Pakistan News
Pakistan’s Impregnable Strategic Deterrence

Paris (Imran Y. CHOUDHRY) :- Former Press Secretary to the President, Former Press Minister to the Embassy of Pakistan to France, Former MD, SRBC Mr. Qamar Bashir analysis : The story of Pakistan and India’s strategic rivalry is as old as the two nations themselves. Since their creation in 1947, both countries have fought multiple wars, engaged in intense military standoffs, and maintained a constant state of strategic vigilance. While the battles on the field ended decades ago, the competition in defense, deterrence, and doctrine continues in full force. At the heart of this enduring standoff lies a surprising reality: despite being smaller in size, economy, and military resources, Pakistan has managed to establish a credible strategic balance with its much larger neighbor, India. This balance has not only deterred war but has stabilized the region in the shadow of recurring crises.
India, with a population exceeding 1.4 billion and an economy nearing $4 trillion, has clear quantitative advantages over Pakistan, whose population is around 250 million and economy hovers near $341 billion. On paper, India outmatches Pakistan in nearly every conventional military metric—from troop strength and defense budget to the volume of arms imports and defense-industrial capacity. However, Pakistan, through strategic ingenuity, tactical precision, and smart resource allocation, has achieved what military theorists term as a “kinetic strategic balance.”
To understand how such balance is achieved, especially between asymmetrical powers, one must examine the strategic balance formula developed and widely accepted among military analysts and defense planners. It is expressed as:
{Strategic Balance} = \frac{M_1}{M_2}
where “M” represents the overall military capability of each state, derived from multiplying five core factors:
M = F \Q \T \E \N
In this equation:
F stands for force size, which includes not only the number of active duty soldiers but also reserve personnel and paramilitary forces.
Q reflects the quality of weapons and equipment, taking into account technological sophistication, modernity, and battlefield effectiveness.
T represents the training and doctrinal maturity of the armed forces, their readiness, discipline, and capacity to execute strategies under pressure.
E signifies economic capacity—the ability of a country to sustain military operations over time, fund innovations, and manage logistics.
N measures nuclear capability, including the size, delivery mechanisms, and credibility of the nuclear deterrent.
Let’s apply this formula to India and Pakistan using approximate and normalized scales. India’s overall active military personnel number around 1.45 million, supplemented by an additional million in reserves and another million-plus in paramilitary units. Pakistan maintains roughly 654,000 active troops, 550,000 in reserve, and nearly half a million paramilitary personnel. On a scale of 1 to 10, India’s force size scores a 10 while Pakistan’s earns around 6.5.
In terms of weapon quality, India operates advanced systems such as Rafale fighter jets, S-400 air defense systems, and is building up a blue-water navy. Pakistan relies on a diversified mix of Chinese, American, and Turkish platforms, with domestic capabilities like the JF-17 fighter jet and Babur cruise missiles. India’s score on this scale would be around 8, with Pakistan close behind at 6.5.
Training and doctrine are where Pakistan edges closer to parity. Over decades of direct and indirect conflict, Pakistan’s military has evolved into a highly professional, strategically nimble force. It has effectively adopted doctrines of hybrid warfare, swift retaliation, and nuclear ambiguity. India’s larger forces sometimes suffer from organizational inertia, though efforts at modernization are ongoing. On this front, Pakistan may rate an 8, while India scores a 7.
Economically, the gap is stark. India’s economy is nearly ten times larger than Pakistan’s, and its defense budget—exceeding $83 billion—dwarfs Pakistan’s $9.6 billion allocation. This difference affects everything from procurement cycles to research and development capacity. On this scale, India scores a full 10, while Pakistan reasonably scores about 3.
Finally, the nuclear equation offers one of the most stabilizing forces in the strategic balance. India is believed to possess around 164 nuclear warheads with the capability to deliver them via air, land, and potentially sea. Pakistan holds an estimated 170 nuclear warheads and has developed tactical nuclear weapons like the Nasr missile system to deter India’s “Cold Start” doctrine. Both countries score roughly equal in nuclear capability at 8.5 each, though with different strategic philosophies—India embracing “No First Use” and Pakistan maintaining deliberate ambiguity.
