India and Pakistan have fought three full-scale wars since they gained independence from British India in 1947
Riazat Butt
Friday 09 May 2025 10:04 BST
Scared Kashmir residents living on cusp of India-Pakistan war: The Independent's exclusive report
India and Pakistan have fought three full-scale wars since they gained independence from British India in 1947. They’ve also had dozens of skirmishes and conflicts, including one atop a glacier dubbed the coldest and highest-altitude battlefield in the world.
The latest escalation follows a deadly gun attack on tourists that India blames Pakistan for — Islamabad denies any connection. But they don’t fight wars like other countries.
The dominant factor is their nuclear weapons arsenal, a distinct way of deterring major attacks and a guarantee that fighting doesn’t get out of hand, even when the situation is spiraling.
Here’s how — and why — Pakistan fight the way they do:
Their nuclear arsenals can destroy each other
“Pakistan and India have enough nuclear weapons to wipe the other side out several times over,” says security analyst Syed Mohammed Ali, who is based in Islamabad, the Pakistani capital. “Their nuclear weapons create a scenario for mutually assured destruction.”
Both countries have “deliberately developed” the size and range of their stockpile to remind the other about the guarantee of mutually assured destruction, he adds.
Neither country discloses their nuclear capabilities but each is thought to have between 170 and 180 warheads that are short-, long- and medium-range. Both countries have different delivery systems — ways of launching and propelling these weapons to their targets.
open image in gallery
Military personnel with Indian Army stand guard at India Gate in New Delhi (REUTERS)
The arsenals are a defensive move to prevent and deter further fighting, because “neither side can afford to initiate such a war or hope to achieve anything from it,” Ali says.
It might not look this way to the outsider, but nuclear weapons are a reminder to the other side that they can't take things too far.
Kashmir at the crux of the dispute
India and Pakistan have each laid claim to Kashmir since 1947, when both gained independence, and border skirmishes have created instability in the region for decades. Each country controls a part of Kashmir, which is divided by a heavily militarized border.
The two archrivals have also fought three wars over Kashmir, where armed insurgents resist Indian rule. Many Muslim Kashmiris support the rebels’ goal of uniting the territory, either under Pakistani governance or as an independent country.
open image in gallery
The arsenals are a defensive move to prevent and deter further fighting, because “neither side can afford to initiate such a war or hope to achieve anything from it,” Ali says.
It might not look this way to the outsider, but nuclear weapons are a reminder to the other side that they can't take things too far.
Kashmir at the crux of the dispute
India and Pakistan have each laid claim to Kashmir since 1947, when both gained independence, and border skirmishes have created instability in the region for decades. Each country controls a part of Kashmir, which is divided by a heavily militarized border.
The two archrivals have also fought three wars over Kashmir, where armed insurgents resist Indian rule. Many Muslim Kashmiris support the rebels’ goal of uniting the territory, either under Pakistani governance or as an independent country.
open image in gallery
India Pakistan (A person inspects his damaged shop following overnight shelling from Pakistan at Gingal village in Uri district, Indian controlled Kashmir, Friday, May 9, 2025. (AP Photo/Dar Yasin))
Border flare-ups and militant attacks in India-controlled Kashmir have prompted New Delhi to take an increasingly tough position on Islamabad, accusing it of “terrorism.”
In the latest conflict, India punished Pakistan by hitting what it said were sites used by Pakistan-backed militants linked to a gun massacre last month.
A conventional military imbalance
India is one of the biggest defence spenders in the world, with $74.4 billion in 2025, according to the Military Balance report from the International Institute for Strategic Studies. It’s also one of the world’s largest arms importers.
Pakistan is no slouch, spending $10 billion last year, but it can never match India’s deep pockets. India also has more than double the number of active armed forces personnel than Pakistan does.
While India’s armed forces are traditionally focused on Pakistan, it has another nuclear neighbor to contend with, China, and it is increasingly concerned with maritime security in the Indian Ocean. Those are two factors that Pakistan doesn’t have to consider in its security paradigm.
Pakistan's long and narrow shape, together with the outsized role of the military in foreign policy, makes it easier to move the armed forces around and prioritize defense.
