Pakistan and India have fought 3 major wars and held several escalations over Kashmir issue for the past seventy seven years since their independence in 1947.
Analysis: Escalation of the India-Pakistan Conflict in 2025 offers a factual situation on the ground with details of successes, military and economic losses and the way forward.
Context and Escalation
The most recent escalation between the two nations ignited after an armed attack on April 22 at Pahalgam in Indian-controlled Kashmir which killed 26 people, including many Indian nationals. An unknown group called The Resistance Front (TRF) claimed responsibility for the assault, prompting Indian Prime Minister Modi to vow decisive action and accusing Pakistan of involving in the attack. The incidents escalated into mutual retaliation, with both countries making hostile voices and mobilizing weapons along the border. India launched missile strikes on Pakistani territory and certain portions under Pakistani control as a response to the Pahalgam attack on May 7. Pakistan refuted allegations of complicity; Accordingly, the Pakistan’s military reported that it managed to shoot down several Indian jets. This led to a major standoff between the countries that had not been seen in years.
Severe Escalation in Military Conflict Leads to Redrawing of Borders
Developments in early May resulted in a full-blown exchange of fire between the two nations. Experts say that India launched attacks on various air bases and training camps within Pakistani territory, including the Air Force Base in Rawalpindi which oversees the Pakistan Army. In response to Indian attacks, Pakistan launched missiles and drones in those regions of Kashmir and the border areas. Each side began firing supersonic missiles at each other’s strategic installations from May 10 onward.
There were no changes to the borders or land between India and Pakistan as a result of the recent battle. After nearly four days of artillery barrages, drone attacks and missile strikes, the two countries unexpectedly agreed to a ceasefire on May 10. Pakistan announced downing of 5 Indian fighter jets. During the next few days, both parties publicly pointed the finger at each other, claiming violations of the peace agreement. Still, both countries were able to avoid an all-out war.
Political Leadership and Decision-Making
Government officials from India and Pakistan respectively faced immense pressure. Modi’s government in New Delhi sought to show firmness in dealing with the situation by characterising Pakistan as starting the fire and publicly warning diplomats that India would respond to any attacks from Pakistan in kind. Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri remarked in a news conference that Pakistan had transgressed the agreement and demanded Pakistan to control its armed servicemen. Modi’s tough stand at home proved popular among nationalists, though the quick U.S.-mediated peace disappointed some extremists.
Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif responded judiciously from Islamabad. Pakistan denied any link to the Kashmir campaign and warned that India could suffer repercussions for its military strikes. Pakistan ordered its troops to “keep things under control” while also declaring their preparedness to “respond in kind” to any hostile actions by India. A day before the suspension, Pakistan hinted at the mobilisation of their nuclear command centre, highlighting the seriousness escalating tensions. But the country’s senior Defence official would later play down the initial reports. Sharif finally agreed to a temporary halt of hostilities.
Both Pakistani media and authorities praised the United States for playing a role in bringing about an end to hostilities, while India insisted that the ceasefire was agreed upon directly between the two countries. U.S. officials, including Senator Marco Rubio, travelled secretly between New Delhi and Islamabad to help establish a dialogue between the Indian and Pakistani military chiefs. Representatives of both India and Pakistan spoke over the phone on May 11 to confirm the ceasefire and vow to reduce hostilities on the border in the future.
Humanitarian Consequences: Fatalities and Displacement
The conflict severely impacted citizens. On May 10, it was estimated that 66 civilians lost their lives, of whom 31 were Pakistani victims who were killed by Indian bombings or emplaced artillery fire. The Indian authorities confirmed that Indian civilians were also among those killed. Multiple Kashmir citizens sought medical treatment at health facilities as a result of sustained shelling and routine drone strikes. At-risk residents fled their homes to safer areas adjacent to the Line of Control, emphasising security concerns posed by occasional bombardments and missile barrages. Activists and rights groups condemned the cruelty involved in this conflict.
Amnesty International noted that the conflict so far has taken a toll on civilians living in the region and called upon the two governments to uphold international standards of protecting innocent people. Amnesty offered its sympathies to the families affected by the tragedy and called for an impartial inquiry on the events in Pahalgam. The fights disrupted the routine in the areas near the Line of Control, causing the closure of schools and commercial establishments as well as halting civilian flights. Authorities called on both governments to make every effort to prevent ongoing conflicts from further degrading resources needed for food and medical necessities in the region.
Global Responses
Governments and multinational organisations around the world expressed anxiety and urged for continued calm. On May 10, President Trump announced that the United States had successfully brokered a comprehensive ceasefire by offering increased economic invitations to both states which ultimately brought peace to the region. Trump emphasised that America stands ready to help Pakistan and India rebuild and recover from the effects of hostilities. Trump acknowledged that India and Pakistan had shown “remarkable wisdom” and “great discernment” in deciding to scale down tensions. Additionally, the U.S. State Department, under Marco Rubio, conveyed its availability to organise further dialogue and consider hosting gatherings on the Kashmir question and other topics.
