By carrying out the Balakot airstrikes on 26 February 2019, India sought to reshape the regional status quo in pursuit of its hegemonic ambitions, thereby greatly undermining the foundations of strategic stability in the region. However, Pakistan’s measured and calculated response effectively de-escalated the crisis, preventing it from escalating into a full-scale war between the two nuclearized states. The Balakot airstrikes, conducted in the early hours of the morning by India, were met with retaliatory strikes by Pakistan the following day in broad daylight, near Indian Military Installations in Indian Illegally Occupied Kashmir (IIOJK) as a warning. During the ensuing aerial combat, the Pakistan Air Force successfully downed two Indian fighter jets and captured one of the pilots. This confrontation marked the first instance of direct aerial combat between India and Pakistan since the 1971 war, thereby exposing significant operational shortcomings in India’s ground and air forces. Pakistan conveyed a clear message to its longstanding adversary that such actions would not be normalized and would be met with a resolute response. The episode also cast significant doubt on the preparedness of the Indian armed forces and their capacity to manage high-pressure situations during crises.
Prior to this, on a similar pattern, following the cross-border exchange of fire in 2016, India claimed to have carried out a “surgical strike” within Pakistan. New Delhi sought to infringe upon the territorial sovereignty of its nuclear-armed neighbor, ostensibly for domestic political gains. Interestingly, with elections approaching, Indian government headed by Narendra Modi, again attempted to exploit the Pulwama incident to use it to bolster Bahartiya Janata Party’s (BJP) chances to win the upcoming general election.
The Pulwama attack, widely regarded as a false flag operation, raised serious concerns about the vigilance and operational competence of the Indian armed forces, particularly given that a vehicle carrying 100 kilograms of explosives was able to evade detection in a highly militarized zone. This significant security lapse was later acknowledged by Satya Pal Malik, the former governor of Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IIOJK). In an effort to deflect criticism, India attributed responsibility to Pakistan and launched the Balakot airstrike, falsely claiming to have targeted militant organizations. This act constituted a deliberate provocation against a nuclear-armed adversary, amplifying the risk of conflict and jeopardizing the strategic stability of South Asia.
Subsequently, confounded by Pakistan’s response, the Indian Air Force mistakenly targeted its own Mi-17 helicopter. Reports indicate that India’s Mirage 2000 jets, central to the mission, lacked the capability for precision strikes, further highlighting deficiencies in mission preparedness. In the aftermath of the Balakot incident, defense analysts scrutinized the Indian Air Force’s outdated fleet, often described as “vintage,” and the absence of of hardened shelters near the Line of Control to protect critical assets. Although the Modi administration successfully shaped the domestic narrative in its favor, the episode ultimately exposed vulnerabilities within India’s military apparatus. The Balakot crisis brought to the fore the lack of coordinated defense strategies, an apparent inability to manage high-pressure situations, and shortcomings in intelligence accuracy. India’s claim that it had struck a terrorist training camp was ultimately discredited, as no such infrastructure existed in the targeted area. Additionally, the Indian Air Force has struggled with persistent issues in training, aircraft maintenance, and modernization, contributing to high accident rates. Over the years, these deficiencies have led to the loss of approximately 2,300 aircraft and 1,300 pilot fatalities.
Conversely, the Balakot incident reaffirmed the Pakistan Air Force’s operational precision and vigilance. As a responsible state actor, Pakistan took measures to deescalate tensions by returning the captured Indian pilot, effectively diffusing the crisis. The engagement demonstrated India’s miscalculation of Pakistan’s strategic resolve and the credibility of its deterrence posture. Pakistan not only reinforced the effectiveness of its nuclear deterrent but also strengthened its conventional deterrence against a conventionally superior adversary. In contrast, India’s conventional deterrence suffered a significant setback as its air power was also compromised. Meanwhile, Pakistan maintained its credibility both in terms of air power and strategic decision-making. Through effective defense planning, Pakistan has ensured a balanced approach to both conventional and nuclear deterrence, whereas India’s shortcomings in defense preparedness have been increasingly exposed.
Despite possessing a military numerically smaller than India’s, Pakistan demonstrated strategic prudence, operational competence, and deterrence credibility, effectively countering New Delhi’s attempts to alter the regional balance of power. Furthermore, the crisis challenged India’s long-standing narrative of its capacity to assume greater defense responsibilities in the Indo-Pacific, revealing substantial deficiencies in its military preparedness.
Author
Syeda Thareem Bukhari, Associate Director at center for International Strategic Studies AJK.
