Pahalgam fallout: How Pakistan challenging India’s regional dominance Article by Modern Diplomacy

The Modern Diplomacy has published an article by Sahibzada M. Usman examining the Indo-Pakistani confrontation. Caliber.Az offers its readers an analysis of the article.

The article presents a Pakistan-centric perspective on the enduring rivalry between India and Pakistan. With the April 2025 Pahalgam attack as a catalyst, the piece argues that recent developments have significantly shifted the strategic balance in South Asia, favoring Pakistan through its use of nuclear deterrence, diplomatic alliances, and asymmetric tactics.

The article opens by asserting that the “enduring rivalry between India and Pakistan... has surged to dangerous heights,” following the Pahalgam incident. From the outset, the language is assertive, setting a tone of urgency and conflict escalation. India is portrayed as an assertive regional hegemon whose dominance is increasingly being challenged by a strategically agile Pakistan.

The framing is decidedly nationalistic and supportive of Islamabad’s military and diplomatic posture. Key claims such as “Pakistan’s multifaceted strategy has exposed India’s vulnerabilities” suggest a narrative of Pakistan not only defending its sovereignty but actively reshaping regional dynamics.

A significant portion of the article hinges on nuclear deterrence as a core pillar of Pakistan’s strategy. The author draws a clear contrast between India’s declared "No First Use" doctrine and Pakistan’s strategic ambiguity.

The quote: “Islamabad has deliberately maintained strategic ambiguity, reserving the right to deploy nuclear weapons if its sovereignty or survival is jeopardized”—is used to frame Pakistan’s nuclear posture as both credible and effective in neutralizing India’s conventional military advantage.

The emphasis on deterrence escalates with reference to the Line of Control (LoC) skirmishes, where the author alleges:

“Pakistan destroyed India’s infantry brigade headquarters, drone installations, and battalion posts,”

“New Delhi’s admission of defeat via the symbolic white flag in the Jura sector underscored the futility of conventional brinkmanship.”

These claims, if not independently verified, serve to reinforce a narrative of Indian vulnerability and Pakistani military superiority—a common theme throughout the article.

The article highlights Pakistan’s alliances, particularly with China and Gulf states, as critical assets. China’s support—both diplomatically at the UN and strategically through the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC)—is portrayed as a major counterweight to Indian influence. The statement:

“China’s mediation efforts and strategic investments in the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) provided Islamabad with economic and political insulation,” suggests that Beijing plays a stabilizing and protective role for Pakistan, although the piece does not address China's own strategic interests in the region.

The narrative of Gulf state engagement is also framed as a successful Pakistani maneuver to isolate India within forums like the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). However, the complexity of Gulf-India relations, particularly economic interdependence, is underexplored.

In an effort to downplay India's economic advantage, the article presents Pakistan’s relatively insulated, agrarian economy as a buffer against sanctions and economic warfare. It emphasizes Islamabad’s use of trade disruptions and airspace closures as tools of asymmetric economic leverage.

The most provocative assertion appears in the context of water diplomacy:

“Pakistan’s explicit threat to treat water scarcity as an existential threat underscored its readiness to escalate to nuclear thresholds, a risk India cannot afford.”

This link between water security and nuclear escalation raises ethical and strategic concerns. It reflects a doctrine of total deterrence but could also be read as dangerously escalatory.

The article commends Pakistan's “tactical proficiency” in retaliatory strikes and fortification along the LoC, claiming:

“The capture of a BSF soldier and the destruction of critical infrastructure reflect a strategy of attrition designed to exhaust India’s resources.”

It contrasts this with Indian military actions, describing missile strikes on civilian targets and asserting moral high ground through Pakistan’s more “precise” responses.

Public sentiment is also invoked as a strategic asset, with the statement:

“Fear does not exist in our lexicon,” attributed to a local activist. This quote feeds into a broader narrative of national resilience and unity in Pakistan’s frontier communities.

The article culminates with recommendations aimed at bolstering Pakistan’s strategic posture through:

Track-II diplomacy, UN-led enforcement of treaties, counter-propaganda efforts, and Infrastructure hardening in conflict zones.

By concluding with Sun Tzu’s famous quote: “The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting,” the piece subtly promotes a strategy of containment and deterrence over open conflict, albeit within a highly assertive and nationalistic framing.

The article presents a comprehensive, albeit one-sided, narrative of Pakistan’s strategic ascendancy in the aftermath of the 2025 Pahalgam attack. It highlights Islamabad’s reliance on nuclear deterrence, strategic diplomacy, and asymmetric tactics to offset India's conventional and economic superiority.

Sahibzada M. Usman, Ph.D. Research Scholar and Academic; Ph.D. in Political Science at the University of Pisa, Italy. Dr. Usman has participated in various national and international conferences and published 30 research articles in international journals.