Pakistan has done what it needed to do. On the morning of May 7, the Pakistan Air Force reportedly downed five Indian aircraft—one near Bathinda in Indian Punjab, and four inside Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir.
The following day, a barrage of drone strikes targeting civilian and military installations—stretching from central Punjab to coastal Sindh—was also intercepted and neutralized in real time. For all intents and purposes, Pakistan’s armed forces have demonstrated operational readiness and credible self-defense capability. If there were any illusions in New Delhi about a consequence-free strike campaign, they should now be thoroughly dispelled.
Now, it is time to stop.
Tempting as it may be to reciprocate with a proportionate strike—to hit back with equal, if not greater, force—Pakistan must resist that impulse. We must fight the temptation to settle scores. Because the real win here is not escalation. It is insulation. Insulation from a prolonged cycle of volatility that our battered polity, people, and economy can no longer afford.
Let us rewind. India’s provocations have taken a disturbing trajectory since 2016: surgical strikes across the Line of Control that year; the 2019 Balakot air raid in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa; and now, in 2025, a coordinated multi-pronged missile assault targeting civilian and strategic infrastructure across Punjab. The trajectory is unmissable. And it gives rise to a compelling logic: if not checked now, India may feel emboldened to pursue even more aggressive tactics next time—potentially, a full-scale ground invasion.
Ordinarily, that logic is sound. Bullies—whether in schoolyards or statecraft—do not back off when appeased. They escalate until someone punches back. So yes, in moral, geopolitical, and even deterrent terms, Pakistan has every reason to respond.But in this case, the punch has already landedon the adversary in the form of loss of face in aerial theatre. Pakistan has already done enough to prove credible self-defense capability. Any further action risks tumbling down an escalatory ladder from which there may be no return.
Unlike India, there is no war lobby in Pakistan. No manufactured jingoism. No electoral dividend to be had from televised airstrikes. The Pakistani public—scarred by seven years of endless poly-crisis—has neither the stomach nor the stamina for conflict.
This is a country still recovering from the constitutional collapse of 2022, a balance-of-payments crisis that wiped out two years of GDP growth, and IMF bailouts. Add to that an uncontrolled currency spiral, historic post-pandemic inflation, mega floods, resurgent terrorism, rural cash drought, and a deepening energy affordability crisis.
And the threats looming on the horizon, if this crisis spirals into full-scale war, are even graver: food insecurity, dwindling fuel reserves, prolonged power outages, disruption of trade and industry, a freeze on education, and a halt to critical economic and diplomatic activity. Already, Pakistan has lost operational air travel due to suspended airspace and NOTAMs. Cricket matches have been cancelled. The much-anticipated High-Level EU-Pakistan Business Forum has been postponed. This is just the prelude. Imagine Act II.
Let us also not forget the economic dimensions of warfare. Even symbolic tit-for-tat retaliation invites consequences: bond spreads widening, foreign investors fleeing, sanctions threats, and downward spirals in business and consumer confidence. If war breaks out, Pakistan risks losing the very international sympathy it has earned with its disciplined self-restraint.
Make no mistake: Pakistan must make it abundantly clear—to India and to the world—that its restraint is not weakness. It is maturity. It is strength. It is proof of a state that can exercise power but chooses prudence instead. That power was demonstrated unequivocally on May 7. But escalation risks reducing that achievement to a footnote.
Instead, Pakistan should seize the narrative and dictate the next move. It is India that must climb down the ladder first. It is India that must end its aggression, restore the ceasefire across the LoC, and stop peddling wild accusations without evidence. Most importantly, New Delhi must reverse its suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty—a reckless and unilateral move that halted routine bilateral consultations, blocked data-sharing obligations, and raised threats of reduced water flows into Pakistan’s key agricultural basins. This action jeopardizes the food and water security of over 250 million people and amounts to ecological terrorism.
Let us be clear: there is no compromise on water. Any diplomatic resolution must come with the immediate and full restoration of Pakistan’s water rights under the IWT. That is non-negotiable.
Pakistan’s conditions for de-escalation must also include the initiation of a bilateral dialogue with India, along with a roadmap for the restoration of the pre-2019 constitutional status of Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir. Islamabad may not secure all its demands—but it must, at the very least, come to the table with a firm posture and bargain with a tough hand.
This is where Pakistan’s diplomatic corps must rise to the occasion. Our Foreign Office has been handed a strategic advantage on a silver platter. It must now frame Pakistan’s decision not to retaliate further as an act of geopolitical responsibility, not retreat. As a rational, nuclear-armed middle power, Pakistan must project itself as a stabilizing force in a region perpetually on the brink. It must own the narrative that it acted in self-defense—decisively—but is not willing to escalate at the cost of regional or global security.
The moral and political optics are in Pakistan’s favor. Western and Gulf capitals, who are seeking to de-escalate tensions, must be told that Pakistan’s abstention from proportionate retaliation comes at a price. That price is not only the end of Indian hostility, but concrete policy reversals: de-escalation on the border, reinstatement of IWT, re-opening of dialogue on Jammu & Kashmir’s status, and a commitment to refrain from future misadventures.
This is not a plea for passivity. It is a call for smart power. By choosing to halt while holding the upper hand, Pakistan wins twice: once on the battlefield, and once on the diplomatic stage. The choice before us is not between war and surrender. It is between short-term bravado and long-term victory. And this time, long-term victory looks like not retaliating—because we already won.
Comments