When we multiply these normalized scores, India’s kinetic military capability index amounts to:
10.8.7.10.8.5 = 47,600
Pakistan’s equivalent score is:
6.5.6.5.8.3.8.5 = 9,004
The final ratio, therefore, is:
{47,600}/{9,004}=approx 5.3
This 5.3:1 balance heavily favors India in pure kinetic potential. Yet, military history and modern strategic thinking teach us that war is not determined by ratios alone. The question is not just whether one side can win—but whether it can win without unacceptable costs. And it is precisely here that Pakistan has succeeded in establishing deterrence. Its nuclear capability, doctrinal evolution, and war-readiness have made it abundantly clear that any full-scale Indian aggression would invite unbearable retaliation, regardless of conventional superiority.
The long peace since the 1971 war is a testament to this equilibrium. Even the 1999 Kargil conflict, initiated by Pakistani forces, remained limited in scope and quickly drew international mediation. Afterward, both countries adopted more robust postures: India developed doctrines for rapid retaliation, while Pakistan responded with battlefield nuclear readiness. The result has been a tense yet stable balance—volatile at the surface, but deeply anchored in mutual deterrence.
To illustrate this concept more clearly, we can compare it to the relationship between the United States and Canada. The U.S., with a defense budget over $850 billion and global power projection capabilities, is militarily incomparable to Canada, which spends under $30 billion and does not possess nuclear weapons. Yet, the two nations have enjoyed peaceful borders and extensive defense cooperation for over a century. Canada does not attempt to match U.S. military capabilities but instead relies on institutional trust, shared values, and alliance structures like NORAD and NATO. It has deterrence not through power parity, but through political and structural integration.
In contrast, Pakistan has no alliance structure with India, no institutional trust, and no history of mutual defense. It must therefore achieve balance through direct capability and posture—especially nuclear. And despite overwhelming asymmetry on paper, Pakistan’s strategic deterrence has worked. It has denied India the ability to impose its will militarily without facing existential risks in return.
In the final analysis, strategic balance is less about overpowering an adversary and more about rendering war unthinkable. Pakistan’s success in creating this balance—despite economic challenges and numerical inferiority—demonstrates that military deterrence is not reserved for the rich or powerful. It is a function of clarity, innovation, and above all, credibility. The kinetic balance formula, when correctly understood and applied, offers not just a measure of military might—but a blueprint for peace through proportional deterrence.
Pakistan News
Pakistan Stood with the West in Their Wars—But Stood Alone in Its Own

Paris (Imran Y. CHOUDHRY) :- Former Press Secretary to the President, Former Press Minister to the Embassy of Pakistan to France, Former MD, SRBC Mr. Qamar Bashir analysis : In a series of explosive interviews reverberating across global platforms, President Donald Trump has delivered blunt and consequential assessments—targeting the moral failures of Western military interventions in Iraq, Lybia and Syria.
While the comments triggered controversy, they also revealed long-suppressed realities—particularly for Pakistan, a country that has endured the consequences of wars it neither initiated nor benefited from. From being America’s front-line ally in proxy wars to becoming a scapegoat in the global terrorism narrative, Pakistan’s story now demands a re-examination in light of Trump’s candid revelations.
Trump’s opening salvo dismantled the rationale behind U.S. interventions in Iraq and Libya. These were nations which—despite their authoritarian regimes—had made considerable economic, social, and institutional progress. “There was no terrorism in Iraq or Libya until we bombed them into dust,” Trump declared. Those bombings created stateless regions, collapsing governance and birthing extremist safe havens. Yet, conveniently omitted from this critique was Pakistan—also a victim of the West’s reckless policies.
Like Iraq and Libya, Pakistan became collateral damage—dragged into conflicts it never initiated but was coerced into supporting. In the 1980s, Pakistan was designated the frontline state in the U.S.-led effort to push Soviet forces out of Afghanistan. Under Western direction, it welcomed foreign fighters—Mujahideen—from across the Islamic world, trained and armed by the CIA, and turned its tribal belt into a launchpad for a geopolitical war.
