Asim Riaz

India, grappling with strategic overreach, has now lost track of its own narrative. Its blend of fabrications, false flags, and unverified battlefield claims has spiraled into a full-blown cognitive warfare crisis. What began as a calculated information campaign to control perception has slipped into a delusional space where fiction overrides battlefield fact. The hasty and provocative framing of the Pahalgam incident as a Pakistan-sponsored terror attack—without providing any forensic evidence — has once again backfired, as Indians themselves are raising questions about its fidelity. Even groups such as the TTP or BLA known for extreme propaganda have now been outpaced by the scale of India’s narrative distortions. Delhi’s operational behaviour dwarfs even irregular warfare’s most notorious disinformation models. Simply put, India has traded tactical credibility for cinematic optics.

On the night of 7th May, India launched illegitimate and indiscriminate strikes in Azad Jammu & Kashmir and Punjab, targeting civilians—among them women, children, and the elderly. In stark contrast, Pakistan’s response was marked not by noise or bluster, but by precision and discipline. The Pakistan Air Force (PAF) acted swiftly, intercepting Indian Air Force (IAF) intrusions and shooting down multiple fighter aircraft and UCAVs across both the International Border (IB) and the Line of Control (LoC). Simultaneously, ground forces executed accurate counterstrikes, destroying hardened military targets along the Indian front. Not a single civilian site was hit in Pakistan’s retaliatory operations. There was no panic. No overreaction but Just a deliberate, calculated reply that underscored operational clarity and strategic restraint.

Outmaneuvered in the kinetic domain, India shifted gears—pivoting from battlefield setbacks to a manufactured media blitz. On the nights of 7 and 8 May, it falsely claimed that Pakistan had launched coordinated airstrikes on 15 Indian cities. The assertion lacked any intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) confirmation or battle damage assessments, resembling Bollywood scripting more than battlefield reality. As India grasped at straws, it escalated further by launching three ballistic missiles—two landed near Amritsar, while the third was intercepted by Pakistan’s Integrated Air Defence (IAD) systems. These were not retaliatory strikes—they were theatrics aimed at stoking communal flames and to salvage a failed operational thrust. In a crisis where truth limped behind, fiction sprinted ahead — and Delhi ran with it.

Simultaneously, India deployed Israeli-origin Harop and Harpy loitering munitions against radar installations, air defence grids, and civilian zones across Pakistan. Despite the scale of the drone incursion, the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) and national air defence units neutralized them through a mix of hard-kill intercepts and soft-kill electronic warfare—ensuring zero threat to civilian airliners.

One notable target was a PSL cricket venue—clearly chosen for psychological effect rather than any tactical value. This wasn’t air dominance. It was a move meant to spread fear, disguised as military strategy; targeting civilian areas in a bid to compensate for battlefield setbacks. So far, Indian aggression has resulted in 33 civilian deaths, including 17 women and seven children, with over 60 others injured. Yet Pakistan has refused to be baited. On the night of 8–9 May, India fabricated another narrative — claiming five PAF aircraft were shot down and a pilot captured. There was no wreckage, no footage, no radar trail — only noise crafted for domestic consumption.

Pakistan’s crisis management throughout this phase has reflected a disciplined application of the escalation ladder. Each Indian provocation has been met with either a calibrated response or deliberate restraint, guided by operational judgment and escalation control. Retaliation remains an option—retained with both credibility and strategic confidence. The timing, method, and axis will be of Pakistan’s choosing. This is not hesitation; it is strategic patience underpinned by capability.

Internationally, the tide is beginning to shift. Independent analysts, foreign media outlets, and open-source intelligence communities are increasingly questioning the validity of India’s claims. Pakistan’s composure, precision, and control are steadily earning it diplomatic space. While India has pursued escalation dominance through fiction, Pakistan has preserved deterrence through discipline.

India’s setbacks in the 2025 conflict extend far beyond the tactical sphere. While its economy remains capable of absorbing the financial blow, the real damage lies in the erosion of strategic credibility. The confirmed loss of five combat aircraft—including high-value Rafales, MiG-29s, and Su-30MKIs—has inflicted a material cost exceeding $1 billion. Yet, more significant than the monetary impact is the symbolic defeat. These were not merely machines lost in combat; they were pillars of deterrence, now reduced to wreckage. India may still have resources in reserve, but it is no longer fighting from a position of moral or strategic strength. The losses reflect a pattern of overreach and misjudgment—an outcome where India may have bitten off more than it could chew. In warfare, perception often hits harder than payloads, and for Delhi, the weight of these losses will be felt long after the smoke clears.

