In his recent column, Zahid Hussain, an author and journalist, reflects on the recent military confrontation between Pakistan and India, recognising Pakistan’s successful defence against India’s unwarranted aggression as a significant achievement and a matter of national pride. However, he stresses that celebrating this as a final victory is premature, as the conflict remains unresolved, and tensions continue to simmer between the two nuclear-armed neighbours. As Hussain cautions, “A victory celebration in an ongoing conflict seems premature. The exchange of missiles and drones may have stopped, but the tension between the two countries is far from over.” What Prime Minister Narendra Modi called a “pause” is, in reality, a fragile ceasefire that could break down at any moment, making the current situation extremely dangerous and requiring careful management rather than triumphalism.

Hussain questions Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s claim that Pakistan’s recent defence action amounted to revenge for the 1971 war. He argues that the 1971 conflict was vastly different in scale and consequence—it led to the tragic disintegration of Pakistan and was as much a war within the nation as it was against India. That tragedy left deep scars and a collective national trauma that cannot be lightly compared to the recent military engagement. While the current conflict was a defensive success, it should not be seen as an equivalent event or a reversal of the 1971 defeat.

One important theme Hussain highlights is the need to avoid politicising national security matters. He acknowledges that the Indian aggression united Pakistan across political lines, with political parties setting aside their differences to support the armed forces. Unfortunately, after the ceasefire, political divisions quickly re-emerged, undermining the unity that is essential to national defence. Hussain emphasises that political infighting in the face of ongoing threats weakens Pakistan’s security and leaves it vulnerable to further aggression. The government, in particular, bears the responsibility to cool political tensions and foster a united front against external dangers. As he notes, “Attempts to politicise national security must also be avoided… But soon after the hostilities eased, the daggers were out again, not realising the serious challenges the nation’s security continues to confront.”

Hussain commends the armed forces for their professionalism and effectiveness in repelling the Indian attack, particularly praising the Pakistan Air Force. The air force’s ability to defend the country’s airspace and shoot down several Indian aircraft re-established Pakistan’s conventional deterrence capabilities. He also acknowledges the leadership of the army chief during the crisis. However, Hussain questions the decision to promote the army chief to the five-star rank of field marshal after just a brief four-day conflict. He points out that such promotions have historically been reserved for commanders who led prolonged, decisive wars, such as Ayub Khan, and that this elevation might set a concerning precedent. He observes, “It’s difficult to understand the need to promote the army chief to the highest position just on the basis of four days of conflict. It was certainly not winning an all-out war.”

While celebrating the military’s success, Hussain also urges a sober and critical assessment of Pakistan’s vulnerabilities. He notes that Indian missiles did manage to hit key airbases, including the strategically important Nur Khan Airbase near Islamabad. Although the damage was not as extensive as claimed by India, these breaches reveal weaknesses that must be addressed to avoid future incursions. The possibility of further Indian strikes remains a serious concern that requires urgent attention to plug security gaps. Hussain warns, “It must be a cause for concern that the Indian missiles managed to hit some of our key airbases… these gaps have to be plugged, as another Indian military strike seems very much on the cards.”

Hussain further discusses the broader geopolitical context of the conflict, which brought to light shifting regional and global dynamics. India’s expectation of garnering international support for its military retaliation against Pakistan in response to the terrorist attack in Kashmir largely failed. India’s inability to provide credible evidence linking Pakistan to the Pahalgam attack led to a lack of endorsement from many key international players, except for countries like Israel. Western nations, including the United States, urged restraint from both sides, largely due to fears that the conflict might escalate into a nuclear confrontation with catastrophic consequences for global peace.

An unexpected development was former US President Donald Trump’s claim that he brokered the ceasefire by leveraging trade discussions with India. While this highlighted the importance of US-India relations, Hussain warns against overinterpreting this gesture. He notes that New Delhi is unlikely to accept any external mediation on Kashmir or other outstanding issues, as India remains a strategic ally of the United States despite occasional tensions. However, Hussain suggests that Pakistan could use this period as an opportunity to reset and improve its relations with Washington.

A critical strategic element discussed by Hussain is Pakistan’s strengthened defence cooperation with China. He attributes Pakistan’s successful air warfare defence largely to this alliance, noting the growing collaboration between the air forces of both countries as well as naval ties. The China-Pakistan strategic partnership, rooted in shared security, military, and economic interests, plays a vital role in Pakistan’s defence posture. Nonetheless, Hussain acknowledges that China prioritises regional stability and is likely to discourage any escalation that could destabilise South Asia.

Diplomatically, both Pakistan and India have now taken their narratives to international capitals, seeking to justify their positions. Each country accuses the other of supporting terrorism as part of a covert conflict that continues beneath the surface of overt military engagements. Hussain highlights the limits of what the international community can achieve in resolving these deep-rooted disputes, especially since both sides have declared victory in a conflict that ultimately failed to resolve any fundamental issues. He concludes, “Both sides have now declared victory in a conflict that has resolved nothing. It’s a war without an end.”

In conclusion, Zahid Hussain paints a nuanced picture of a complex and dangerous conflict. He calls for caution and restraint rather than premature celebrations. Political unity within Pakistan and a thorough strengthening of defence capabilities are imperative to withstand future challenges. The recent military success, while commendable, does not mark the end of the conflict but rather signals the beginning of a longer, ongoing struggle. Hussain’s analysis stresses the critical importance of addressing vulnerabilities, maintaining regional stability, and navigating the difficult path of diplomacy in an increasingly tense South Asian geopolitical landscape.