The dust has barely settled after the brief but intense May 2025 conflict between India and Pakistan, yet the battle of narratives between the two nuclear-armed neighbors rages on. With each side claiming victory and accusing the other of strategic blindness, the world watches with concern as the stakes of South Asian security are debated in capitals and military academies alike.
The five-day war, which erupted on May 6 and concluded with a cessation of hostilities on May 10, has left a deep imprint on the region’s power dynamics. According to multiple reports, India’s standing as a regional heavyweight took a significant hit during the conflict, with some analysts arguing that the episode exposed the limits of New Delhi’s military options in the face of Pakistan’s evolving deterrence strategies. Yet, in the aftermath, both countries have sought to shape public opinion and international perceptions in their favor.
On October 18, 2025, Pakistan’s Chief of Army Staff, Field Marshal Gen Asim Munir, addressed graduates at the Pakistan Military Academy in Kakul. As reported by Radio Pakistan, Munir declared, “Our collective success has re-energised and strengthened the proud and illustrious memories of our earlier successes.” He insisted that Pakistan had once again emerged victorious against a “treacherous” enemy, one he characterized as blinded by hubris and misguided ambitions. Munir’s speech, however, stopped short of listing these “earlier successes”—a point not lost on Indian analysts, who argue that Pakistan has failed to achieve any lasting territorial or operational gains against India in conflicts dating back to 1947.
Indeed, a closer look at history reveals a pattern: from the wars of 1947-48 and 1965, through the decisive events of 1971 that led to the creation of Bangladesh, to the Siachen standoff in 1984 and the Kargil conflict in 1999, Pakistan has repeatedly fallen short of its strategic objectives. As one former Indian diplomat noted in Firstpost, “In no instance of India-Pakistan conflict has Pakistan succeeded in gaining any territorial or operational advantage against India.” Instead, he suggests, the Pakistan Army has used these hostilities to consolidate its own power within the country, often at the expense of broader society and the economy.
The May 2025 conflict, known as Operation Sindoor in Indian military circles, saw India launch strikes against what it described as terrorist entities and military facilities deep inside Pakistani territory, including sites in Bahawalpur, Muridke, and Muzaffarabad on May 7. According to India’s Director General of Military Operations, Lt Gen Rajiv Ghai, “Eighty-eight hours is what it took for the enemy to come and ask for a cessation of hostilities… For that call to be made by my counterpart then. We achieved our political and military aims. We hit nine targets across the breadth of Pakistan. This is a maturing of India’s doctrine beyond the binaries of peace and war.” Ghai’s remarks, delivered at a media briefing on October 14, emphasized the precision and restraint of India’s approach, which he described as “targeted, controlled, non-escalatory.”
Pakistan’s response, issued via Inter-Services Public Relations on October 15, was notably heavy on rhetoric but light on substantive rebuttals to Ghai’s claims. The silence on specific points raised by the Indian DGMO was, to some observers, telling. Meanwhile, Munir doubled down on his warning to India, stating, “There is no space for war in a nuclearized environment.” This sentiment, echoed by many Pakistani officials and analysts, reflects a deep-seated belief that mutual nuclear deterrence fundamentally constrains India’s ability to pursue large-scale military operations against Pakistan.
Pakistan’s nuclear posture, known as Full Spectrum Deterrence (FSD), has evolved to include tactical nuclear weapons designed to offset India’s conventional military superiority. Lt. Gen Khalid Kidwai (Retd), a key architect of Pakistan’s strategic doctrine, argued, “On each occasion, Pakistan’s nuclear weapons capability has emerged as not only a guarantor of Pakistan’s national security but also as a guarantor of peace and stability in South Asia by keeping India’s aggressive designs in check… Pakistan’s nuclear capability retains the promise of being The Great Equalizer against a much larger adversary.”
For India, the challenge is to balance the need for credible deterrence with the risks of escalation. Former diplomat Vivek Katju has acknowledged that even limited military strikes carry significant dangers, given the proximity of the two countries and the absence of any meaningful buffer to contain conflict once nuclear thresholds are approached. “The idea of a limited nuclear war is a dangerous illusion,” he and other experts have warned, pointing out that any escalation could quickly spiral out of control, with catastrophic consequences for both nations.
India’s so-called “new normal” policy—characterized by overt retaliation for sub-conventional threats—has come under scrutiny for its strategic flaws. Critics argue that aggressive rhetoric and tactical missteps have undermined its effectiveness, especially when contrasted with Pakistan’s more reactive “new normal,” which leverages nuclear deterrence and rapid military readiness. The May 2025 conflict, some analysts contend, marked a turning point: Pakistan’s air force demonstrated unexpected resilience, and its diplomatic efforts, including expedited trials related to the Mumbai attacks, garnered international attention. CNN even acknowledged Pakistan’s growing diplomatic and military stature in the wake of the conflict.
Yet, the Indian leadership remains defiant. On October 17, Army Chief Gen Upendra Dwivedi asserted that Operation Sindoor 1.0 would continue “until it achieves its objectives.” Indian officials have pointed to the operation’s success in degrading terrorist infrastructure and demonstrating the country’s ability to strike deep into Pakistani territory. They also highlight the temporary suspension of the Indus Water Treaty as a measure of economic and diplomatic leverage.
Amidst these competing narratives, the role of major powers has been crucial in preventing further escalation. During the May 2025 crisis, the United States, China, and Russia all exerted pressure on both sides to de-escalate, with former President Trump’s intervention playing a key role in brokering the ceasefire. This external involvement underscores the global stakes of any conflict between India and Pakistan, given their nuclear capabilities.
At the heart of the dispute remains the unresolved issue of Kashmir. Pakistani officials insist that India must settle “core issues” on the basis of equality and mutual respect, while Indian commentators argue that Pakistan’s continued use of proxies and refusal to vacate territory in Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh are the real obstacles to peace. Both sides invoke international norms and agreements—the Simla Agreement, the Lahore Declaration—but neither is willing to concede ground.
In the end, the consensus among many analysts is clear: mutual nuclear deterrence has made a decisive military victory for either side virtually impossible. The strategic landscape of South Asia now discourages full-scale warfare, limiting conflicts to smaller, sub-conventional levels. The challenge for both nations—and for the world—is to find a path toward sustainable peace, lest the next crisis prove even more perilous than the last.