India vs. Pakistan: Who Really Came Out on Top in 2025’s Deadliest Clash?

The India-Pakistan border, a perennial tinderbox, erupted into violence in May 2025, reigniting fears of a catastrophic clash between two nuclear-armed rivals. Sparked by a brutal terrorist attack in Indian-administered Kashmir, the week-long conflict saw missile strikes, drone incursions, and a fragile ceasefire. But who emerged as the victor in this high-stakes confrontation? Victory in such conflicts transcends battlefield triumphs, encompassing diplomatic clout, economic resilience, and geopolitical maneuvering. 

The rivalry between India and Pakistan, born from the 1947 Partition, has fueled decades of animosity, with Kashmir as its volatile core. The region, split along the Line of Control (LoC), has been the backdrop for three major wars and countless skirmishes. The May 2025 crisis began on April 22, when gunmen attacked tourists in Pahalgam, killing 27, including 25 Hindu tourists, a Christian, and a local Muslim, marking the deadliest civilian assault since 2000. India swiftly blamed Pakistan, alleging support for the Resistance Front (TRF), a group linked to Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT). Pakistan denied involvement, condemning the attack but warning of retaliation if provoked. What followed was a rapid escalation, with India launching “Operation Sindoor” on May 6, targeting nine alleged terrorist sites in Pakistan and Pakistani-administered Kashmir. Pakistan countered with strikes on Indian air bases, leading to intense drone and missile exchanges.

Militarily, the conflict was a high-tech stalemate, with both sides showcasing upgraded arsenals since their 2019 clash. India deployed 36 French-made Rafale jets, armed with Meteor missiles, and Israel-supplied Heron Mark 2 drones, striking deeper into Pakistan than in prior conflicts. Open-source intelligence from Telegram channels, such as those monitored by OSINT groups, reported Indian missiles hitting sites near Islamabad, with unverified claims of 31 deaths, including civilians. Pakistan, leveraging Chinese J-10 jets (at least 20 in service) and PL-15 missiles, targeted Indian bases like Udhampur and Pathankot. Pakistani Telegram posts boasted of downing five Indian jets, though India’s defense ministry confirmed only two MiG-21 losses. Pakistan’s use of Turkish Bayraktar TB2 and Akinci drones, proven in Ukraine, disrupted Indian radar systems, with India reporting 25 Pakistani drones downed. Military blogs, like DefStrat, noted India’s S-400 air defenses neutralized most Pakistani incursions, but Pakistan’s HQ-9 systems, acquired from China, held firm against Indian drones.

Detailed war data underscores the balance of power. India’s 1.45 million active personnel dwarfed Pakistan’s 654,000, with a $76 billion defense budget compared to Pakistan’s $11 billion (SIPRI, 2024). India’s air force, with 2,200 aircraft, including 36 Rafales and 100+ Sukhoi-30s, outmatched Pakistan’s 1,400, dominated by J-10s and F-16s. Naval disparities were stark: India’s blue-water navy, led by the INS Vikramaditya carrier deployed to the Arabian Sea, contrasted with Pakistan’s coastal fleet. Analysts highlighted nuclear arsenals—India’s 160 warheads versus Pakistan’s 165—underscoring the catastrophic stakes. Underground channels reported India mobilizing 50,000 reserves and closing 27 northern airports, disrupting 430+ flights, while Pakistan suspended operations in Karachi and Lahore. Both sides exchanged heavy artillery fire along the LoC, with Indian sources claiming 12 Pakistani border posts destroyed, though Pakistan reported minimal losses.

Why did India accept the U.S.-brokered ceasefire on May 10? 

Military fear and political pressure both played roles. India’s military, despite its numerical edge, faced challenges. Military analysis on War on the Rocks noted India’s modernization is incomplete, with gaps in ammunition and spare parts exposed in 2019. Pakistan’s Chinese-supplied J-10s and Turkish drones posed a credible threat, especially given India’s need to guard its Chinese border, where 100,000 troops are stationed. Specialist chatter suggested India’s high command feared escalation, as Pakistan’s first-strike nuclear doctrine could trigger a devastating response. A 2019 study estimated a limited nuclear exchange could kill 50 million, a risk India’s no-first-use policy aimed to avoid. Politically, Modi faced intense domestic pressure to act decisively, amplified by media and social networks calling for a “final war.” However, international calls for restraint—from the U.S., UK, and UN—piled on pressure. Modi’s global image as a statesman, bolstered by India’s G20 presidency, risked damage from prolonged conflict. The ceasefire allowed Modi to claim victory domestically, echoing his 2019 strategy, while avoiding a war that could expose military vulnerabilities.

China’s support for Pakistan is rooted in strategic interests. Beijing sees Pakistan as a counterweight to India, its regional rival, and a key partner in the $62 billion China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). Chinese J-10s, HQ-9 systems, and PL-15 missiles in Pakistan’s arsenal reflect this alliance, with Reuters noting China’s $4 billion annual arms exports to Pakistan. China’s Foreign Ministry urged restraint but blocked India’s UN efforts to designate LeT as a global terrorist group, signaling bias. Beijing’s caution during the crisis, avoiding direct involvement, stemmed from its own tensions with India along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) and a desire to avoid U.S. scrutiny.

