India, wary of international condemnation and hesitant about escalating tensions, made a pivotal tactical miscalculation: they refrained from initially neutralizing Pakistan's military air defenses. As Indian fighter jet missiles crossed into Pakistani airspace, they encountered a far more hostile reception than anticipated. Although all Indian pilots returned safely, their aircraft bore clear evidence of a fiercer engagement, leading domestic observers to question the strategic calculus behind their Government's cautious approach.
Pakistan responded, launching retaliatory strikes against both military and civilian targets within Indian territory, ratcheting tensions upward. Faced with these direct provocations, India escalated by decisively targeting Pakistan's military installations, specifically employing cruise missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads to attack Pakistani nuclear command and control centers. This bold and unprecedented move was carefully calculated to signal capability without crossing the nuclear threshold.
Despite internally recognizing India's deep-seated aversion to nuclear escalation, Pakistan seized the opportunity to internationalize the conflict dramatically, calling on the United States to mediate. Islamabad's manoeuvre, reminiscent of historical Iranian and Iraqi diplomatic, yet comical, playbooks, sought to portray itself as a responsible actor compelled to seek global assistance due to the perceived existential threat. Pakistan's de facto Prime Minister Munir's theatrical overtures went as far as offering the Nobel Peace Prize to former US President Trump and subsequently promising Iran a nuclear umbrella against Israeli/US attacks, gestures met internationally with skepticism.
India, maintaining its steadfast policy against third-party intervention, rejected these overtures outright, effectively forcing Pakistan into a diplomatically precarious position. New Delhi viewed Islamabad's appeals to global powers as a tacit admission of defeat, especially given the substantial damage inflicted upon Pakistan's military infrastructure. Notably, the vaunted Chinese-supplied air defenses protecting key installations proved notably inadequate, severely denting Islamabad's claims of military preparedness and technological parity.
In a striking contrast to Pakistan's bombastic narrative—culminating in Prime Minister Munir's self-awarded Field Marshal rank—India opted for minimalism in public communications. Eschewing sensationalism, New Delhi's terse official statements underscored the gravity and inevitability of their actions without inflaming further rhetoric. Winners speak as India did, losers as Pakistan did. The victory Pakistan achieved was due to a tactical, possibly naïve error, of not taking out first Pakistani military defences. India focused so much on the terror camps, they forgot Pakistan defends those camps with its military installations with a dose of plausible deniability. Knowing this, they were a legitimate first strike target. It was an uncharacteristic tactical error, quickly rectified, reminiscent of Western Nato fair 'rules of engagement' which benefit no one but the enemy.
India's deliberate restraint coupled with Pakistan's exaggerated dramatics reveals an asymmetric approach not just in military doctrine, but also in public diplomacy. Yet, beneath the surface-level optics and bravado lies an enduring reality: Pakistan knows the red lines have shifted, it air defences are exposed. India knows not to be so naïve and instead adopt the Western doctrine – first, we knock out military installations. India plays “fair” enough anyway by not deliberately targeting civilians – unlike Pakistan.
