India, not Pakistan, had more meaty military achievements in the conflict, say geopolitical experts

Days after India and Pakistan called a ceasefire after the military conflict, the world's attention is now focused on who had a more substantial military accomplishment in the conflict. While the chatter over Chinese weapons dominated the defence circle for days, the analysis shaping up a week later has established one fact: Despite the 'success' campaign carried out by Pakistan in their own country, India has had a clear upper hand in the military conflict.

While experts agree that Pakistan may have managed to internationalise the issue of Kashmir through the Pahalgam terror attack and subsequent military conflict, India's hitting its airbases further from the border changed the rules of the game. Analysts think India proved its ability to reach deeper than what Pakistan could do by hitting not only Kotli and Muzaffarabad in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, but also in four sites in Punjab, which is the country’s economic nerve-centre. Indian drones also reached deep into Pakistan, including in Lahore and Karachi.

The precision strike at three Pakistani airbases were crème de la crème of the mission, they opine.

Walter Ladwig, a senior lecturer at King’s College London, told Al Jazeera that  India’s success in targeting Punjab represented a serious breach of Pakistan’s defensive posture. He also said Pakistan's claims that it downed Indian kets cannot be overstated as Pakistani successes. "These are, at best, symbolic victories. They do not represent a clear or unambiguous military gain," Ladwig told Al Jazeera.

As for diplomatically, he believes India was successful in bringing global attention to Pakistan-based militant groups, which cost the latter's reputation. He added that the burden of proof to prove its counter terrorism efforts in global forums now lies with Pakistan.   

Ladwig added that India altered the rules of the "game that allows Islamabad and Rawalpindi to claim plausible deniability regarding anti-Indian terrorist groups."

Sudha Ramachandran, the South Asia editor for The Diplomat magazine, said India managed to achieve its primary goal of launching a military response not just across the Line of Control, but deep into Pakistan.

According to Joshua T. White, a non-resident fellow of foreign policy, Centre for Asia Policy Studies, said in an article in Brookings India's air defence networks seem to have performed quite well, and its military showed that it could reach into Pakistan with a combination of air- and ground-launched strikes.

He added that despite Pakistan's claims about doing relatively well in air-to-air combat, the battle damage assessments may raise questions about the scale and reliability of Pakistan’s deeper air defence systems and the use of the high volume of drones that appear to have produced only modest damage within India.

While India has its set of concerns - the compulsion for India to reach deeper into its playbook of hitting deeper into Pakistan - Pakistan comes away from the conflict with the concern of how Indian weapons not only crossed the international border but also demonstrated accuracy against defended sites. "The Indian Air Force was able to strike Nur Khan air base in Rawalpindi—not far from Pakistan’s army headquarters—and other key airfields. Although damage appears limited, the choice of targets signalled India’s willingness to challenge Pakistan’s air defences and to threaten assets close to the heart of the state," White said.

India's challenges  

White thinks India also faces challenges, especially on the need for "deeper reserves of missiles and munitions for a sustained conflict" and the need to coordinate what could evolve into a multi-front confrontation.

Then there will compulsion for New Delhi to reach deeper into Pakistan to find sites with "comparable political and operational value" like it did this time. They might feel pressured to target second-tier Pakistani intelligence or military facilities, or might combine counterterrorist strikes with special operations or naval activities to demonstrate seriousness, White argues, stating each of these comes with new risks.

World