The U.S. leaned toward India, reflecting a strategic pivot since the 2008 Mumbai attacks. The Trump administration, with figures like J.D. Vance, condemned the Pahalgam attack and offered intelligence support, per Newsweek. The U.S.-India COMPACT initiative, launched in February 2025, deepened military ties, with $40 billion in Indian investments in the U.S. economy. However, Trump’s mediation rhetoric—“I get along with both”—and Rubio’s calls for de-escalation showed Washington’s priority was avoiding nuclear conflict. India’s closest ally in wartime would likely be the U.S., followed by France, which supplies Rafales, and Israel, providing drones and missiles. Japan and Australia, part of the Quad, offered diplomatic support but no military aid.

Turkey’s military support for Pakistan, via Bayraktar and Akinci drones, stems from economic and ideological ties. Turkey’s $1.5 billion arms deal with Pakistan in 2023 strengthened their defense partnership, driven by shared Muslim-majority identities and Turkey’s ambition to counter India’s influence in the Islamic world. Al Jazeera reported Turkey’s call for a probe into the Pahalgam attack, aligning with Pakistan’s narrative. This doesn’t mean Turkey is overtly anti-India, but its actions prioritize Pakistan, straining ties with New Delhi. India’s military support came primarily from Western suppliers, with no direct troop or munitions commitments. France expedited Rafale spare parts, and Israel provided real-time drone intelligence, per Defense News.

Russia’s stance was neutral, reflecting its “warm relations” with both nations, per Al Jazeera. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov offered mediation, but Russia’s arms sales to India—$13 billion annually, including S-400 systems—tilt toward New Delhi. Historically, Russia backed India in 1965 and 1971, but its growing ties with China and Pakistan’s CPEC complicate its position. In 2025, Russia avoided taking sides, focusing on de-escalation to protect its South Asian arms market.

Diplomatically, India held an edge. Modi briefed over 100 foreign missions, framing Pakistan as a terrorism hub, gaining sympathy from the U.S., UK, France, and Japan. Pakistan’s ambassador confirmed backchannel talks with Saudi Arabia and Qatar, but its expulsion of Indian diplomats and trade suspension isolated it further. India’s suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty, controlling 80% of Pakistan’s irrigation water, was a strategic blow. Pakistan called it an “act of war,” but India’s upstream advantage gave it leverage, with the World Bank unable to intervene due to treaty suspension.

Economically, Pakistan suffered more. Its $350 billion economy, reeling from a $7 billion IMF loan, faced blackouts and trade disruptions, with Moody’s downgrading its outlook. India’s $3.5 trillion economy absorbed a 2% market dip, buoyed by 6.5% growth. Pakistan’s plea for Chinese aid highlighted its fragility, while India’s global trade ties cushioned impacts.

Geopolitically, the conflict exposed shifting alliances. Pakistan’s Chinese J-10s and Turkish drones faced India’s Western Rafales and Predators, turning the clash into a proxy for U.S.-China rivalry. The U.S.’s tilt toward India, post-Afghanistan, contrasted with its past F-16 support for Pakistan, which faced no penalties for using jets against India in 2019. Trump’s ceasefire push, backed by Rubio, had limited impact, as both sides claimed victory on medias and social networks, with Indian posts praising naval deployments and Pakistani ones touting air force resilience.

Public sentiment actually fueled escalation: 

Indians celebrated strikes near Islamabad, while Pakistanis claimed a “5 vs. 0” jet tally. 

Modi leveraged the crisis for electoral gains, while Pakistan’s military rallied support amid domestic unrest over Imran Khan’s imprisonment. Kashmiris, caught in the crossfire, faced crackdowns, with no progress on a 1948 UN plebiscite.

Who won? 

India’s deeper strikes and diplomatic outreach gave it a slight edge, but Pakistan’s air force resilience and nuclear deterrence prevented a clear defeat. Militarily, both sides avoided all-out war, with India’s S-400s and Pakistan’s HQ-9s neutralizing threats. Diplomatically, India’s Western allies outshone Pakistan’s Chinese-Turkish axis. Economically, India’s stability contrasted with Pakistan’s fragility. Geopolitically, India’s U.S. alignment strengthened its position, but nuclear risks restrained both.

The ceasefire holds, but Kashmir’s unresolved status, terrorism, and water disputes linger. India and Pakistan must rebuild backchannels, possibly via Qatar or Saudi Arabia, to prevent miscalculations. The international community, distracted by Ukraine and Gaza, must prioritize South Asia to avert a nuclear catastrophe. The May 2025 clash, a sobering reminder of a volatile rivalry, demands dialogue to address root causes and avert a deadlier sequel.