The Indo-Pak Paradox: Why the World Fears a War That Never Lasts Long…

*Poonam Sharma

As the Russia-Ukraine war drags into its third calendar decade and Israel continues to wage its battle on multiple fronts, the world has become numb to protracted conflict. Yet, there exists a peculiar South Asian paradox—despite deep-rooted animosity, wars between India and Pakistan have historically been short-lived. Why is the international community still so terrified at the prospect of another Indo-Pak conflict?

The answer lies not in the duration of previous wars, but in the stakes involved. Pakistan and India have fought four major wars—1947, 1965, 1971, and 1999 (Kargil)—but none have extended beyond a few weeks. Unlike other global war zones, these conflicts, though bloody, were quickly capped. However, today’s geopolitical architecture is drastically different. The potential for escalation—especially involving nuclear weapons—has multiplied the risks exponentially.

The Unequal Equation

India and Pakistan are not military equals. According to the Global Firepower Index 2024, India ranks 4th in overall military strength, whereas Pakistan stands at 9th. India boasts a 1.45 million active military force and a defense budget exceeding $82 billion. Pakistan’s active forces number less than 700,000 with a defense budget under $12 billion. Indian technological superiority—bolstered by indigenous missile systems like Agni and BrahMos, space reconnaissance capabilities, and a growing naval footprint in the Indo-Pacific—gives it a decisive edge.

But the imbalance isn’t only military. India’s GDP stands at $3.9 trillion (IMF 2024), making it the 5th largest economy, while Pakistan’s struggles around $370 billion. The economic asymmetry has only widened since the 1990s, when U.S. patronage kept Pakistan afloat as a strategic counterweight to Soviet-aligned India and later to China’s rise. That strategy, however, has now exhausted its relevance.

America’s Himalayan Calculus

A telling moment came in a leaked 2011 interview with then U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who inadvertently hinted at America’s interest in the Himalayan region—not for peace, but as a possible forward base against China. This candid confession, albeit veiled in diplomatic jargon, pointed toward a long-term U.S. policy of nurturing instability as a tool of containment.

Washington’s Cold War-era policy of funding Pakistan’s military and intelligence—most infamously during the Soviet-Afghan war—created a permanent ecosystem of jihadism and proxy warfare. But today, Washington finds itself tied in a knot of contradictions: needing India as a Quad partner against China, yet unable to entirely abandon its military-industrial entanglements in Pakistan.

A Different India

This is not the India of 1947 or 1971. Post-Balakot 2019, India demonstrated its political will to strike within Pakistani territory in response to cross-border terrorism. The abrogation of Article 370 and the firm grip of New Delhi over Jammu and Kashmir sent a clear signal: the era of defensive ambiguity is over.

India is now positioning itself as a civilizational power with a strong military posture. Its expanding strategic ties with France, Russia, and the United States, combined with infrastructure investments in the Indian Ocean, signify its broader ambitions. Its influence in the South Pacific through defense pacts with ASEAN nations, and naval presence near the Malacca Strait, shows India is not just a subcontinental power anymore.

Pakistan, on the other hand, remains locked in a cycle of military coups, IMF bailouts, and internal radicalization. Its economy is on life support. The latest data from the State Bank of Pakistan reveals a record-high inflation of 38% and foreign reserves covering barely a month’s worth of imports. In such an environment, Pakistan’s military establishment often relies on India-baiting to retain control.

Nuclear Nightmare?

The biggest global anxiety remains the nuclear angle. Pakistan maintains a doctrine of “first use” in case of an Indian invasion. But India’s declared policy is of “no first use,” though there have been recent hints by Indian officials that this posture is “circumstantial, not absolute.”

The global fear is not just about mushroom clouds. It’s about the strategic fallout: A full-blown war between India and Pakistan could collapse the global supply chain in pharmaceuticals, textiles, and technology services—sectors dominated by India. Oil trade routes near the Arabian Sea could be jeopardized. Pakistan’s Chinese-funded infrastructure, especially under the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), may become collateral, dragging Beijing into diplomatic crossfire.

Redrawing the Map?

If Pakistan were to escalate militarily and fail, it could face territorial losses unprecedented since 1971. Some Indian strategic thinkers speculate that any future war might not just end with a ceasefire, but with a redrawing of South Asia’s political geography. The very logic of Partition—that India must be divided to serve external interests—might unravel.

This potential geopolitical shift, rather than mere military confrontation, is what alarms foreign capitals. A fragmented Pakistan might create a vacuum that no external power can easily control. India absorbing parts of it would tilt the regional balance irreversibly.

The Age of No Dictating Terms

The world may still carry the Cold War lens when it comes to South Asia, but India doesn’t. Pakistan no longer holds the leverage it once did as a strategic pawn in the West’s chessboard. As regional alignments change and India’s power grows, the possibility of a decisive end to a decades-long proxy war becomes real.

But if such a moment comes, it won’t be dictated by Washington or Beijing. It will be born out of the subcontinent’s own historical wounds—and possibly, its final healing.

• Mrs. Poonam Sharma is  a Sr Journalist, Author, Poet, Historian from Assam. At Present, Mrs Sharma is working as “Managing Editor” of Global Governance News Group, New Delhi