As the fog lifts and dust settles, what remains is clarity—and a steady hand commanding through chaos. A posture grounded in patience and discipline, not impulse. Pakistan did not flinch. It absorbed unprovoked aggression, rejected fiction, and responded with precision. No theatrics. No overreach. Just a calibrated force. In a region on the brink, it is not the loudest that prevails, but the most disciplined. The storm has not yet passed away, but Pakistan stands firm—resolute, measured, and ready. This restraint, coupled with deliberate ambiguity around the nuclear threshold, acts as a force multiplier—injecting fear and uncertainty into the Indian calculus. The storm may still be brewing, but Pakistan remains unshaken—measured in tone, resolute in purpose, and operationally prepared. The crisis followed the basic logic of the Nuclear Chicken Game—a theory where two sides move toward mutual destruction to force the other to back down. The strategy relies on appearing ready to escalate, even at high risk. The side that looks more resolved—sometimes even irrational—can gain the upper hand. But the danger lies in misreading signals or pushing too far.

The scenario can be likened to two people hanging from a rope off a cliff—if one pulls out a knife and threatens to cut the rope, both fall. But the very threat may compel the other to let go first. That is the paradox of Nuclear Chicken: irrationality used deliberately to achieve rational ends. This situation presents two stark interpretations of conduct of Gen Syed Asim Munir (now Field Marshal): either he is a master strategist—calculating, disciplined, and precise in his application of nuclear brinkmanship—or a dangerously detached actor, disturbingly comfortable with the specter of mass destruction as a means of asserting strategic resolve. However, the weight of evidence favors the former. Field Marshal’s measured maneuvering amid extreme pressure, his deliberate navigation of escalation ladders, and his nuanced understanding of deterrence thresholds suggest not recklessness, but a sophisticated application of game theory and high-order strategic reasoning. In the dense fog of a nuclear-shadowed conflict, Gen Munir exhibited intelligence, restraint, and command discipline—hallmarks of leadership operating at the uppermost echelon of strategic decision-making.

During the 2025 Indo-Pak conflict—fought under the persistent shadow of nuclear escalation and marked by stark asymmetries in conventional capabilities—Pakistan’s military and political leadership demonstrated rare clarity of purpose and strategic control. Despite India’s larger force structure and greater conventional capacity, Gen Munir managed to hold strategic ground. He maintained operational balance, kept escalation in check, and ensured cohesion across military and political domains under sustained pressure. His conduct revealed a strong grasp of escalation control, signaling under pressure, and the broader mechanics of high-stakes military confrontation—hallmarks of credible leadership in a conflict shaped by advanced deterrence dynamics.

The turning point came when US Vice President JD Vance, who had initially dismissed the conflict as “not America’s business,” reversed his position after reviewing classified intelligence on Pakistan’s strategic posture—signaling that Islamabad’s calibrated messaging had registered at the highest levels. What had started as a regional flashpoint was now drawing global attention. Pakistan’s measured clarity in a moment of extreme pressure did not just prevent further escalation—it also reinforced the credibility of its deterrent posture in the eyes of key international actors.

A pivotal moment in the conflict came with reports of several high-value Indian Air Force platforms being downed. Pakistan claimed to have neutralized multiple Rafales, Su-30MKI, MiG-29, and IAI Heron UAV. India confirmed the loss of only a few aircraft, with all pilots reported safe, but open-source imagery and debris analysis strongly suggest that two Rafales were effectively destroyed—dealing both an operational and symbolic blow to the IAF. Pakistan’s measured response demonstrated strength while avoiding unnecessary escalation, reinforcing strategic stability and ensuring the credibility of its second-strike capability remained intact. Under General Munir’s military leadership, Pakistan showcased a careful balance of deterrence, clarity, and disciplined restraint—key elements of effective command in the nuclear age.

In the 2025 Indo-Pak conflict, Pakistan, guided by the shrewd military leadership at the helm, secured a definitive strategic and operational triumph. Pakistan’s armed forces executed precise, coordinated responses—neutralizing Indian air and missile incursions, degrading key assets, and exposing the hollowness of India’s information warfare. Prime Minister Modi’s May 12 address, which framed “Operation Sindoor” as a counter-terrorism success and threatened to stop water flows to Pakistan, reflected political damage control rather than a position of strength. His attempt to blur the line between Pakistani military forces and non-state actors revealed a rattled leadership, struggling to regain narrative control. In contrast, Gen Munir’s disciplined restraint and calculated strategic signaling preserved deterrence and averted uncontrolled escalation. Pakistan’s posture—measured, methodical, and backed by credible force—demonstrated both political maturity and military preparedness. The signal now extends well beyond the immediate theatre: Pakistan remains prepared — not for provocation, but for the preservation of regional stability. In the final assessment, it was not rhetorical escalation, but disciplined and deliberate military conduct that upheld strategic stability in South Asia.

(The writer holds an M.Phil in Strategic Studies from the National Defence University, Islamabad, with degrees in Energy Management and Mechanical Engineering. With a distinguished career spanning over 20 years, he brings expertise in the energy sector, geopolitics, and addressing non-traditional security threats. He is currently serving as Energy Advisor at APTMA, Islamabad. Email: [email protected])