India’s ongoing military drills along the LoC are deliberate acts of escalation, threatening regional stability. Following the April 2025 Pahalgam attack, India blamed Pakistan without evidence. Pakistan firmly rejected the claim and even invited an international probe. Still, India pressed ahead with large-scale exercises and diplomatic pressure. Pakistan responded with restraint, while quietly showcasing its military preparedness. This balance preserved deterrence under the nuclear shadow and highlighted Islamabad’s responsible, calculated approach to statecraft.
Demonstrating Strength Through Exercises
Pakistan countered India’s mobilization along the LoC and naval drills in the Arabian Sea with a coordinated show of force. All three services took part. The Army staged Exercise Hammer Strike near Gujranwala, demonstrating rapid mobilization along the Indian Punjab border. On April 24, 2025, the Navy launched large-scale live firing exercises in the Arabian Sea, involving missile launches, submarine maneuvers, joint Air Force operations, and maritime restrictions near Karachi and Gwadar.
The Pakistan Air Force underscored its strength through three major exercises: Zarb-e-Haideri in the South, Fiza-e-Badar in the North, and Lalkar-e-Momin in Central Command. These featured frontline jets—F-16s, J-10s, and JF-17 Thunders—equipped with PL-15 Beyond Visual Range missiles. Pakistan also released footage highlighting its technological edge, directly challenging India’s claims of air superiority.
Each branch reinforced deterrence: the Army demonstrated rapid defensive mobilization, the Air Force projected air dominance, and the Navy secured sea control and surveillance. Together, these exercises reflected Pakistan’s full-spectrum readiness against Indian escalation.
Diplomacy in Action: Confronting One-Sided Aggression
Following the Pahalgam attack, India resorted to unilateral punitive actions—suspending the Indus Waters Treaty, expelling Pakistani diplomats, and halting visa services. Pakistan, in contrast, pursued a multilateral path. After India abandoned the Indus framework, Pakistan suspended the Shimla Agreement, framing it as essential for safeguarding sovereignty. Pakistan also declared India’s attempt to weaponize water as tantamount to an act of war.
Islamabad consistently demanded evidence for Indian allegations and offered cooperation in neutral investigations. Pakistani envoys engaged major capitals, exposing India’s violations of sovereignty, while reciprocating with the expulsion of Indian diplomats and limited restrictions at Attari-Wagah. At every Indian claim, Pakistan pressed for international inquiries to counter unilateral rhetoric. Yet, despite heightened tensions, Pakistan kept the Kartarpur Corridor open for Sikh pilgrims—underscoring its respect for religious freedoms, in sharp contrast to India’s sweeping visa cancellations that fractured families across the border.
Source: Arab News
Strategic Counteraction: Measured Retaliation to Indian Hostility
On May 7, India escalated tensions with “Operation Sindoor,” launching missile strikes into Pakistani territory, including Punjab. Pakistan replied with a calibrated but firm counterstrike that set new deterrence benchmarks. J-10C fighters from No. 15 Squadron, equipped with PL-15 missiles, intercepted Indian aircraft without crossing the LoC. Independent assessments, including U.S. officials and the Stimson Center, confirmed that Pakistan downed multiple Indian jets, including Rafales and MiG-29s—proving its technological edge.
In contrast to India’s reckless targeting of civilian areas, such as the Bahawalpur mosque, Pakistan’s “Operation Bunyan-un-Marsoos” on May 10 struck only military installations—airbases and command centers—while deliberately sparing civilian zones. Despite having the capacity for deeper strikes, Pakistan acted responsibly. At the same time, it pioneered drone warfare, using loitering munitions to hit Indian positions in Jammu, overwhelming expensive Indian air defenses. This marked the world’s first drone-versus-drone conflict between nuclear powers.
Source: BBC News
International Endorsement of Pakistan’s Measured Response
The international community largely sided with Pakistan. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres cautioned against risking nuclear confrontation, while U.S. President Trump offered mediation on Kashmir, dismissing India’s push for bilateral talks. European states, including Germany and France, voiced concern over Indian strikes, with Berlin urging restraint and openly criticizing Indian aggression. Independent think tanks, such as the Stimson Center, confirmed that Pakistan’s modernized air defenses exposed India’s hidden losses and validated Islamabad’s measured yet effective multi-domain counterstrikes—underscoring the success of Pakistan’s military modernization.
Strategic Outcomes
Pakistan’s response delivered key strategic gains. By intercepting Indian jets and striking military targets, it reinforced credible deterrence. The Kashmir dispute drew wider international focus, with growing calls for a multilateral solution. Pakistan’s precise, limited operations—confined to military objectives—earned moral and legal legitimacy, while India faced criticism for civilian strikes. Despite Indian protests, Pakistan upheld restraint, highlighting its responsible approach to conflict.
Conclusion
Pakistan’s calibrated response to Indian drills balanced deterrence with restraint. It showcased readiness through exercises while avoiding escalation. Diplomatically, Pakistan countered India’s claims and pushed for multilateral dialogue. When attacked, it retaliated with precision, containing the crisis. Analysts term this “multi-domain preparedness,” vital for regional stability. While India’s aggression fuels instability, Pakistan’s responsible conduct presents the only sustainable path to peace—strength-based, not reckless, under the nuclear shadow.