Then came 9/11. Once again, Pakistan was strong-armed into supporting the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan—providing intelligence, military bases, airspace, and logistical support. But instead of receiving gratitude, Pakistan was met with terrorist blowback. Al-Qaeda and Taliban remnants redirected their wrath toward Pakistan, branding a foe. The country paid dearly—losing over 70,000 civilians and military personnel, suffering more than $150 billion in economic damage, and enduring immeasurable social trauma. Yet, far from being acknowledged as a victim, Pakistan was branded a “sponsor of terror.”
The very powers that created, funded, and armed these extremist elements walked away from the destruction they helped unleash, leaving Pakistan to fight alone. The terrorism that still haunts the nation—particularly in Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa—stems directly from this legacy. Almost daily, security personnel and innocent civilians lose their lives combating these Western-manufactured monsters.
Trump’s implicit recognition of this betrayal is momentous. But acknowledgment alone is not enough. The West has a moral and political obligation to help Pakistan dismantle the terrorist networks it helped create. These factions were never organically rooted in Pakistan—they are the offspring of CIA and NATO experimentation, now deeply embedded due to Western negligence and duplicity.
The most recent demonstration of this hypocrisy occurred in May 2025. The Indian government blamed Pakistan for an attack in Pahalgam without offering any credible evidence. Rather than seeking investigation or international mediation, India launched a barrage of missile strikes into Pakistani territory on May 5—targeting civilian areas, killing innocents, and flagrantly violating international law.
This aggression was not an isolated incident. It was the latest installment in India’s longstanding propaganda campaign falsely portraying Pakistan as a hub of global terrorism. Tragically, this narrative found traction in Western capitals—built on distorted post-9/11 rhetoric rather than fact. To mask their own failures, the West vilified Pakistan, giving India a free pass to act as both executioner and accuser.
But why was India allowed to behave with such impunity? Because it did not act alone.
India’s actions were tacitly enabled by the same Western powers that once turned Pakistan into a breeding ground for Mujahideen fighters. These powers, possessing vast propaganda machines, absolved themselves of blame for financing, training, and deploying terrorists—transferring that blame onto Pakistan. They left Pakistan isolated, forcing it to confront the very threats they helped create, while also branding it as the problem.
The hypocrisy was staggering. Rather than helping Pakistan rehabilitate its image, rebuild its economy, and reconstruct its war-torn infrastructure, the U.S., UK, and broader Western alliance shifted their investments and strategic favor to India. In an effort to contain China, they propped up India diplomatically, militarily, and economically—turning a blind eye to its human rights abuses, its illegal occupation of Kashmir, and its aggressive posturing in the region. India was transformed into a regional bully—handed a license to kill under the false pretense of counter-terrorism.
Had the West fulfilled its moral responsibility and stood by Pakistan when it was wrongly accused of harboring terrorists—just as Pakistan stood with the U.S. during the Cold War and the War on Terror—perhaps the war of May 2025 could have been averted. Had the U.S. sent a clear message that Pakistan’s sovereignty was inviolable, India might have hesitated. Instead, the West’s silence emboldened India to unleash indiscriminate destruction on civilians, women, children, and the elderly.
The blame, therefore, is not India’s alone. It must be shared by those who passively endorsed its aggression—who allowed falsehoods to dictate policy and stood silently as Pakistan was attacked without cause.
The damage to Pakistan goes beyond physical destruction. A generation has grown up under siege—traumatized, militarized, and misunderstood. Extremism and violence were not born in Pakistan; they were seeded through foreign interventions. Pakistan sacrificed its image, its economy, its culture, and its people to fight proxy wars on behalf of others. And in return? Abandonment, blame, and betrayal.
President Trump’s revelations must now be followed by action. The West must assist Pakistan with the same urgency and resources it once devoted to nurturing militancy. This includes intelligence sharing to detect and destroy cross-border training camps, economic aid and debt relief, technological assistance for border surveillance and counter-terrorism, and an end to the false narrative linking Pakistan with terror.
Most crucially, it requires standing with Pakistan during crises—not passively observing or, worse, aligning with its aggressors.
Trump’s truth bombs are more than a historical reckoning—they are a moral wake-up call. The West created this quagmire. It must now take responsibility for helping Pakistan escape it. India’s false narrative can no longer dictate Western policy. Pakistan must be recognized not as a suspect, but as a victim—and above all, a partner in the pursuit of peace.
