In the international arena, every crisis offers an opportunity for states to draw lessons and mature as responsible actors. Clausewitz famously defined war as the continuation of politics by other means. However, deciphering the political objectives behind the latest India-Pakistan Crisis 7.0 proves increasingly difficult, especially as war has become costlier, deadlier, and more complex in both technique and scope. The escalation that followed the killing of 26 tourists in Pahalgam, Indian Illegally Occupied Kashmir (IIOJK) led two hostile nuclear states to the brink of war.
The Pahalgam attack on 22 April was condemned across the board, including by Pakistan. Yet by 23 April, India had suspended the Indus Waters Treaty and moved towards retaliation. On 24 April, without naming Pakistan, Prime Minister Modi warned of severe punishment and vowed to destroy so-called terror sanctuaries. By 27 April, The New York Times reported that India’s case rested on vague technical cues—like facial recognition—and Pakistan’s past, with no hard evidence shared even privately. One diplomat asked, “Do you want to go to war with a nuclear-armed neighbor based just on past patterns?” On 16 May, The Economic Times said India had shared evidence with the UN—pointing to TRF, not Pakistan. Unlike post-9/11 U.S. diplomacy, India skipped the step of building an international case and jumped straight to punitive action.
India initiated “Operation Sindoor” with cross-border missile strikes from French mad Rafale jets armed with SCALP missiles and Hammer bombs on May 6–7, 2025. The operation was officially declared as a punitive strike on alleged terrorist infrastructure within Pakistani territory, crossing both the Line of Control and the international border. As of this writing, independent verification of India’s claims remains unavailable.
In retaliation, Pakistan launched “Operation Bunyan-un-Marsoos” on May 10, 2025, utilizing conventional means (missiles, drones) and non-conventional capabilities (cyber and informational warfare). The objective was to establish deterrence across multiple modern domains, ensuring Pakistan’s sovereignty and strategic signaling. Pakistan targeted Indian military positions (counterforce), whereas Indian targeting leaned toward civilian infrastructure (countervalue). The pace and intensity of escalation left little room for diplomatic intervention.
- The Conflict Fault Line: From Pahalgam to Escalation
The crisis was triggered by the killing of tourists in Pahalgam, a heavily secured and popular destination in Kashmir. Modi Administration, instead of pursuing a solid and transparent investigation of the incident, as expected from a responsible state actor, it resorted to aspersions on Pakistan while accusing it for perpetuating the attack. All this happened as the administration mobilized domestic support through war rhetoric and communal polarization. While it appeared to be politically expedient at home, this approach reinforced perceptions of crisis recurrence for those who were observing it around the globe. The Crisis 7.0 served as a textbook example of the “snowball effect,” that when any provocation in a protracted unresolved conflict can pave the way for strategic instability.
In this manner, it should be understood that without addressing the root causes, such as the unresolved Kashmir dispute, every de-escalation framework will remain perched on a dangerous cliff which is always likely to tip over into collapse. While the concept of “conflict management”, which was in practice during the Cold War, between the two superpowers has incessantly failed to translate into the South Asian context. As unlike the US-USSR dyad, India and Pakistan share territorial, historical, and emotional proximity with a lingering internationally recognized dispute over Kashmir. The resolutions passed by the UN still endorse and uphold the Kashmiri right to self-determination, yet their implementation is yet to be materialized.
The post-war realities, the rapid technological evolution, domestic political incentives, and emerging doctrines are further complicating the issue thereby inflating the chances of conflict over Kashmir while making prospects of peace between the two nuclearized neighbor a pipe dream. Therefore, the only viable long-term solution lies in the just resolution of the Kashmir dispute, thereby lifting South Asia from perpetual strategic anxiety under of nuclear overhang.
- Multidomain Deterrence as Multidomain Warfare
In today’s operating environment, firepower is shaped by connectivity. A fourth-generation aircraft integrated into a multi-domain kill web may outmatch a fifth-generation jet flying without digital support. The U.S. Department of Defense’s 2023 JADC2 roadmap quantified this shift. Units that achieved cross-domain interoperability could reduce target engagement timelines by 82%. NATO’s Allied Command Transformation added that integrated ISR systems yielded 41% faster responses in simulated operations.
The implications are strategic. Interoperability isn’t just about coordination—it’s about escalation control, decision speed, and survivability. A 2024 EU Military Mobility report found that NATO forces with interoperable command networks cut deployment times by nearly half compared to their 2018 baselines. In crisis scenarios, fused situational awareness reduces miscalculation. A 2023 U.S. Army study showed that networked brigades not only responded faster but were 55% more survivable and 38% more operationally agile under fire.
Future warfare will only deepen this reliance. A 2022 Booz Allen Hamilton projection estimated that 65% of U.S. tactical engagements by 2030 would involve at least one unmanned asset and two or more external data sources. In that world, no platform operates alone. AI-guided target selection, space-fed ISR, and subsea command relays will form the backbone of combat. The unit that cannot process, share, and act within that loop—regardless of its hardware—becomes obsolete.
