Does the combined population of India and Pakistan – over 1.6 billion people – deserve to be pushed to the brink of annihilation in a nuclear clash or condemned to continue languishing under relentless poverty?
Just in the last fortnight, the nuclear-armed neighbors narrowly avoided a devastating war after four days of intense fighting. On May 6, India launched Operation Sindoor, a significant strategic shift in its military posture. Striking deep within the Pakistani territory, targeting what it claimed were terrorist launchpads. In response, Pakistan launched Operation Bunyan Marsoos and claimed to have shot down several Indian jets, including Rafales. India denied suffering any losses. But such conflicting accounts demonstrate how perilously close the two nuclear states came to a catastrophe. Alarmed by the escalation, the U.S. intervened urgently to broker a cease-fire.
While the world may have breathed a sigh of relief, the real danger lies beyond the battlefield. C. Rammanohar Reddy, editor of The India Forum, warned, “One escalatory event after the other could lead to the use of nuclear weapons; and one use will cause a catastrophe that can never be reversed.” His caution ascertains just how brittle peace in South Asia really is.
Despite widespread poverty, both India and Pakistan allocate substantial portions of their national budgets to military spending. In 2024, India spent over $86 billion on defense, ranking as the world’s fifth-largest military spender, while Pakistan allocated $7.6 billion – over 11% of its federal budget – even as its economy teeters. This militarization comes at a staggering social cost: India still has around 28% of its population living under the $3.65 a day poverty line, and Pakistan faces an alarming poverty rate of over 42%. Both states continue to prioritize their war machines over basic human needs, exposing a tragic irony – nuclear weapons in hand, but millions unfed. As each side reevaluates military vulnerabilities exposed during the recent conflict and moves to enhance further its defense preparedness, the defense expenditure of both countries is expected to rise exponentially.
India and Pakistan face a brutal paradox: If war does not kill their populations outright, relentless militarization and poverty will kill them slowly. Do millions of hapless innocents deserve such a fate?
The origins of this conflict are based on a long-standing rivalry, which has now regressed beyond geopolitical persuasion and into a battle of ideologies. India, under the influence of Hindutva, increasingly views Pakistan not merely as a geopolitical rival but as an illegitimate rupture in a perceived Hindu civilizational continuum. The notion of Akhand Bharat contests Pakistan’s very legitimacy.
Pakistan proclaims its "Two-Nation Theory" – the belief that Muslims of the subcontinent are a distinct nation with separate political and civilizational aspirations. This ideological confrontation transforms hostility into a zero-sum conflict. Coexistence is no longer seen as viable; each side views the other’s existence as a threat.
In this setting, the danger of miscalculation is terrifyingly real. The recent cease-fire brokered under visible American pressure exposed how close the region is to disaster. Washington’s involvement was spurred by fears of nuclear escalation. Indian strikes near sensitive Pakistani military sites, including Islamabad’s nuclear command infrastructure, raised alarms in Washington. Pakistan appeared to activate its National Command Authority. Initially, U.S. Vice President JD Vance claimed America had “nothing to do with the Indo-Pak dispute,” but the unfolding crisis compelled the U.S. to mediate.
This standoff disgustingly establishes that nuclear weapons have not deterred conflict; they amplify the stakes of every confrontation. In a political climate where ideology trumps diplomacy, peace becomes elusive. The danger is not merely the bomb but the intellectual and moral vacuum into which two great civilizations descend – fueled by nationalism, grievance and suspicion.
India claims to have established a "new normal" by launching military strikes in response to a "terrorist act." Pakistan says it defended its sovereignty through conventional means. Despite India’s military superiority, it failed to coerce Pakistan into submission. Irrespective of the cease-fire, India has maintained that Operation Sindoor is only suspended, not closed, deliberately keeping strategic ambiguity intact. More significantly, India has declared that any future "terror attack" will be considered an "act of war," necessitating a direct military response against Pakistan. This shift blurs the line between non-state violence and state accountability, embedding a permanent layer of volatility into an already combustible regional dynamic.
India’s current position towards the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), a 1960 agreement on water sharing, further complicates this prevailing complex situation. Despite surviving past conflicts, the treaty now faces threats as India questions its continued relevance. Water scarcity, intensified by climate change, is the new emerging geopolitical flashpoint. If the IWT is formally abrogated or undermined, a vital lifeline for Pakistan could become a weapon of coercion, escalating tensions further.
A single incident nearly triggering a full-scale war shows how fragile peace is between the nuclear-armed neighbors. Any misstep – by miscalculation, accident, or provocation – could prove catastrophic for the region and globally.
The four-day war brought no meaningful gains. Both sides showed resilience, but the cycle of violence only deepened mistrust. The people of South Asia cannot endure the inferno of war or the slow suffocation of economic stagnation. The stark reality is that neither power can coerce the other into submission. Either they exist side by side, or they risk perishing together.
The future does not promise peace; it demands it. South Asia’s survival does not hinge on military superiority or ideological triumph but on a painful reckoning with the consequences of perpetual hostility. Sooner or later, someone will miscalculate. And this time, the world may be unable to stop the fall.
