Detailed Analysis — The 2025 Pakistan–
India Conflict(May 2025)
In terms of:(Indivisual,State,International state)
Submitted by: Palwashay Khan,Komal Nasir,Dua Tanvir,Ayesha
Yaseen, Amina Majeed,Habibah Sajjad
Date:5th September,2025
Executive summary
The May 2025 India–Pakistan crisis was a short, intense confrontation that
tested leadership credibility, reshaped regional politics, and triggered
immediate—and divergent—effects in defence procurement markets.
Pakistan’s post-war diplomacy and defence marketing (notably the China-
co-developed JF-17) saw export momentum; India’s defence firms
experienced short-term equity gains while New Delhi faced domestic
political scrutiny over strategy and outcomes. Major powers pressed both
capitals to de-escalate.
1. Short timeline & context (brief factual base)
What happened (brief): The crisis began in early May 2025 after a deadly
terrorist(False Flag)attack in Indian-administered Kashmir; India responded
with cross-border strikes (Operation Sindoor) beginning 7 May and the two
sides exchanged strikes and counter-strikes before an internationally-
mediated ceasefire around 10–11 May 2025. The confrontation lasted
roughly a week of intense exchanges and diplomatic pressure for de-
escalation. ([Wikipedia][4], [Reuters][2])
2. Individual level — Leaders (during the war and after)
2.1 Role of the Leader — Decision Making & Public Image
(During the War)
Pakistan
Prime Minister (Civilian Leadership):Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif
projected calm and diplomatic maturity. He relied heavily on military
briefings for decision-making while keeping international channels of
communication open, especially with allies like China, Turkey, and Middle
Eastern states.
COAS (Chief of Army Staff):The COAS served as the strategic backbone of
Pakistan’s war posture. He directed operations on the western and eastern
borders, ensuring rapid mobilization of forces and maintaining balance
between offensive retaliation and defensive resilience.
DCAS (Deputy Chief of Air Staff) & DCOS (Deputy Chief of Staff):These
officials played a frontline role in orchestrating air and ground
coordination. Pakistan Air Force (PAF) countered Indian Air Force (IAF)
strikes with precision, and the Army high command ensured effective use
of terrain and intelligence.PAF shot down 6 IAF-jets in the first
retaliation(PAF 6 - IAF nil)
CNS (Chief of Naval Staff):Pakistan Navy played a vital role in securing sea
lanes and deterring Indian naval movements in the Arabian Sea. Under
the CNS, Pakistan deployed submarines and fast-attack crafts that
successfully restricted India’s naval dominance, showcasing Pakistan’s
capability in maritime defence.
DG ISPR (Director General of Inter-Services Public Relations):The most
visible communicator of the war. His daily briefings and active media
presence built trust with the people, boosted soldier morale, and
countered misinformation. His strong yet composed tone framed the war
as defence of sovereignty and dignity, fostering national unity.
Credibility:The synergy between the Prime Minister, military chiefs, and
DG ISPR created clarity and confidence. Pakistan’s leadership avoided
exaggerated claims, which increased domestic and international
credibility.
India
Prime Minister (Civilian Leadership):Prime Minister Narendra Modi
maintained a nationalist tone, focusing on India’s military power and
projecting strongman leadership. However, his narrative often clashed
with ground realities, raising doubts within India and abroad.
COAS (Chief of Army Staff):The Indian COAS oversaw operations across
the LoC and Punjab-Rajasthan sectors. However, exaggerated statements
about battlefield “successes” later proved inaccurate, weakening the
army’s credibility.
DCAS (Deputy Chief of Air Staff) & DCOS (Deputy Chief of Staff):These
officers were responsible for operational strikes, but India’s inability to
maintain air superiority against a smaller PAF raised concerns about
efficiency. The losses of several expensive imported jets (including Rafale
and Su-30 aircraft) damaged morale and market confidence.
CNS (Chief of Naval Staff):India’s Navy, despite being larger, failed to
achieve decisive superiority. Its aircraft carrier deployments were
countered by Pakistan’s submarine deterrence. The global community
noted India’s overstated naval dominance.
