The latest military confrontation between India and Pakistan is not a spontaneous response to terrorism, but rather a premeditated manoeuvre by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, one rooted in domestic politics rather than regional security.
Prime Minister Modi is under massive pressure from the opposition to deport Bangladesh’s former dictator, Sheikh Hasina. Bangladesh turmoil challenged Modi’s position in India and the international arena. Prime Minister Modi wanted to divert attention from domestic failure to the Kashmir skirmish. A false flag operation is the way to avoid his responsibility in keeping a murderous dictator in Bangladesh.
In the 2024 Corruption Perceptions Index, India ranks 96 out of 180 countries, scoring 38. This indicates a perception of low public sector integrity. India’s rank was 93 in 2023. A lack of accountability within government and enforcement agencies can fuel corruption. Corruption remains widespread in the country, and there have been many instances of political and bureaucratic corruption, public funds embezzlement, fraudulent procurement practices, and judicial corruption.
The Indian Sedition Act of 1870 made it a criminal offence to criticise the British colonial government or to promote feelings of disaffection among the Indian population. This Act was often used to silence political dissidents and suppress freedom of speech.
As the subcontinent teeters on the edge of open war, the world must understand the underlying motivations behind India’s recent strikes across the Line of Control in Kashmir that divides the two: a calculated redirection of public attention away from internal failings and toward a familiar external scapegoat—Pakistan.
Two weeks ago, the tragedy in Pahalgam that claimed the lives of Indian tourists sparked rightful outrage. But outrage alone does not justify airstrikes on civilian areas in Pakistan. More concerning is New Delhi’s outright dismissal of Islamabad’s offer for an impartial, international investigation into the incident. Instead of accepting transparency, Modi’s government chose escalation—launching “Operation Sindoor,” a military campaign cloaked in symbolism, but anchored in cynical domestic politics—particularly after losing parliamentary strength in the 2024 general elections.
For Modi, this pattern is not new. In the run-up to the 2019 general elections, his administration similarly used the Pulwama-Balakot crisis to whip up nationalist fervor. Then, as now, Pakistan offered cooperation and even returned an Indian pilot within days—a gesture aimed at de-escalation. But the lesson Modi seemed to have drawn from that episode was not about the cost of conflict, but its electoral utility.
A few days ago, New Delhi unilaterally halted the flow of Chenab River waters to Pakistan—a move that violates the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty and sets a dangerous precedent in weaponizing shared water resources. Not only is this a breach of international law, but it also undermines the basic human right to water access for millions of Pakistanis living downstream.
This time, the scale of aggression is markedly higher. India claims to have targeted militant infrastructure, but the reality is grim: at least 26 Pakistani civilians -including women and a young child were reported killed in the strikes. Pakistan’s measured retaliation, confined to military sites and resulting in what it reported as the downing of five Indian fighter jets, underscores a stark contrast in approaches. Islamabad’s statement, invoking Article 51 of the UN Charter, clearly signals both a desire to operate within the framework of international law and a warning that restraint should not be mistaken for weakness.
It is this very warning the international community must heed. Despite the controlled nature of Pakistan’s response, the situation is now spiraling into a broader crisis. Pakistan’s National Security Committee has convened under Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, granting full authority to the military to respond “at a time, place and manner of its choosing.” More than rhetoric, this reflects a readiness—and capability—to inflict serious damage. Military experts in Islamabad assert that Pakistan possesses the ability to neutralize Indian air force capabilities and hit deep strategic targets if provoked further.
India’s defense establishment, for its part, has remained silent on Pakistan’s claims—particularly the downing of three French-made Rafales, one MiG-29, and one Su-30. If true, the loss would represent a staggering blow to India’s aerial supremacy and a severe indictment of its strategic overreach.
The broader consequences are ominous. Airspace over much of Pakistan and northern India has been cleared of commercial airlines. And yet, Modi’s government appears unrepentant. The UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has issued a statement urging both sides to exercise restraint, and diplomats are scrambling to contain the fallout. Several world leaders have initiated travel to New Delhi and Islamabad to engage in quiet diplomacy. The U.S. State Department has said it is “closely monitoring the flare-up”—a phrase that belies the gravity of the moment. This is not a flare-up. It is a conflagration in the making.
We must also remember the conflict’s broader strategic context. Kashmir is not merely a territorial dispute but a nuclear flashpoint, where minor miscalculations can spiral into catastrophe. Since the abrogation of Article 370 in 2019, India has sought to bring Kashmir under central control, fueling further alienation among its Muslim population. The denial of autonomy has not brought peace; it has intensified unrest and regional instability.
What now? There are three possible outcomes. The first is de-escalation, spurred by international intervention and diplomacy—a path the United Nations and concerned global actors must immediately prioritize. This requires not just calls for restraint but the establishment of an investigative commission into the Pahalgam incident and a direct hotline between the two militaries to avoid accidental war.
The second outcome is sustained tit-for-tat retaliation, likely involving air and missile exchanges that would not remain confined to border areas. Pakistan’s stated intent to paralyze India’s air force and strike deep targets could lead to economic and human losses on an unprecedented scale.
The third—and most dangerous—outcome is escalation beyond conventional warfare. Both countries possess nuclear arsenals. While deterrence logic may hold in theory, miscommunication and political brinkmanship in such a charged environment could lead to irreversible disaster.
It is time for the international community to act—not merely to prevent a war, but to expose the real source of this escalation. The world must see through the smokescreen of nationalism and hold accountable those who light fires for electoral gain. Because if this crisis burns out of control, it won’t just be the subcontinent that suffers. It will be global peace itself that takes the hit.
© 2025, GDC. © GDC and www.globaldefensecorp.com. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to www.globaldefensecorp.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.
