Dr. Muhammad Akram Zaheer
The recent aerial and missile confrontation between India and Pakistan has once again demonstrated the volatile nature of South Asia’s security landscape, while underscoring the role of strategic ambiguity, media manipulation and disinformation in modern warfare. In this latest episode of conflict, sparked by an Indian retaliatory strike following a massacre in Indian-administered Kashmir, both countries have released conflicting narratives, with limited concrete evidence provided. The Soufan Center aptly noted that the internet has been “flooded with disinformation, false claims and manipulated photos and videos,” contributing to a deepening of confusion and strategic uncertainty.
Central to this narrative fog is the sharp contrast in casualty and damage reports presented by each side. Pakistan’s military spokesperson, Lt. Gen. Ahmed Sharif, claimed the Pakistan Air Force shot down five Indian aircraft specifically, three French-made Rafales, a Russian-made SU-30MKI and a MiG-29. According to Sharif, these were among 80 Indian fighter jets involved in the early morning raids. Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif supported this claim, noting that their air force could have downed ten jets but exercised restraint by engaging only those that attacked Pakistani targets. In stark contrast, India has not acknowledged any aircraft losses. However, debris from three aircraft was reportedly found in separate areas, lending partial credence to Pakistani assertions. Notably, the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) affirms that all three aircraft types mentioned Rafale, SU-30MKI and MiG-29 are part of India’s existing fleet of over 700 combat-ready fighter aircraft. Despite this, India has offered no official confirmation of any losses, adhering instead to a strategy of silence that maintains a façade of superiority and operational success.
Adding to the narrative complexity is the disputed nature of the airspace incursion. Both India and Pakistan claim their aircraft did not violate the other’s airspace, raising questions about how such aircraft were engaged. If Pakistan’s version is accurate, it suggests long-range air-to-air missile strikes or the deployment of surface-to-air missile (SAM) systems both of which have been in reasingly used in contemporary conflicts like the war in Ukraine. These tactics allow for engagement without risking aircraft or pilots, making them an attractive option for countries looking to minimize exposure in high-stakes confrontations. The possibility that Pakistan used its advanced Chinese-built J-10C fighter jets to shoot down Indian aircraft points to an evolving military procurement and alliance landscape in South Asia. Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar indicated that it was indeed the J-10C that conducted the aerial interceptions, suggesting that Chinese PL-12 or PL-15 beyond-visual-range missiles may have been used. This aligns with statements from Lisa Curtis, Director of the Indo-Pacific Security Program at the Center for a New American Security, who observed that this marks a strategic shift from Pakistan’s earlier reliance on U.S.-supplied F-16s which were used during the 2019 standoff toward Chinese equipment.
The geopolitical implications of this shift are significant. Not only does it reflect growing Sino-Pakistani defense cooperation, but it also signals a potential rebalancing in regional military dependencies. The stock market responses reinforce this interpretation: shares in AVIC Chengdu Aircraft, the manufacturer of the J-10C and JF-17, surged on the Shenzhen Stock Exchange, while Dassault Aviation, the maker of the Rafale, saw a temporary slump in Paris following Pakistan’s claims. Amid the military exchanges, the human cost of the conflict remains contested. India claimed its strikes were precision attacks targeting at least nine facilities used for planning terrorist operations against India. To support its claim, India released video footage of eight strikes four in Pakistan-administered Kashmir and four in Pakistan’s heartland. The Indian Ministry of Defense characterized the mission as a measured response aimed at neutralizing operational threats, asserting that only specific installations were targeted using precision-guided munitions.
On the other hand, Pakistan reported the deaths of 31 civilians, including women and children, across its Kashmir region and Punjab province. It also claimed that two mosques were among the structures hit. While Indian officials have remained silent on these civilian casualty claims, Pakistan’s narrative attempts to frame India’s actions as indiscriminate and disproportionate, reinforcing its position in international forums. Another dimension of the conflict is the reported drone warfare. Pakistan asserted that on Thursday, the day following India’s manned airstrikes, India launched multiple attack drones specifically the Israeli-made Harop drones into Pakistani territory. According to Pakistan, it successfully shot down 29 drones. One allegedly damaged a military facility near Lahore and injured four soldiers, while another reportedly struck Rawalpindi, adjacent to Islamabad.
India has neither confirmed nor denied the drone incursions but stated that its operations targeted air defense radars and missile systems. This ambiguity suggests that India is engaging in a strategic information blackout, possibly to avoid escalation or maintain tactical surprise. The use of unmanned aerial systems (UAS) represents another transformation in regional military doctrines, reflecting global trends toward drone-centric warfare.
Additionally, skirmishes along the Line of Control (LoC) the de facto border in Kashmir flared up during the confrontation. Pakistan claimed that between 50 to 60 Indian soldiers were killed in cross-border shelling, although it offered no verifiable evidence. India, for its part, reported the death of a single soldier in shelling on Wednesday. This numerical discrepancy again highlights the role of information control and propaganda in shaping public perception and domestic legitimacy. Amidst all the fog and fury, one critical factor remains consistent: both India and Pakistan are engaging in information warfare as much as they are involved in kinetic conflict. Each side appears to be carefully crafting its narrative not only for domestic audiences but also for international observers. The Soufan Center’s observation that “this information warfare is compounded by both sides’ commitment to save face” reflects the strategic importance of perception in such clashes. In high-stakes conflicts between nuclear-armed neighbors, controlling the narrative is often as crucial as controlling the battlefield.
Both countries have clear incentives to maintain a posture of dominance while avoiding full-scale war. For India, acknowledging the loss of sophisticated aircraft or admitting to civilian casualties in Pakistan could weaken the political leadership’s standing and embolden domestic critics. For Pakistan, projecting a successful defense, including the downing of Indian aircraft, boosts national morale and strengthens military credibility, especially amid economic challenges and political instability. Furthermore, the strategic ambiguity surrounding the use of Chinese weapons and drones opens a new chapter in the India-Pakistan-China triangle. As Pakistan increasingly integrates Chinese defense technology, it raises questions about China’s indirect role and its broader influence in South Asian security dynamics. The diffusion of Chinese military hardware into conflict zones, whether through Pakistan or elsewhere, contributes to a reshaping of regional deterrence and conflict paradigms.
The latest India-Pakistan skirmish marked by aerial dogfights, missile exchanges and drone incursions highlights the evolving nature of regional conflict in South Asia. It underscores how modern warfare is not only fought with advanced weaponry but also with strategic narratives, disinformation and propaganda. As both countries continue to leverage ambiguity and selective disclosures, it becomes increasingly difficult to separate fact from fiction. However, what remains clear is that the risks of escalation persist and in a region where both actors possess nuclear capabilities, even minor incidents carry potentially catastrophic consequences. The world must pay close attention not only to what is being claimed but also to what is deliberately being left unsaid.