Public Communication & Credibility Issues:Unlike Pakistan’s DG ISPR, India
lacked a unifying military spokesperson. Instead, contradictory reports
emerged from different ministries. Claims of “high-value Pakistani losses”
were later discredited by independent media, exposing propaganda gaps.
Global Image:After the war, many world powers viewed India with a “not-
so-positive eye”.Western allies questioned the reliability of Indian
intelligence and the exaggerated success narratives. Stock values of
Indian defence imports (French Rafale jets, Russian Sukhoi fighters)
dipped after their underperformance was revealed, while global
confidence in Pakistan-China defence collaborations (like JF-17 Thunder)
rose.
2.2 Role of the leader — responsibilities after the war
(reputation & recovery)
Pakistan
Post-war priorities:Rebuilding diplomatic standing, attending to displaced
civilians, and converting any newfound defence-export attention (for
example, JF-17 marketing) into durable economic gains. Pakistan’s leader
also needed to reassure domestic constituencies about security capability
and international backing (notably China).
Credibility test:If official claims about the conflict’s outcomes did not
match public experience (casualties, economic pain), political opposition
could intensify; conversely, successful marketing of exports (e.g., JF-17
deals) could be used domestically to show competence and diplomatic
resilience.
India
Post-war priorities:Reconstruction of affected border areas, honoring
veterans, and accounting for any intelligence or operational failures
publicly or internally. Delhi also needed to manage investor sentiment,
markets and public morale.
Credibility test:Political costs occur if the public judges that the war
brought high human/economic costs for little strategic gain. Leaders who
can transparently explain outcomes, hold inquiries where needed, and
deliver relief can partially restore trust; those perceived to have misled
the public can face protests, parliamentary backlash, or electoral
consequences. Reuters and other outlets documented intense domestic
scrutiny during and after the May 2025 crisis.
2.3 Leaders’ background, ideology, affiliations & cognitive
behaviour (psychology)
Pakistan:Shehbaz Sharif’s political background is provincial governance
and party politics (PML-N). Such leaders tend to be politically calculating—
balancing party survival, public order, and cooperation with military elites.
Cognitive tendencies under stress include relying on trusted inner circles
and delegating high-risk military choices to generals. This makes
transparency and civilian accountability important post-conflict.
India:Modi’s long tenure and ideological alignment with the BJP and
Hindutva networks create expectations for strong responses to perceived
security threats; cognitive behaviour under crisis can include decisive,
bold actions to satisfy base and deter adversaries, but also potential
overconfidence bias. Post-crisis, such leaders may double down on
nationalist narratives or pivot toward stabilization and economic recovery
to maintain support.
3. Individual citizens’ psychology (Pakistan then India)
Pakistan
Border populations and families with servicemembers experienced
anxiety, hypervigilance, and trauma risk. Nationalist narratives and the
rally-round-the-flag effect can temporarily increase trust in government;
prolonged hardship or perceived government failure to protect citizens
reduces trust and raises the risk of protest. Post-war, veterans and
displaced families need mental-health support; failure to provide it causes
long-term social costs.
India
Citizens faced fear, media saturation, and increased in-group/out-group
polarisation. Those in border states had direct exposure to strikes,
displacement and economic losses. Urban populations experienced
anxiety via media and market volatility. Cognitive dissonance arises when
patriotic rhetoric collides with human loss and economic damage—this
shapes political attitudes after the war.
4.Fake & False News vs. Sensible Communication
India – Media Propaganda and False Claims
During the 2025 conflict, a major weakness on India’s side was the spread
of fake and exaggerated newsthrough its mainstream media channels.
Indian outlets ran stories claiming “decisive victories,” such as the capture
of Lahore Port or the destruction of Pakistan’s key installations—claims
that were later proven false.
These propaganda tactics were meant to boost domestic morale but
instead created credibility issues internationally. Independent journalists
and foreign observers exposed the inaccuracies, damaging India’s global
reputation.
