The conflict between India and Pakistan is not a new phenomenon. Since 1948, the two nations have intermittently engaged in wars and skirmishes, often initiated by one side or the other, leading to cycles of attack and counterattack. These confrontations typically last for a few days and conclude either through mutual efforts or others’ mediation. The most significant of these was the 1965 war, which lasted 17 days. Although the major battles have ended, the underlying tensions and disputes, particularly over Kashmir, have continued for decades.
Regardless of how these wars begin, the outcomes often follow a predictable pattern. Azad Kashmir remains under the control of Pakistan; Indian-administered Kashmir stays under India’s control; and numerous civilians on both sides lose their lives. Indian generals are honoured with awards like the Param Vir Chakra and Maha Vir Chakra. Pakistani generals receive the “Nishan-e-Haider” and “Nishan-e-Imtiaz”. The suspended Indian Premier League (IPL) the Pakistan Super League (PSL) resume. Everything is alright again.
The question is, why did the war break out at all?
Why do wars take place in other parts of the world? In the Ukraine conflict, Russia aims to annex regions with ethnic Russian populations. Israel wages war to seize Palestinian land because it needs more territory to settle Jews arriving from various countries in their so-called “promised homeland”, Israel.
However, the India-Pakistan conflict does not revolve around territorial conquest. The recent escalation, dubbed “Operation Sindoor” by Indian prime minister Narendra Modi, is more about asserting “Hindu pride” than territorial gains.
The immediate trigger was an attack on Hindu tourists in Pahalgam, Kashmir, on 22 April 2025, which resulted in 26 civilian deaths. This incident led to a war of words between Indian and Pakistani leaders. The issue could have been settled with just a war of words.
But intense pressure began mounting on Modi from radical Hindutva groups to take revenge on Pakistan. Prime minister Narendra Modi practices politics rooted in a hardline Hindu nationalist ideology and has repeatedly become the prime minister with strong support from Hindu voters. If he didn’t respond to the Kashmir attack, his voter base would collapse. So, he instructed his generals to prepare for war. In essence, the main goal of this war was to punish Pakistan and preserve Modi’s 'Hindu pride' and his Hindu vote bank.
Criticism over the war’s cost and effectiveness, as well as Modi’s leadership, will likely come not only from opposition parties but also from factions within the Hindutva movement. Many may begin to say that this marks the beginning of the end of Modi’s political dominance.
Pakistan had also sensed that an Indian attack was imminent. Pakistani generals are almost always prepared to deal with any conflict involving India. In fact, this readiness is a core pillar of Pakistan’s national doctrine. Since its inception, Pakistani generals have used the fear of the “Indian threat” to justify governing the country - sometimes through military rule, and at other times via civilian proxies.
As most clashes with India revolve around Kashmir, this strategy is often referred to as the generals’ 'Kashmir card'. In this case, the Pakistani generals’ 'Kashmir card' confronted Modi’s 'Hindu pride'.
India clearly initiated the war. Observing how the conflict unfolded, many are now questioning whether India did its 'homework' properly before going to war. Did the war turn out the way India had intended? Or has it, in fact, backfired on Modi?
At the very start of the war, within just half an hour, India destroyed several 'Kashmiri training camps' inside Pakistan. India claimed that these camps were used to train militants who carried out attacks in Kashmir. If Pakistan had silently absorbed the initial strike, the war might have ended right then and there. Modi could have presented the success of Operation Sindoor to his supporters as a victory and a restoration of "Hindu pride." But why would Pakistan sacrifice its national pride?
Pakistan responded with counterattacks on equal footing with India. In the first phase of the war, both sides largely targeted civilian areas - though fighter jets, drones, and missiles were all used.
According to a Reuters report, Pakistan had the upper hand in the air battle, shooting down at least two of India’s advanced French-made Rafale fighter jets using its Chinese-manufactured J-10C fighter aircraft. This marked the first time the Chinese J-10C was used in an actual war, which proved to be a strategic gain for China.
In drone warfare, both countries were evenly matched. India used drones manufactured by Israel, while Pakistan employed drones made in Turkey. Both countries also deployed their own domestically produced missiles, using them in equal measure.
Kolkata-based Bengali daily Anandabazar Patrika described a missile attack in Jammu like this: “Red orbs streaked across the skies of Jammu - was it wedding fireworks? The realisation hit like a jolt - those were all missiles!” Unlike the 1965 India–Pakistan war, which was primarily fought over territorial gains, this conflict was not about land. As a result, tanks were barely used.
In the second phase of the war, both Pakistan and India launched attacks on each other’s military targets. At that point, there was hope that global powers would intervene to stop the conflict before it escalated further - especially since both nations possess nuclear weapons. And that’s exactly what happened.
President Trump announced on Saturday that “after overnight mediation by the United States,” India and Pakistan have agreed to an immediate and full ceasefire. Both Pakistani and Indian authorities also issued statements confirming the truce. The war will now come to a halt, and the reckoning of victory and defeat will begin.
During the war, India’s opposition parties remained largely silent, signaling their support. But now questions will arise: What exactly did India gain from this war? Given the strength of Pakistan’s response, it can be said that Pakistan has earned more respect from this conflict than India. And what will happen to prime minister Modi’s so-called “Hindu pride”? It seems Modi’s decision to initiate this war may have severely damaged both his and India’s reputation.
Modi’s party, the BJP, does not have an outright majority in the Lok Sabha. It currently holds on to power through a coalition with Nitish Kumar’s Janata Party in Bihar. In the last election, Modi’s party lost a significant number of seats. Now, in the aftermath of this war, questions will be raised about Modi’s political future.
Criticism over the war’s cost and effectiveness, as well as Modi’s leadership, will likely come not only from opposition parties but also from factions within the Hindutva movement. Many may begin to say that this marks the beginning of the end of Modi’s political dominance.
* Saleh Uddin Ahmed is a teacher and political analyst