Pakistan stood with the West when it mattered most. Now it is time for the West to stand with Pakistan—not with hollow rhetoric, but with tangible support and principled solidarity.
Only then can we say that justice—long delayed—is no longer denied.
Pakistan News
May 16: A Day of Victory, Unity, and Gratitude

Paris (Imran Y. CHOUDHRY) :- Former Press Secretary to the President, Former Press Minister to the Embassy of Pakistan to France, Former MD, SRBC Mr. Qamar Bashir analysis : The war, triggered by unprovoked Indian aggression on May 7, concluded decisively in Pakistan’s favor by May 10. In just four days, Pakistan—through unmatched unity, strategic brilliance, and unwavering faith—shattered the illusion of regional hegemony and emerged triumphant on military, technological, and moral fronts. Now, on May 16, the entire Pakistani nation—joined in spirit by the global Muslim community and peace-loving nations worldwide—commemorates this triumph with prayers, humility, and a renewed resolve to defend peace, dignity, and sovereignty against all aggression.
This was not merely a military victory—it was a moral, spiritual, and technological triumph. It marked the vindication of decades of resilience, the reward for unshakeable unity, and the blessing of divine support that carried the nation through a storm not of its choosing. It was, we believe, not only the help of Allah Almighty but also the spiritual approval, blessings, and support of our beloved Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) that guided and protected the people of Pakistan.
Pakistan did not seek war. It did not provoke. Yet aggression was imposed by a neighbor long harboring hegemonic ambitions and delusions of grandeur. Armed with a bloated ego and far greater military, economic, and human resources, India assumed it could subjugate a nation it mistakenly deemed weak and divided.
But this time, the script did not follow their expectations.
When war broke out on May 7, 2025, it was Pakistan—the so-called underdog—that stood with clarity and purpose. And when the war ended in humiliation for the aggressor, it was Pakistan that emerged with honor, unity, and humility intact.
As missiles flew and fighter jets roared through the skies, something even more powerful unfolded within Pakistan: a nationwide unification of spirit. All political, religious, ethnic, and regional divides vanished. Pakistan stood as one—unshakable in purpose and united in resolve.
From political leaders across the divide to military commanders in war rooms, from soldiers in trenches to engineers in command centers, from mothers in prayer to diplomats on global media platforms, the nation moved like a single organism. Social media activists, journalists, analysts, veterans, youth, women, and men all became an army of truth-tellers. They countered false narratives with facts, logic, and passion, dismantling the enemy’s propaganda in real time. It wasn’t just a military front—it was a national front.
The war revealed the brilliance of Pakistan’s strategic capabilities. Despite limited resources and less expensive equipment, our armed forces outperformed expectations and embarrassed a technologically superior foe.
The Pakistan Air Force, with fewer and less costly jets but superior skill, executed aerial maneuvers that left international analysts awestruck. Our pilots evaded advanced radar, outmaneuvered India’s much-touted defense systems, and neutralized the highly acclaimed Rafales, Su-30s, MiG-29s, and even the S-400 air defense system.
Meanwhile, Pakistan’s cyber warriors intercepted and disrupted India’s missile control systems. As a result, many Indian missiles self-destructed mid-air, misfired on their own territory, or landed harmlessly in Pakistan’s empty deserts. It wasn’t magic—it was the result of meticulous preparation, relentless training, and indigenous innovation.
Pakistan’s three military branches, missile engineers, cyber analysts, and defense strategists operated in perfect coordination. Their synergy ensured that our missiles hit their targets with devastating precision, while Indian weapons turned into little more than expensive fireworks. This conflict proved that true technological edge lies not in budget, but in professionalism, expertise, training, and mastery of modern warfare.
Yet, every war is fought not only at borders but in the hearts of the people. And in this war, the hearts of the Pakistani people were stronger than steel. I recall asking my sister—whose son, Muhammad Ali, was preparing to join the Air Force as an engineer—if she feared losing him in battle. Her response still echoes in my mind: “Not only him. If I had more sons, I would send each one of them to defend our motherland.”