A pattern of escalation and defusing
Neither Pakistan or India are in a hurry to announce their military moves against the other and, as seen in the current flare-up of hostilities, it can take a while for confirmation of strikes and retaliation to surface.
But both launch operations into territories and airspace controlled by the other. Sometimes these are intended to damage checkpoints, installations, or sites allegedly used by militants.
They are also aimed at embarrassing or provoking — forcing leaders to bow to public pressure and respond, with the potential for miscalculation.
Many of these activities originate along the Line of Control, which divides Kashmir between India and Pakistan. It's largely inaccessible to the media and public, making it hard to independently verify claims of an attack or retaliation.
Such incidents raise international alarm, because both countries have nuclear capabilities, forcing attention back to India and Pakistan and, eventually, their competing claims over Kashmir.
The fear of nuclear war has put the two countries at the top of the agenda, competing with the papal conclave, U.S. President Donald Trump’s policies, and the Sean “Diddy” Combs trial in the news cycle.
No desire for conquest, influence or resources
Pakistan and India’s battles and skirmishes are away from the public eye.
Strikes and retaliation are late at night or early in the morning and, with the exception of the drone attacks on Thursday, they mostly take place away from densely populated urban centers. It shows that neither country has the desire to significantly harm the other’s population. Attacks are either described as surgical or limited.
Neither country is motivated by competition for resources. Pakistan has huge mineral wealth, but India isn't interested in these and, while there are stark ideological differences between Hindu-majority India and Muslim-majority Pakistan, they don’t seek control or influence over the other.
Other than Kashmir, they have no interest in claiming the other’s territory or exercising dominance.
Border flare-ups and militant attacks in India-controlled Kashmir have prompted New Delhi to take an increasingly tough position on Islamabad, accusing it of “terrorism.”
In the latest conflict, India punished Pakistan by hitting what it said were sites used by Pakistan-backed militants linked to a gun massacre last month.
A conventional military imbalance
India is one of the biggest defence spenders in the world, with $74.4 billion in 2025, according to the Military Balance report from the International Institute for Strategic Studies. It’s also one of the world’s largest arms importers.
Pakistan is no slouch, spending $10 billion last year, but it can never match India’s deep pockets. India also has more than double the number of active armed forces personnel than Pakistan does.
While India’s armed forces are traditionally focused on Pakistan, it has another nuclear neighbor to contend with, China, and it is increasingly concerned with maritime security in the Indian Ocean. Those are two factors that Pakistan doesn’t have to consider in its security paradigm.
Pakistan's long and narrow shape, together with the outsized role of the military in foreign policy, makes it easier to move the armed forces around and prioritize defense.
A pattern of escalation and defusing
Neither Pakistan or India are in a hurry to announce their military moves against the other and, as seen in the current flare-up of hostilities, it can take a while for confirmation of strikes and retaliation to surface.
But both launch operations into territories and airspace controlled by the other. Sometimes these are intended to damage checkpoints, installations, or sites allegedly used by militants.
They are also aimed at embarrassing or provoking — forcing leaders to bow to public pressure and respond, with the potential for miscalculation.
Many of these activities originate along the Line of Control, which divides Kashmir between India and Pakistan. It's largely inaccessible to the media and public, making it hard to independently verify claims of an attack or retaliation.
Such incidents raise international alarm, because both countries have nuclear capabilities, forcing attention back to India and Pakistan and, eventually, their competing claims over Kashmir.
The fear of nuclear war has put the two countries at the top of the agenda, competing with the papal conclave, U.S. President Donald Trump’s policies, and the Sean “Diddy” Combs trial in the news cycle.
No desire for conquest, influence or resources
Pakistan and India’s battles and skirmishes are away from the public eye.
Strikes and retaliation are late at night or early in the morning and, with the exception of the drone attacks on Thursday, they mostly take place away from densely populated urban centers. It shows that neither country has the desire to significantly harm the other’s population. Attacks are either described as surgical or limited.
Neither country is motivated by competition for resources. Pakistan has huge mineral wealth, but India isn't interested in these and, while there are stark ideological differences between Hindu-majority India and Muslim-majority Pakistan, they don’t seek control or influence over the other.
Other than Kashmir, they have no interest in claiming the other’s territory or exercising dominance.
