Following India’s May7 ‘Oper­ationSindoor,’ the two arch rival South Asian neighbours find themselves precariously balanced on a razor’s edge — one step away from catastrophe.

In barely a day, New Delhi’s pre-dawn strikes on six sites in Pakistan and Islamabad’s thunderous shoot down of five Indian fighters have drawn both nuclear-armed neighbors into a high wire act of provocation and reprisal.

India claimed it targeted militant groups allegedly linked to the April22 Pahalgam attack, which claimed 26 lives, but behind this flimsy excuse Delhi’s broader ambition seems crystal clear: to assert its regional dominance and redefine its relationship with Pakistan, whom it sees as an impediment to its rise as a regional power.

Delhi never produced public evidence tying Pakistan to the attack, nor did it heed international entreaties for restraint; instead it moved decisively as Indian leaders bid to achieve a “new normal” in ties with Pakistan, one in which preemptive and punitive strikes become instruments of policy.

Indian media later amplified official claims that some of those killed in Bahawalpur had ties to Jaish-e-Muhammad’s Masood Azhar, bolstering Delhi’s narrative that its strikes were against militants.

“No credible media outlet has confirmed it yet. But, indeed, if his (Masood Azhar’s) family members have been killed in these strikes then it will be a setback to Pakistani narrative of dismantling JeM and LeT. Once again worries of supporting jihadi proxies will arise with potential repercussion including re-imposition of FATF’s gray-list,” said Abdul Basit, a fellow at the International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research of the S. Rajaratnam School, Singapore.

Pakistan’s riposte to Indian strikes was as swift as it was stark: five Indian jets, including state of the art Rafales, were downed in a textbook exercise of self-defence. The message was unambiguous — no fighter, however advanced, is invulnerable.

Notwithstanding all the saber rattling, both capitals know that the real danger is the specter of uncontrolled escalation in this equation of India seeking to subdue Pakistan and Islamabad wanting to deny New Delhi the “new normal” it craves.

Each side has played its hand to maximum effect, yet each also understands that pushing the envelope too far would risk mutual destruction. Their moves are restrained by nuclear arsenals that hover like proverbial Damocles’ swords, forcing both sides to stay just below the nuclear rung.

Asked about next possible steps by the two sides, former defence secretary Gen Asif Yasin Malik believed that in order to stay below nuclear threshold they would avoid crossing redlines like ground operations or threatening sensitive territorial targets. “For the above design they would prefer air combat or missile warfare,” he maintained.

For now, nuclear deterrence holds — but is very fragile.

Brig Naeem Salik, who head Strategic Vision Institute, warned that an Indian response to Pakistan retaliation would push the two sides further up the escalation ladder. “The most dangerous possibility in all this cycle would be inadvertently hitting a sensitive target that would lead to jumping rungs right up to the top of the escalation ladder,” he warned. Islamabad has avoided going into that domain.

“Should deterrence stability erodes, the responsibility will rest squarely with India. Pakistan’s measured and restrained posture, even in the face of serious provocations, reflects its enduring commitment to avoid escalation,” a senior Pakistani official said while speaking on the background.

The loss of those Rafales is more than a hit to Indian prestige; it hands India’s hawks fresh ammo to demand retaliation. Yet more strikes risk deeper Pakistani counterpunches — and once the tit for tat cycle gains momentum, the shadow of the nuclear option will loom larger in the public mind.

In Islamabad, the narrative of righteous self-defence against “Indian aggression” as authorised by the National Security Committee has intensified calls for a firm response. But every victory on the battlefield carries its own peril: the temptation to press an advantage, even as the clock ticks ever closer to all-out war.

Behind the scenes, diplomats from Washington to Beijing — and even Qatar and other Gulf countries — are rushing to cool tempers before the flames spread. But deep seated mistrust between the two countries cannot be erased by phone calls or back channel notes alone. External mediators invariably arrive after the fact or tread too lightly, and the real power dynamic remains squarely between Delhi and Islamabad: first show strength, then exercise caution.

Former Foreign Secretary Sohail Mahm­ood, while emphasising that de-escalation in this highly volatile environment would be extremely challenging, urged major powers “to substantially step up their diplomatic engagement guided by an honest and principled approach.”

“While condemning India’s aggression, and recognising Pakistan’s inherent right to self-defence in accordance with Article 51 of the UN Charter, they would need to employ their influence and respective leverages in full measure to dissuade India from persisting with its bellicose rhetoric and belligerent actions,” he maintained, adding that major powers would need to do something beyond crisis management and press India to move towards conflict resolution.

This is the tightrope on which both countries now teeter — projecting power without toppling into outright conflict. Each hopes to climb down once the moment is advantageous for it, yet history reminds us that such exits are always provisional, carved out between rounds of tit for tat and are vulnerable to the slightest miscalculation.

In the days ahead, military action may give way to genuine restraint or the two sides may move further up the escalation ladder at a pace at which diplomatic brakes cannot engage swiftly enough. Either way, the world will learn that when two nuclear neighbours reach the edge of war, the margin for error shrinks to almost nothing—and the only true safeguard is the discipline to step back.

Moreover, the downing of five Indian Rafale jets is a significant blow to India’s military prestige and could spark debates in the West about its capability to serve as a “net security provider” in the region —a role envisioned by the US and its allies to counterbalance China. Losing five in a day, even if from standoff range, raises questions about India’s capabilities to handle state of art Western technology.

“The US may hope India comes away from the crisis more skeptical of its non-US-original equipment. The US will also be very interested to learn about how capable any Chinese air-to-air or surface-to-air missiles were in this conflict,” said Christopher Clary, a nonresident Fellow with the South Asia Program of the Stimson Center in Washington, DC.

Published in Dawn, May 8th, 2025