Even within India, opposition leaders and civil society questioned why the
government allowed media to mislead the population, further eroding
trust in official narratives.
Pakistan – Responsible and Sensible Communication
In contrast, Pakistan’s communication strategy was measured and
credible.Whether the situation was offensive or defensive, updates were
released promptly through official channels—primarily the DG ISPR.
Pakistan did not rely on exaggerated claims but showed evidence
(satellite images, ground reports, verified strikes) to strengthen its case.
This sensible narrative not only boosted domestic confidence but also
gained international appreciation, as Pakistan was seen as the more
transparent actor in the conflict.
By exposing Indian propaganda with facts and calm messaging, Pakistan
successfully flipped the information war in its favor.
Outcome
The contrasting approaches meant that India lost credibility on the
information front, while Pakistan gained moral and diplomatic ground.
International observers and even global media outlets highlighted how
Pakistan’s communication was disciplined, consistent, and truthful, while
India’s media machinery appeared chaotic and misleading.
5.State & regional impacts (security, economy, governance) —
Pakistan then India
5.1 Security & territorial posture
Pakistan
Short-term mobilization along borders; military posture adjusted in
response to strikes and to reassure domestic audiences. Pakistan
emphasized diplomatic outreach (chiefly to China and other partners) to
avoid escalation. Pakistan’s defence diplomacy (showcasing/test-
marketing the JF-17) gained traction post-crisis.
India
India raised alert levels, increased air-defence and surveillance activity,
and faced the classic trade-off between deterrence and escalation control.
New Delhi simultaneously had to manage international pressure to de-
escalate.
5.2 Economic & humanitarian impacts
Pakistan
Border provinces suffered displacement and infrastructure damage; funds
were diverted for emergency relief and defence preparedness. However,
announced export orders (notably the JF-17 to Azerbaijan reported in June
2025) provided a politically useful narrative of compensation via defence-
industry gains—though such deals take years to turn into domestic
jobs/revenue.
India
Border economies were hit by disruption to agriculture and trade; broader
markets saw a brief wobble but rebounded after ceasefire and the easing
of geopolitical risk—foreign portfolio inflows in May 2025 were notable and
helped markets recover. Indian defence-related equities rose on
expectations of higher procurement.
5.3 Governance & political consequences
Pakistan
The civilian leader had to manage civil-military coordination carefully.
Positive outcomes (new export deals, international sympathy) could shore
up political support; negative outcomes (casualties, economic strain)
could magnify opposition and calls for accountability.
India
India’s government faced political scrutiny over operational choices;
opposition parties used the crisis to press for answers about intelligence,
decision timelines, and human costs. Market recovery helped blunt
immediate economic criticism, but political debates about strategy and
accountability persisted in the weeks following the crisis.
6. International system — weapons, procurement, and market
effects (detailed)
6.1 Major suppliers & India’s recent buys (who sold India what?)
Russia:historic and still leading supplier of heavy equipment; India has S-
400 air-defence systems on order and continues to purchase spares and
platform upgrades. Russia also remains a source of fighters and
helicopters in bilateral deals. ([Reuters][10])
France:Rafale fighters were delivered under contracts signed earlier
(2016–2020s).
Israel & USA:India procures sensors, missiles, communications and
unmanned systems from Israel and the U.S. (various procurement lines).
These relationships shape India’s operational capabilities and diplomacy.
6.2 Pakistan-China platforms and export momentum (JF-17)
The JF-17 (a Pakistan–China co-development) secured notable export
orders in 2025: Pakistan announced a major contract with Azerbaijan for
40 Block-III fighters — widely reported as a \$4.6 billion deal — marking
Pakistan’s largest defence export to date and signalling increased market
interest in lower-cost, serviceable multirole fighters. Such deals
strengthen Pakistan’s defence diplomacy and China-Pakistan aerospace
cooperation.