Wakakakaka…
ReplyDelete"Other than Kashmir, they have no interest in claiming the other’s territory or exercising dominance."
A load of inconsistency.
War is the outworldly display of failed negotiation. Both Pakistan & India have acted irrational - just for the sake of face!
If one can't win a war, then don't start one. India did. Once starts the restraint shown by Pakistan in quickly ending the conflict by decimate the Indian air fighters shown no decisive military control.
Nuclear deployment could only start after the losing party wants to salvage his military position & FACE. & that take time & procedure. This lapse of time would have the effect of India rethinking the deployment consequence.
The earlier restrained counterattack of the Pakistan made this war into a prolong, exhaustive & wasteful skirmish. No smart!
Yindia controls approximately 55% of the land area of the region that includes Jammu, the Kashmir Valley, most of Ladakh, the Siachen Glacier, and 70% of its population; Pakistan controls approximately 30% of the land area that includes Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan; and China controls the remaining 15% of the land area that includes the Aksai Chin region, the mostly uninhabited Trans-Karakoram Tract, and part of the Demchok sector.
ReplyDeleteThat distribution of the land sounds about fair. Except the Aksai Chin part - what is Old Bullyland doing here?
Why don't they just leave things as they are. Just formalise the Line of Control. Unless they are fighting over something else like religion or cricket.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashmir_conflict#:~:text=India%20controls%20approximately%2055%25%20of,remaining%2015%25%20of%20the%20land
My theory on Aksai Chin is Old Bullyland found an old map belonging to a lost Silk Road trader with some dashed lines drawn in....ha3
ReplyDeleteignore the Pom's colonial ventures in that part of the World - THEN only ask who owns Aksai Chin
DeleteFaxian embarked on his western journey in 399 CE, primarily to collect Buddhist scriptures. His account of the journey, "A Record of the Buddhist Kingdoms," is a valuable source of information about early Buddhism in that part of the land.
DeleteIndia wasn't formed & known as told by many literatures.
Instead, there were many fragmented serfdoms ruling on small enclaves with individual lifestyles, languages & believes.
The situation persisted till the colonization of that continent by the pommie as The British Raj. It was the colonial rule of the British Crown on the Indian subcontinent lasting from 1858 to 1947.
Thus, there were NEVER a India in the eon before the pommie's arrival. In fact the upper northern part of the subcontinent was then considered part of the united China territory!
So eat yr heart out, mfer.
It may be unwise to dredge up the old ghostly fact the Imperial China was a major invader and imperialist among all the territories the border it.
DeleteEven today, NONE of the peoples.and countries that border China really trust China, due to their long ugly history, deeply ingrained in cultural history.
Japan? Korea ? Vietnam ? Thailand ? Phillipines ? Burma ? - maybe the junta but not Burmese people , India ? Pakistan ? - maybe the elites but not common folks, Kazakhstan ? Tajikistan ?
With the exception of the 19th and early 20th centuries when China fell behind in technology and got bullied by European imperialists.
Imperialists don't only come from Europe or North America.
wakakabrute forces mfer, u know imperialism?
DeleteOoop… the anmokausai type!
If one read the old imperial texts as recorded meticulously throughout the long history of ancient China, one would understand how the series of Chinese empires intercepting all his surrounding territories.
All those centered to the core of the Chinese histories r treated as Chinese territories. Those fringe areas located outside the main sphere of cultural influences were treated as either 朝贡国 or藩属国.
It would be a doctoral dissectional thesis to go into their differences from the western coined vassal states.
In simple term, both 朝贡国 & 藩属国 were not formed via military invasions or forced occupation. All of them upstaged the Chinese emperor as their elected master willingly. & the emperor had very loose control over these fringe states, usually in far away locations.
Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Ryukyu Kingdom (琉球) were 藩属国.
Thailand (暹罗), Phillipines (苏禄), Malacca were 朝贡国.
Burma+India+Pakistan+Kazakhstan+Tajikistan were all many fragmented individual serfdom to be call country. Yet many were paying tributes to the emperor of China.
Mfer, u DON'T get these sort of relationship in a European settings! All vassal states of old Europe were colonies via brute military submissions.