It is to be realized that crisis 7.0 activated the operationalization of multi-domain deterrence in South Asia. This is where the military engagement transcended the previously established domains and stretched into the cyber, space, and information realms. Projectiles were exchanged, drone were constantly utilized, naval deployments were happening, and psychological operations were conducted – all were leveraged to achieve deterrent effects. Experts are terming induction of these new dimensions into the warfare between the two nuclearized nations as the “new nuclear,” by accentuating their strategic weight.
Crisis enabled Pakistan to reinforce credibility of conventional deterrence, which was enabled through non-nuclear, technologically advanced, and strategically calibrated responses, which reaffirmed its credibility. In this way, it came to the fore that Pakistan’s response to threat to its national sovereignty was not theatrical but rational, proportional, and through effective signaling, as Dr. Zahir Kazmi noted in one of his articles. Since Pakistan’s nuclear doctrine explicitly stipulates that nuclear first-use would only be considered if conventional defenses fail to protect national sovereignty. Pakistan, in this way, upheld its status as a responsible nuclear power and a rational state actor, in the face of grave violation of its territorial sovereignty.
- Recurring Patterns of Conflict
Despite the evolution of the conduct of war, its character has remained intact. India’s unchanged behavioral pattern to harp on the terrorism mantra depicts revisionist and destabilizing posturing. Then, invocation of such a mantra to justify cross-border air strikes into the territory of a nuclearized power, especially in the absence of credible evidence, not only fuels a spiral of an unending instability but it also dampens genuine collaboration on counterterrorism.
As aforementioned, Modi’s playbook was heavily inclined towards domestic political mobilization, weaponizing threat perception, jingoistic media narratives, and communal polarization. While on the other side, Pakistan called for investigations, maintained strategic restraint, sought international engagement, and emphasized preparedness. These contrasting behaviors have become predictable across past crises. The international community also considered it as a regular occurrence of hostile events between two enemy states until technological innovations and cross-domain escalation blurred thresholds and expanded the crisis theater.
- New Tactics of Warfare: From Localized Escalation to Cyber Proxy Wars
The crisis 7.0 gives a blueprint for the future of warfare. The concept of “Limited War” has evolved into “Localized Armed Conflict which connotes the idea that specific locations will be targeted with the purpose of engagement to conserve resources and maintain international legitimacy. It appears to be that India assumed that such localization will go unchallenged, however, much to its surprise, was rebutted by Pakistan, which showed that war, once initiated, cannot be unilaterally confined. In the similar fashion, Drones played a significant role in expanding engagement domains. In a symbolic turn, Pakistani civilians downing drones with personal firearms showed public resilience and national morale, a psychological asset in crisis stability.
The aerial dogfights involved a considerable number of aircraft and demonstrated Pakistan’s tactical superiority. The ability of the Pakistan Air Force to intercept threats 300 miles from its border was a strategic success, building on lessons from the 2019 Balakot incident.
Cyber operations emerged as a powerful force multiplier. Entities like “Pakistan Cyber Force” claimed responsibility for breaching Indian defense systems, extracting over 10GB of sensitive data. Civilian and military cyber proxies operated alongside official cyber commands, pointing to a new theater of hostilities. With potential to disrupt defense, energy, finance, and public perception infrastructure, cyber warfare now represents a central component of strategic deterrence.
- Emerging Expressions of Hostility: Water, Memes, and Media Control
India’s unilateral suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty, an internationally supervised agreement, was a provocative breach of legal norms. Despite World Bank assertions that such action is illegitimate, New Delhi’s weaponization of water reflects dangerous new strategies.
Contrary to counterterrorism logic, Modi’s regime tried to convince the public that airstrikes were a viable solution to terrorism, ignoring the root causes. In doing so, India tested the limits of crisis manipulation under a nuclear umbrella.
Interestingly, meme warfare emerged as a psychological tactic, infusing levity into a tense situation. However, India responded by banning over 8,000 Pakistani social media accounts and content platforms, whereas Pakistan lifted existing bans, projecting openness and narrative credibility. Indian media gave priority to war hysteria over factual reporting. The usage of media to stifle the dissenting voices while promoting solutions like cow dung for nuclear protection exhibits the poor standard of journalism in the country. The behavior is a vital case study in evaluating media ethics during nuclear crises.
Cultural diplomacy was also sacrificed. India banned Pakistani artists, journalists, and entertainers, severing one of the few remaining people-to-people bridges. This move illustrates how anti-Pakistan sentiment is politically instrumentalized under Modi’s regime.
As Dr. Rabia Akhtar observed, “In a nuclear dyad where both sides have assured capabilities, the most effective deterrent is to refrain from an immediate and impulsive response.” Crisis 7.0 was defined by India’s deviation from this logic, marked by hasty, emotionally charged, and unilateral decision-making that increased unpredictability and instability.
- Regional vs International Reactions
The diplomatic front did not witness any endorsement of war or encouragement further escalation where calls for de-escalation as well as dialogue were near universal. The narrative that India attempted to generate could not find much traction globally thereby forcing India to dispatch diplomats worldwide in order to justify its crisis behavior. Interestingly, the US showed restraint without explicitly taking any sides which angered India media, which expected overt support. While regional actors, especially Iran and Saudi Arabia, took the lead in proactive diplomacy, displaying their emerging role as stabilizers in South Asia’s security dynamics.
