The 2025 India–Pakistan Conflict

The 2025 India–Pakistan conflict marked a sharp escalation in the long-standing tensions between the two nations. It began with a terrorist attack in Pahalgam and rapidly expanded into military, diplomatic, and humanitarian dimensions. The situation emphasized not just the fragility of peace in the region but also the evolving complexity of modern conflict.

Escalation Timeline

April 22, 2025: A brutal terrorist attack took place in the Baisaran Valley near Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir. Five militants targeted tourists, resulting in the death of 26 civilians. Among them were 25 Hindu tourists and one local Muslim guide. This attack was the deadliest on civilians in India since the 2008 Mumbai attacks. The Resistance Front (TRF), a militant group, claimed responsibility. They cited their opposition to non-local settlement in Kashmir following the revocation of its special status. Indian intelligence agencies reported that the attackers used encrypted satellite phones for coordination. Intercepts suggested that they were in contact with handlers located across the Line of Control (LoC).

April 23 – May 6, 2025: India held Pakistan responsible for sheltering the attackers and demanded immediate and strict action. However, Pakistan denied the accusations. Consequently, both countries withdrew their envoys and halted all bilateral dialogues. Skirmishes became more frequent along the LoC, leading to additional casualties on both sides.

May 7, 2025: India responded by launching Operation Sindoor. This was a joint military operation targeting terrorist camps in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK). Between 1:05 A.M. and 1:30 A.M. IST, the Indian Air Force conducted airstrikes on nine locations. Notably, this was the first time India crossed the international border for such an operation since 1971. The primary goal was to dismantle terrorist infrastructure and eliminate those responsible for the Pahalgam attack.

May 8 – 9, 2025: In retaliation, Pakistan carried out UAV and drone attacks on Indian military installations. The affected areas included regions in Gujarat and Rajasthan. India deployed its Akash Shield and D4 air defence systems in response. The Indian government claimed that 70 Pakistani drones were destroyed. Among them were Turkish-origin Songar armed drones.

May 10, 2025: Due to mounting international pressure from the United States, Russia, and the United Nations, both countries agreed to a ceasefire. The agreement included provisions for troop disengagement and the resumption of diplomatic dialogue. Although the ceasefire held, both nations remained on high alert.

Risk Management Analysis

This conflict showcased the multi-dimensional nature of modern warfare. It highlighted the importance of strategic, economic, diplomatic, and humanitarian risk management.

• Strategic Risk: Deterrence strategies and cyber warfare stood out as key concerns. Fortunately, both countries exercised nuclear restraint by adhering to credible minimum deterrence doctrines. This decision played a significant role in preventing a full-scale war.
• Cyber Warfare: Both nations engaged in cyberattacks aimed at disrupting power grids, military communications, and sensitive databases. These incidents revealed significant gaps in cybersecurity. Therefore, they underscored the need for comprehensive international frameworks to manage cyber warfare.
• Economic Risk: The conflict had a serious impact on the regional and national economies, particularly in border areas. Two primary economic effects included trade disruptions and agricultural losses.
• Trade Disruptions: Cross-border trade came to a standstill. Supply chains broke down, and investor confidence waned. Consequently, border economies experienced notable slowdowns.
• Agricultural Impact: The fighting and displacement of civilians interrupted farming activities. Crops were destroyed, and food security became a pressing concern. Moreover, the closure of trade routes aggravated the problem.
• Diplomatic Risk: The conflict strained diplomatic ties and raised complex international legal questions. Some nations expressed support for Pakistan, while others backed India’s stance. For instance, India’s relations with Turkey and Azerbaijan deteriorated. This shift led to public outrage within India. Conversely, India’s diplomatic ties with the United States and France improved. These nations supported India’s right to defend itself.
• Legal Issues: India’s cross-border strikes brought legal justifications into focus. India defended its actions as legitimate self-defence. Pakistan, however, accused India of violating its sovereignty.
• Humanitarian Risk: The human cost of the conflict was immense. Civilian casualties and large-scale displacement strained local resources and highlighted the necessity of stronger humanitarian frameworks.
• Civilian Casualties: Reports indicated that 31 Pakistani civilians were killed in the Indian strikes. On the other side, Indian casualties resulted from Pakistani shelling.
• Displacement: Thousands of civilians were forced to leave their homes. Many ended up in makeshift shelters with limited facilities. This situation underscored the urgent need for effective humanitarian aid systems.
• Lessons Learned: Several critical lessons emerged from the conflict. These lessons can help manage future crises more effectively.
• Communication Channels: The conflict showed that open and continuous communication is essential. The eventual ceasefire was achieved largely through backchannel diplomacy and third-party mediation.
• Third-Party Mediation: Global actors such as the U.S. and the UN played crucial roles in de-escalating tensions. This demonstrates the value of international cooperation in conflict resolution.
• Economic Interdependence: The economic fallout from the conflict reinforced the importance of robust trade relationships. Stronger economic ties could serve as deterrents to future hostilities.
• Crisis Management Frameworks: The war exposed weak spots in several areas, particularly cybersecurity and civilian protection. Stronger risk management strategies are necessary to address these vulnerabilities. Institutions like the Global Risk Management Institute (GRMI) provide specialized training. They equip professionals and policymakers with tools to manage and mitigate complex risks effectively.

Conclusion

The 2025 conflict served as a stark reminder of the region’s enduring instability. India demonstrated significant military strength. However, the conflict also revealed the urgent need for stronger diplomacy, deeper economic partnerships, and robust strategic planning. Long-lasting peace depends on building trust and addressing root causes of conflict.

To handle such complex challenges, professionals and policymakers must be prepared. Institutions like GRMI play a crucial role in this preparation. By offering education in strategic risk management, GRMI helps build a safer, more resilient future for the region and the world.