That sentiment resonated across the nation. Parents wept but did not hesitate. Women contributed through prayers, volunteering, and keeping national morale high. Children displayed fearlessness, and elders raised their hands in fervent supplication. The spirit of sacrifice extended far beyond the battlefield—it permeated every home.
Pakistan did not stand alone. The entire Muslim world extended moral and diplomatic support. Though Pakistan did not request material assistance, the solidarity from brotherly nations became a powerful moral shield. It was a collective declaration: Pakistan is not alone.
When a journalist asked China’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson whether Beijing would support Pakistan, the answer was unequivocal: “We stand by Pakistan like an iron wall. We will take all necessary measures to protect its sovereignty, dignity, and territorial integrity.” This firm affirmation sent a clear message to the world: Pakistan is not isolated. It is respected, and its cause is seen as just.
As Indian planes fell and their missiles misfired, Pakistan’s diplomats took center stage across global media. They calmly dismantled India’s narrative, laid out the facts, and reminded the world that Pakistan was not the aggressor—it was the victim of unprovoked hostility. The moral high ground remained firmly with Pakistan.
International media took notice. Major outlets condemned India’s recklessness. Analysts questioned its motives and highlighted the emptiness of its justifications. The myth of Indian military invincibility crumbled—not merely through brute force, but through a united, truth-speaking nation backed by ethics, professionalism, and courage.
And so, on May 16, 2025, the nation celebrates—not with arrogance, but with humility. We do not rejoice in destruction, but in the defense of our honor. We do not glorify war—we honor the peace that was preserved through sacrifice. We do not boast—we give thanks.
We thank Allah Almighty, whose unseen help turned fear into courage, division into strength, and defense into victory. And we thank our beloved Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him), whose eternal guidance, blessings, and spiritual support inspire courage, discipline, and justice in every Muslim heart. We thank our mothers, fathers, and children. We thank our scientists and engineers. We thank our pilots, soldiers, cyber warriors, and strategists. We thank our friends and allies—and above all, we thank the people of Pakistan.
Across the country, prayers will be offered. Seminars will be held. Lessons from this victory will be taught in schools and remembered in homes—not as a tale of conquest, but as a story of resolve, righteousness, and resilience.
We reaffirm that Pakistan is not an aggressor. We have never invaded another nation, nor will we ever provoke war. We believe in peaceful coexistence, regional stability, and mutual respect. But when our sovereignty, dignity, or survival is threatened, the world now knows what we are capable of.
We do not fight for conquest—we fight for our right to exist. And when we fight with unity, faith and discipline, even the mightiest aggressor will stumble.
So today, we stand proud—but humble. Victorious—but peaceful. Thankful—but prepared.
May Allah continue to guide and protect our nation, and may the blessings and example of Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) continue to illuminate our path.
Pakistan News
Historic Ties and Academic Excellence Highlighted in Dr. Aliya Rehman’s Visit to Islamia College

Principal MAO College Lahore Prof Dr Aliya Rehman Sahiba visited Govt Islamia Graduate College Civil Lines Lahore (21-5-2025). She appreciated the sports achievements and Maps designed and displayed by Prof Riaz Barki and Dr Jabbar sahib of the Geography Department.



She expressed her deep interest in the history of Punjab. Knowing about Great freedom fighter Bhagat Singh and Samadhis of the female family members of Maharaja Ranjit Singh she was surprised and asked so many queries about the historical aspects of this College. Dr Akhtar Sandhu presented book and the College magazine Faran to Dr Aliya Rehman.
-
Europe News3 months ago
Chaos and unproven theories surround Tates’ release from Romania
-
American News3 months ago
Trump Expels Zelensky from the White House
-
Pakistan News2 months ago
Can Pakistan be a Hard State?
-
Politics3 months ago
US cuts send South Africa’s HIV treatment ‘off a cliff’
-
American News3 months ago
Zelensky bruised but upbeat after diplomatic whirlwind
-
American News3 months ago
Trump expands exemptions from Canada and Mexico tariffs
-
Art & Culture3 months ago
International Agriculture Exhibition held in Paris
-
Art & Culture3 months ago
The Indian film showing the bride’s ‘humiliation’ in arranged marriage