6.3 Post-war market reactions (stocks, procurement signals)
India — equities & defence firms:In the immediate aftermath of strikes and
during the crisis, many Indian defence stocks rose because investors
expected increased government procurement and a defence-spending
cycle. Reuters and Indian market reports noted a rebound by the end of
May after the ceasefire; foreign portfolio inflows in May 2025 were strong
and helped stabilise markets. Examples of sectors in focus included HAL,
Bharat Dynamics, BEL, and other public/private defence suppliers.
Pakistan–China aerospace exports:The JF-17 export announcements (e.g.,
Azerbaijan order) created positive attention for Pakistan’s defence export
brand and for China-Pakistan partnerships. Media and industry outlets
reported the deal as a major milestone for Pakistani exports and Chinese
defense industry outreach. However, the conversion of announced deals
into revenues and supply-chain jobs is a medium-term process.
Important nuance (markets vs. political signaling)
Short-term stock moves (India’s defence stocks up) often reflect investors’
expectations of procurement and are volatile. Export contracts (Pakistan’s
JF-17 deals) are strategic for reputation and future revenue but take time
to affect employment and GDP. Neither short-term spikes nor single export
contracts alone imply permanent market dominance for either side.
7. Post-war global diplomatic landscape & leader images
(Pakistan and India)
Pakistan
Diplomatic posture:Pakistan leaned on China and other partners to limit
international pressure and to push for de-escalation. The major JF-17
export story helped Pakistan project defence competence abroad and
diversify diplomatic ties (e.g., with Azerbaijan). Pakistan’s international
image benefited from effective crisis diplomacy, though human-security
concerns (civilian displacement) drew scrutiny.
India
Diplomatic posture:India sought to justify its response as counter-terrorism
and self-defence while engaging major powers to prevent escalation.
India’s global image depended on balancing firm deterrence with restraint
and cooperation with mediators; markets’ fast rebound helped signal
resilience. Nonetheless, domestic critics pressed for transparency.
8. Political and economic risks going forward (concise)
Pakistan:Political stability depends on civil-military coordination, delivery
of economic benefits from export deals, and effective relief for affected
populations. Failure to translate export headlines into domestic economic
relief will strain domestic legitimacy. ([Wikipedia][3])
India:Political costs hinge on whether public and opposition perceive the
government as having managed the crisis competently and transparently.
Market resilience softens short-term economic pain, but sustained defence
costs and reconstruction spending could crowd out social programs.
9. Recommendations (for policymakers, diplomats, and civic
leaders)
1.Transparent inquiries:Both capitals should conduct credible, selective
reviews of decision-making to restore domestic trust.
2. Humanitarian prioritisation:Immediate spending for displaced civilians
and mental-health services reduces long-term social costs.
3. Arms-market realism:Governments should treat defence export
enthusiasm (e.g., JF-17 deals) as long-term projects—create industrial
plans to translate contracts into jobs.
4. Track two diplomacy:Use back-channel diplomacy and third-party
mediators to build confidence measures along the LoC and reduce
misperception risk.
5.Economic cushions:Use fiscal buffers and targeted relief to stabilise
markets and vulnerable populations so political credibility is not lost.
10. Key load-bearing sources
1. Stimson Institute — early assessment of the May 2025 crisis.
2. Reuters — coverage of strikes, ceasefire, and global reactions (May
2025).
3. Wikipedia page summarizing the 2025 conflict (timeline & references).
4. Market reporting on May 2025 investor flows and defence-sector
reactions
5. Reporting on Pakistan’s JF-17 export contract(s) (Azerbaijan order, June
2025).
11.Conclusion
The May 2025 India–Pakistan crisis tested leadership credibility, public
psychology, regional stability and global defence markets. Pakistan’s
leadership navigated civil-military dynamics and converted post-crisis
attention into defence export momentum (notably the JF-17 Block-III
deals), while India’s leadership faced domestic scrutiny even as defence-
sector equities rebounded with strong portfolio inflows. Both states now
confront the twin tasks of rebuilding public trust and translating short-
term market signals into long-term economic and security resilience.
