By: Fatima Ghufran (Pakistan)

In the fifth month of 2025, South Asia stood on the edge of a crisis the world has long feared. A deadly attack in Pahalgamon April 22 — allegedly claiming the lives of 26— triggered a rapid and volatile military escalation between nuclear-armed neighbors India and Pakistan. Within days, the region was staring down the barrel of a potential nuclear exchange.

The question now lingers: is the worst behind us?

The answer is anything but clear.

A U.S.-mediated ceasefire may have paused the immediate threat, but the events that unfolded from May 6 onwards have left a tangle of unanswered questions, unresolved tensions, and a precarious calm. The crisis has once again illuminated how quickly regional hostilities can spiral beyond control — and how fragile peace remains when nuclear weapons are in play. As South Asia exhales after its narrow escape, Albert Einstein’s haunting foreshadowing feels closer than ever: “I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.”

An independent investigation into the recent conflict is essential, especially given the long and fraught history between India and Pakistan — a rivalry spanning decades and rooted most deeply in the unresolved Kashmir dispute. From the wars of 1947, 1965, and the 1971 conflict tied to Bangladeshi independence, to the Kargil and Siachen crises, the subcontinent remains a geopolitical flashpoint.

A chronological assessment of the recent escalation reveals significant developments, including India’s announcement to place the Indus Waters Treaty (1960) in “abeyance,” reflecting heightened tensions in the region. This move raised immediate legal questions. International law experts and treaty scholars have pointed out that the IWT contains no provisions allowing for abeyance or unilateral suspension. In fact, Article 56 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the cornerstone of modern treaty law, states: “A treaty may be suspended if it contains provisions to that effect or if the parties agree to such suspension.” Given the IWT’s silence on this matter, the legal basis for India’s action remains questionable.

In response, Pakistan suspended all bilateral treaties — including the Simla Agreement — and swiftly closed its airspace. In an urgent National Security Committee meeting, it was stated that, “Any attempt to stop or divert the flow of water belonging to Pakistan as per the Indus Waters Treaty, and the usurpation of the rights of lower riparian will be considered as an Act of War and responded with full force across the complete spectrum of National Power.” Diplomatic ties rapidly deteriorated, with both nations declaring each other’s diplomats persona non grata and ordering their departure. As diplomacy faltered, the risk of military confrontation intensified as well.

On April 25th, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi delivered a fiery speech vowing to “hunt down those involved in the Pahalgam attack till the end of the earth.” Just days later, on April 28th, India’s Ministry of External Affairs explicitly named Pakistan for the first time, accusing Pakistan-based terrorist groups operating across the border, of carrying out the attack. The statement described the incident as a clear case of state-sponsored terrorism, alleging that Pakistan’s intelligence agencies provided support and sanctuary to the perpetrators, and held Pakistan fully responsible.

Following rising tensions, Pakistan reported the infiltrationand eventual interception of approximately 84 Indian kamikaze drones targeting multiple cities, including Lahore, Chakwal, Gujranwala, Attock, Bahawalpur, and Mianwali. Aseries of coordinated air and drone strikes, termed “Operation Sindhoor” also targeted locations such as Muridke, Bahawalpur, Muzaffarabad, and Kotli, resulting in several civilian casualties and further escalating tensions between the two neighboring countries.

Pakistan’s response materialized through Operation Bunyan al Marsoos, following Indian missile strikes on several Pakistani military installations, including Nur Khan Airbase, PAF Base Shorkot, Murid Airbase in Chakwal, and PAF Base Bholari. In retaliation—described by the DG ISPR Lieutenant General Ahmed Sharif Chaudhry as “measured, calibrated, proportionate, and not a full application of conventional forces”—Pakistan launched counterattacks on Indian airbases at Adampur, Bhatinda, Barnala, and Bhuj etc. During a Tri-Services Conference on May 11, Air Vice Marshal Aurangzeb Ahmed, alongside the DG ISPR, emphasized that the actual number of Indian aircraft downed could have been significantly higher than the six confirmed, which included French-made Rafale jets.

An objective analysis suggests that Pakistan emerged with the upper hand in this round of the conflict. Meanwhile, India’s foreign policy appears to be facing significant challenges, particularly after its claims that Pakistan had requested a US-mediated ceasefire were categorically denied by both the DG ISPR and US President Donald Trump.

Despite international calls for peace from the UK, China, Russia, and the United Nations, India’s rejection of an independent probe into the Pahalgam incident and its initiation of hostilities pushed the region to the brink. The DG ISPR condemned the prospect of full-scale nuclear war as “sheer stupidity, inconceivable and absurd”, a view echoed by Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, who called for calm and dialogue.

News agencies reported that 125 fighter jets from both sides—as the largest dogfight since World War II, marking a dangerous escalation unseen since 1971. This unprecedented confrontation has intensified global concern over the fragile peace between India and Pakistan. Though a ceasefire currently holds, unresolved tensions and the looming specter of nuclear escalation cast a long shadow over the region’s future.

The question remains: has the threat truly passed, or does the danger still loom large over South Asia?