Ironically, Pakistan’s heavy retaliation to Indian strikes was important to uphold deterrence stability

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s knee-jerk response to the Pahalgam attack, Islamabad’s calculated countermeasures, and the international community’s lukewarm response to the brewing crisis during the last two weeks, resulted in a devastating escalation of the conflict over the weekend. In the early hours of May 7, India launched ‘Operation Sindoor,’ risking rapid conflict spirals. The limited war waged under the nuclear threshold was fraught with untold gambles.

The crisis between India and Pakistan was an upshot of the continuation of India’s state-sanctioned brutality in Indian-administered Kashmir, where 26 men were murdered by militants at a tourist site last month. New Delhi claimed without presenting any evidence that there were Pakistani elements linked to the attack. Islamabad immediately denied the allegation and offered cooperation during an independent investigation.

Instead, India launched a barrage of air-to-surface missiles into Pakistan-administered Kashmir and the neighboring province of Punjab. 

The limited war waged under the nuclear threshold was fraught with untold gambles.

- Zafar Nawaz Jaspal

After the ceasefire on Sunday, Pakistan announced 40 civilians and 11 military men were killed in the worst confrontation with India in decades. 

Pakistan’s military responded swiftly; most famously, it downed five Indian jets, including three Rafale planes and one each of Russian planes, a Su-30 and MiG-29. Though in defensive retaliation, Pakistan inflicted immense military costs on India.

Pakistan officially maintained that any kinetic action by India would be met by a “strong and decisive response.” On May 7, the National Security Committee (NSC) authorized the armed forces to respond to the Indian strikes. It stated, “In consonance with Article 51 of the UN Charter, Pakistan reserves the right to respond, in self-defense, at a time, place, and manner of its choosing to avenge the loss of innocent Pakistani lives and blatant violation of its sovereignty. The Armed Forces of Pakistan have duly been authorized to undertake corresponding actions in this regard.” 

Pakistan was compelled to retaliate to the airstrikes to deter India’s aggression in the future. The deterrence strategy requires demonstrated war-fighting resolve and capability. Pakistan possesses conventional and nuclear war-fighting potential. Realistically, it failed to deter India’s kinetic action on May 7. Therefore, to restore deterrence stability between India and Pakistan, the latter must retaliate to prove its resolve to fight. 

Refraining from responding militarily, whatever the reason, would have severely impacted its deterrence strategy and strategic stability in the region. Besides, military action was imperative to axe Modi’s ‘new normal’ in bilateral relations, i.e., conducting surgical strikes against Pakistan to pursue political objectives without escalating a limited war into an all-out war with a nuclear dimension. 

The ramifications of the Pakistani military retaliation could have been a further escalation of the conflict and may have led to the deterioration of regional stability in South Asia. Pakistan’s quid pro quo strategy could have had the inherent characteristics of escalation, underscoring the potential for further conflict. 

In fact, there was a moment during the escalation last weekend when every analyst on earth was asking the same question: Where are India and Pakistan heading? 

The Ukrainian and Israeli war experiences indicated horizontal and vertical conventional war escalations. The most alarming difference of course, is that India and Pakistan are nuclear-armed states, whereas Ukrainians and Palestinians are non-nuclear weapons combatants.

India has twice employed its air force to conduct surgical strikes in Pakistan’s territory- in 2019 and 2025. During both theaters, India exposed the limits of its airforce vis a vis Pakistan’s air capabilities. 

India’s most recent strikes were different from earlier instances, because they violated the international border and struck Bahawalpur and Muridke, necessitating the escalation of a conflict horizontally and vertically. The tit-for-tat tactical actions led to hitting military installations, entailing the use of strategic weapons. 

In summary, the befitting response of Pakistan’s armed forces to India’s recent aggressive strikes was essential. Even as it was dangerous, it was also imperative for the credibility of the entire Pakistani deterrence strategy. Otherwise, India would have got the wrong message; that it could continue violating Pakistan’s sovereignty with a sense of impunity. 

- Dr. Zafar Nawaz Jaspal is an Islamabad-based analyst and professor at the School of Politics and International Relations, Quaid-i-Azam University. E-mail: [email protected], X: @zafar_jaspal