Dr. Samreen Bari Aamir
The conflict of 2025 between India and Pakistan was sparked by a brutal terrorist attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, where 26 civilians, mostly Hindu and Christian Indian tourists and officials, were killed in a targeted assault by a group believed to be affiliated with Lashkar-e-Taiba and The Resistance Front. India held Pakistan responsible, labeling it a terrorist-supporting state. This event reignited long-standing hostilities between the two nuclear-armed neighbors and quickly escalated into military confrontation. India launched Operation Sindoor, targeting multiple alleged terrorist camps in Pakistan-administered areas using high-tech precision weapons and drones. In response, Pakistan initiated Operation Bunyan-un-Marsoos, launching missile strikes and cyber attacks targeting Indian military sites, communication systems, and sensitive installations. Both nations suffered casualties, and significant military infrastructure was destroyed. This heightened regional tensions and brought the world’s attention back to South Asia’s fragile peace.
China’s role throughout the conflict remained complex and carefully measured. Although not a direct participant, China’s strategic position was unmistakable. It is a strong ally of Pakistan and has significant investments in the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), a vital part of its Belt and Road Initiative. The outbreak of hostilities threatened these interests, so while China called for peace, it also engaged in military exercises near the Indian border and gathered valuable intelligence on Indian military capabilities, especially on the use of Rafale jets and BrahMos missiles. China’s strategy reflected its cautious balancing act-supporting Pakistan politically and economically without provoking direct confrontation with India, with whom it also has ongoing border disputes, especially in the Ladakh region.
Historically, India and Pakistan’s relationship has been tense since their partition in 1947, largely due to the unresolved Kashmir issue. Wars, border skirmishes, and proxy conflicts have been recurring themes, with little success in long-term resolution. The 2025 conflict once again underscored how deep-rooted mistrust and provocative actions could easily spiral into full-scale warfare. The attack at Pahalgam, its religious undertones, and the military responses from both sides further entrenched the divisions. India suspended the Indus Waters Treaty and closed down key diplomatic and civilian engagements, including the Wagah-Attari border, diplomatic advisors, and SAARC visa permissions. Pakistan, in retaliation, closed its airspace and withdrew from bilateral agreements such as the Simla Agreement. The aggression on both sides led to the destruction of infrastructure, civilian casualties, and heightened fears of nuclear escalation.
The regional diplomacy framework, particularly SAARC, proved ineffective during this crisis. The absence of a strong regional mechanism left the situation vulnerable to external mediation. The United States, despite India’s traditional rejection of third-party interference, mediated a ceasefire which was agreed upon on May 10, 2025. While India faced internal criticism for allowing external intervention, Pakistan portrayed the ceasefire as a diplomatic success. China continued to maintain its dual posture-diplomatically backing Pakistan while avoiding direct antagonism with India. China’s deepening involvement in Pakistan, particularly through CPEC, and its growing military collaboration with Pakistan, including the use of Chinese-made J-10 fighter jets in the conflict, highlighted its strategic ambitions in South Asia. At the same time, its global competition with the US for influence was evident.
Beyond the military exchange, the conflict also extended into the cyber and digital realm. Both India and Pakistan engaged in cyber warfare and information campaigns, targeting each other’s government and media websites. Twitter and other social media platforms became key battlegrounds, as both sides tried to control narratives and public opinion. Pakistan lifted its Twitter ban during the conflict, using it as a tool for digital diplomacy and countering Indian narratives. Misinformation spread rapidly, prompting both governments to turn toward AI-driven surveillance and communication strategies. This shift demonstrated that modern warfare is no longer limited to physical confrontations; digital influence, cybersecurity, and public perception are equally significant dimensions of geopolitical struggles.
The international community responded with concern but limited action. The United Nations convened an emergency Security Council meeting, while countries like the UK, France, Israel, and Japan supported India. Conversely, Turkey, Iran, Azerbaijan, and China expressed solidarity with Pakistan. The United States initially maintained a neutral stance but later played a decisive role in facilitating de-escalation. The fragile ceasefire was reached only after global alarm about the potential for nuclear confrontation, especially with India and Pakistan both having nuclear capabilities. The symbolic gesture of India raising a white flag after less than six hours of Pakistan’s aggressive counterattack was seen as a possible turning point. Analysts and observers questioned whether it signaled a sincere willingness to pursue peace or merely a pause before future confrontation.
The conflict exposed deep flaws in the political and diplomatic structures of South Asia. Regional institutions like SAARC remain largely dysfunctional due to bilateral tensions, particularly between India and Pakistan. Alternative structures like BIMSTEC and multilateral platforms are being considered to fill the gap. The need for diplomacy that is proactive, inclusive, and people-focused has never been more urgent. The 2025 conflict proved that reliance on military might and outdated political strategies is insufficient in the face of evolving threats and civilian demands for peace. Citizens in India, Pakistan, and China largely desire stability, economic development, and friendly relations-values not always reflected in the policies of their governments.
The growing influence of China in the region and its global ambitions further complicate the landscape. Its strategic positioning stems from its expanding economic footprint, its naval aspirations, and technological ambitions under the “Made in China 2025” initiative. China’s investments in robotics, AI, and high-tech manufacturing show its aim to reduce dependency on the West and become a global leader in innovation. In South Asia, its influence is not only economic but also strategic, as seen in its support for Pakistan and its guarded diplomatic relations with India. Its activities in the Indian Ocean, control over infrastructure projects, and security collaborations underscore its long-term plans to emerge as a dominant regional and global power. This positioning challenges the influence of the US and reshapes the balance of power in Asia.
The conflict also highlighted Pakistan’s internal struggles. While it receives substantial international aid, rampant corruption and military dominance in its political system have led to economic mismanagement. The Pakistan military’s resistance to IMF loan conditions-particularly those requiring defense budget cuts-has led to greater dependence on Chinese loans, which are often tied to land and resource concessions. For instance, in Balochistan, gold reserves were exploited in a manner that disproportionately benefited China, leaving the local population with minimal gains. These exploitative agreements raise concerns about sovereignty and long-term economic sustainability.
Looking ahead, the future of diplomacy in South Asia will depend on multiple interlinked factors, including the economic growth of India, the regional ambitions of China, the strategic behavior of Pakistan, and the effectiveness of regional cooperation initiatives. Platforms like SAARC and BIMSTEC must be revitalized to foster dialogue, trust, and collaboration. Security concerns, especially terrorism and border disputes, need to be addressed through institutional frameworks rather than knee-jerk military responses. Economic interdependence, youth engagement, cultural exchanges, and technological collaboration could offer new pathways to peace. The 2025 conflict, though brief, has left deep marks on the geopolitical, strategic, and diplomatic fabric of South Asia. It revealed both the vulnerabilities and opportunities for the region to move towards a more peaceful and cooperative future, but that will depend on political will, regional solidarity, and global support.