China’s Response
China, being neighbours to both countries, strongly condemned the mounting tension. China raised serious anxieties and advised both sides to cool their tempers. The ministry called for both states to place emphasis on seeking peace, manage their tensions thoughtfully and re-engage in conversations with each other China did not comment directly on the accusations, but signaled its backing of resolving the dispute based on existing agreements.
Russia’s Response
Russia expressed significant worries over the situation. Maria Zakharova, the Foreign Ministry’s spokesperson, voiced Moscow’s concern and called for the parties to resolve the issue peacefully by following the 1972 Simla Agreement’s mandates.
Statement from the United Nations
Several other officials from the U.N. and Europe shared the same viewpoint. Guterres strongly condemned the attack in Pahalgam as an “appalling act of terror” and emphasized the need for maximum care to avoid any confrontation between nuclear-armed nations. If negotiations fail to bring about a resolution, the U.N. is willing to send its envoys to broker a truce. Countries such as Britain and those within the European Union called on both sides to agree to a ceasefire. Pakistani officials thanked the U.S. in public, even as India went on record as acceding to the truce on terms it had set prior to U.S. involvement.
Economic Consequences
Markets in the entire region were marked by increased volatility as a result of the situation. The Indian rupee experienced its steepest single-day fall in those two years on May 8 which also prompted a decline of nearly 0.5% in major Indian stock indexes owing to the general rising of risk aversion. By mid-May, currency and market conditions had improved markedly following the solid establishment of the ceasefire.
Many economists concluded that any short-term impact on various sectors of India’s economy should be temporary. Economists showed that the consequences on India’s extensive and varied economy are likely to be limited; one researcher remarked that previous India-Pakistan conflicts had not significantly affected Indian markets in the long term. Pakistan’s financial system showed increased volatility.
Economic Uncertainty
Uncertainties surrounding the conflict caused the KSE-100 to slide by around 6% over the course of April and May. Government bond trading experienced volatility: Bond yields initially jumped and later settled after the ceasefire came into effect. The Pakistani rupee dropped to a multi-year low as investors rushed to buy dollars, reflecting market fears and a potential outflow of investors’ funds. Moody’s credited the protracted hostilities in putting the Pakistani economy at risk by restraining growth and making more difficult the protection of international currency.
However, they expect India to experience limited short-term financial effects other than increased defence spending, given the relatively small amount of mutual trade between the two countries. In the past, very limited engagement in trade and investment has characterised the region.
Some experts nonetheless warn that the ceasefire could disrupt trade between India and Pakistan in Kashmir and cause uncertainty for foreign investors. All concerned expressed the view that heightened risks and fears of conflict have raised the cost of borrowing for both countries over the near term. Most estimates believed the economic impact would subside as tensions subsided.
Strategic Perspective: Immediate and Prolonged Consequences
Security experts warn that a temporary settlement is likely all that can be achieved rather than a lasting ceasefire agreement. The ceasefire’s duration over the coming months will prove to be nothing more than a surface-level thaw, as many clashes and incidences are expected on the de facto border. Indian authorities will remain vigilant and will significantly strengthen the security around the Line of Control.
Pakistan is expected to forge partnerships within the international community and alliances with regional powers such as China and Gulf countries in an attempt to balance out influence from India. Both India and Pakistan are likely to closely observe their borders and territory for any attacks or developments that could lead to an escalation of tensions. Experts warn that an attack by militants could unleash a deepening crisis of the already fragile relations between the two countries.
Experts predict that the incident will trigger a rapid escalation in the procurement and development of arms and other military capabilities by both India and Pakistan. India is expected to significantly increase its military deployment along the borders shared with Pakistan and China. Pakistan, aware of its disadvantage and guided by Chinese and Pakistani military principles, is likely to prioritize developing precision-strike forces and strengthening its tactical nuclear posture.
Deployment of Nuclear Weapons
Analysts predict that India could swifter deploy nuclear weapons, whereas Pakistan would maintain its policy of ambiguity to maintain nuclear deterrence. Tensions within each country or a belief that the Ceasefire Watch has failed may lead to renewed attacks across the border by armed non-state actors. Most analysts predict that in the coming years we will see a return to the practice of “managed hostility.”
If there is no major improvement on the Kashmir issue or a significant change in government for either country, hostilities are likely to carry on indefinitely. China and the Gulf states could play a greater role in shaping Pakistan’s strategic direction, while India may deepen security cooperation with the United States, Japan and Australia. Tensions associated with Kashmir will continue unabated due to the presence of insurgency in Indian-held Kashmir and persistent attempts by Pakistan to pursue its interests in the region.
Threat of New Hostilities
Experts believe that keeping a close eye on the situation and building mutual trust can prevent small-scale border disputes from escalating into large-scale conflicts Both India and Pakistan are currently engaged in a quasi-stable but tense standoff. A delicate status quo emerges in which neither country engages in all-out confrontation even as they engage in periodic acts of standoff.
Experts have warned that the threat of new hostilities continues unless a strategic opportunity or domestic pressure drives one side to take a risky course of action. Major players in the region, India and Pakistan, have now accepted that nuclear war is unthinkable. The breakdown of trust suggests that new standoffs could emerge in the search for appropriate mitigation strategies.
