants to exist geographically.”
In the same Samaa TV interview, Asif doubled down on his stance, stating, “I do not want escalation, but the risks are real, and I am not denying that. If it comes to war, God willing, we will achieve a better result than before.” His words, while couched in appeals to national unity and divine providence, have been met with skepticism by historians and political observers alike. Many have pointed out that the idea of India’s unity being limited to Aurangzeb’s reign is historically inaccurate. As Indiablooms notes, the Maurya Empire, under Emperor Ashoka (322–185 BCE), unified much of the Indian subcontinent centuries before the Mughal period. Later dynasties, including the Guptas and Harshavardhana’s rule, also achieved significant consolidation. Even within the Mughal era, Emperor Akbar’s reign is widely regarded as a period of greater stability and unity than the turbulent years of Aurangzeb, which were marked by internal rebellions and near-constant warfare.
For many in India, Asif’s remarks have been seen as yet another attempt to rewrite history for political ends. The renewed war rhetoric, meanwhile, comes at a time when New Delhi maintains its longstanding policy that no dialogue can proceed with Islamabad until Pakistan ends its support for cross-border terrorism. General Dwivedi’s recent comments, warning Pakistan to “stop supporting terrorism or risk losing its geographical presence,” underline the seriousness with which India views the ongoing security challenges.
But the story doesn’t end there. In a separate interview with Bloomberg on the same day, Pakistan’s military spokesperson, DG ISPR Lieutenant General Ahmed Sharif Chaudhry, sought to provide a more measured perspective on the military balance between the two countries. “Pakistan is not engaged in any arms race with India,” Chaudhry said, emphasizing that the country’s defense strategy is “rooted in integrating effective platforms, developing indigenous capability and choosing value-for-money systems.” He described the Pakistani military as one that “understands the limits of its resources and the imperatives of professionalism,” adding that “true capability is not merely determined by expenditure; it is forged through sound doctrine, rigorous maintenance, efficient command and control, advanced pilot training, intelligence and the seamless integration of hardware into cohesive operations.”
Chaudhry pointed to the Pakistani military’s performance in recent conflict with India as evidence of its “readiness, coordination and tactical proficiency,” despite India’s “billions on defense deals and procured the latest weaponry.” He argued that advanced weaponry alone “proved ineffective against the strategy and professionalism of our forces,” and assured that “our defense forces will continue to discharge their duties with the same dedication and spirit in the years to come.”
Yet, even as he praised the professionalism of Pakistan’s armed forces, Chaudhry did not shy away from expressing concern about India’s recent statements. “Recent belligerent and inflammatory statements from India are indeed worrying. Words matter. They shape decisions and fan domestic audiences. When leaders resort to threats, the risk of conflict grows. This is particularly dangerous because both India and Pakistan possess nuclear arsenals. Even a limited confrontation could have unpredictable and catastrophic consequences.”
Chaudhry insisted that “Pakistan’s right, indeed its duty, to defend its sovereignty when challenged is unquestionable. Defence is legitimate; aggression is not.” He also criticized the Indian government’s current posture, stating, “It is India that needs to understand that confrontation will bring nothing to the region but further poverty, backwardness and instability.” Instead of focusing on military escalation, he argued, “India would do better to pursue a path of peace that helps the region address its multifaceted challenges.”
While Chaudhry acknowledged that the Modi government’s approach “gives little cause for optimism,” he called on the international community to play a more active role in deterring any potential misadventure. “Otherwise, our defense forces are always ready to deliver a decisive response to any aggression.”
The rhetoric from both sides has alarmed observers, who worry that the escalation of threats and historical disputes could spark a dangerous spiral. The fact that both nations possess nuclear arsenals adds a chilling dimension to the standoff. As Bloomberg highlighted, even a limited conflict could have catastrophic consequences for the region and beyond.
Meanwhile, Asif’s track record of controversial statements has not gone unnoticed. Last year, he suggested that flood-affected Pakistanis should “store floodwater in containers” rather than let it drain away, calling floods a “blessing.” He also made unsubstantiated claims on international television about shooting down Indian fighter jets—claims he later failed to back with evidence. These remarks have drawn ridicule and raised questions about his credibility, both at home and abroad.
For now, the verbal sparring continues, with each side accusing the other of stoking tensions and refusing to back down. India’s stance remains firm: dialogue will not resume until Islamabad takes concrete steps to end support for cross-border terrorism. Pakistan, for its part, insists on its right to defend its sovereignty and urges a shift away from what it sees as India’s aggressive posture.
As the world watches, the stakes could hardly be higher. With history, pride, and security on the line, the need for cooler heads and responsible leadership has rarely been more urgent. The hope remains that, despite the war of words, both countries will find a way to step back from the brink and focus on building a more stable and prosperous future for the region.
