In a recent salvo, Ex-Commodore Sajid Shehzad Mehmood remarked that India’s investment in nuclear submarines is a misguided pursuit—that New Delhi would do well to prioritize its poverty over defence spending. Such admonitions, often laced with claims of supposed superiority, are far from new. Yet, historically, these very statements have only reinforced India’s resolve and widened the gap between the two nations’ military and economic standings.
For India, the need for strategic autonomy became apparent after the Partition in 1947. While the British had left the Indian military well-equipped for regional security, their sudden departure threw both India and Pakistan into a precarious state, each struggling with borders and new identities. The first test of this reality came almost immediately in 1947-48, when Pakistan launched an invasion of Kashmir. Ill-prepared and newly independent, India nonetheless mobilized to push back Pakistani forces, ultimately securing Kashmir with a U.N.-brokered ceasefire line. These early encounters set a pattern that would repeat itself over the decades: each time Pakistan tested India’s defences, India responded by bolstering its military capabilities.
By 1965, Pakistan’s leaders, emboldened by a perceived superiority in arms supplied by the United States, launched Operation Grand Slam to seize Kashmir. Then-President Ayub Khan’s bold rhetoric of a “breakfast in Jaisalmer, lunch in Jodhpur, and tea in Delhi” proved hollow. India, unexpectedly resilient, counter-attacked and reached the outskirts of Lahore. Pakistan’s ambitions were frustrated, with historians noting how close India came to an outright victory. The war’s end saw Pakistan nursing a bruised ego, its bold strategy undermined by a realization that India was stronger than anticipated.
The next defining encounter came in 1971, during the Bangladesh Liberation War. Pakistan’s military, once again confident in its superiority, sought to maintain its grip on East Pakistan, where the local population was clamouring for independence under Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. India’s military, learning from the costly 1965 campaign, had modernized and coordinated across land, air, and sea. Under ‘Operation Trident’ and ‘Operation Python,’ the Indian Navy launched a two-pronged assault on Karachi, decimating Pakistan’s navy and leaving its crucial oil reserves in flames. Meanwhile, General A. A. K. Niazi’s audacious claim that “One Pakistani soldier is equivalent to ten Indian soldiers” soon backfired. By mid-December, he was forced to sign the Instrument of Surrender, marking one of the most decisive and humbling defeats in modern military history. The loss of East Pakistan, which became the independent nation of Bangladesh, was a seismic blow that left Pakistan with deep scars.
Nuclear development became the next frontier in this uneasy rivalry. After India’s ‘Smiling Buddha’ nuclear test in 1974, Pakistan accelerated its efforts, resulting in a covert nuclear weapons program that went public with testing in 1998. While Pakistan boasts of tactical nuclear capabilities today, India has developed a more sophisticated nuclear doctrine, with an emphasis on a credible, second-strike capability that includes nuclear-powered submarines. Such deterrence ensures India’s readiness not only for regional stability but also to defend its interests in the broader Indo-Pacific region, a sphere far beyond Pakistan’s current reach.
Turning to the economic realm, India’s trajectory has mirrored its defence evolution. From economic liberalization in 1991, India’s economy surged, attracting foreign investment, diversifying its industries, and fostering an ambitious middle class. With a $3.9 trillion GDP, India is now the world’s fifth-largest economy, while Pakistan’s $375 billion GDP languishes in debt, with the state increasingly reliant on external bailouts from institutions like the International Monetary Fund. India’s diverse economic portfolio, bolstered by a thriving tech industry, places it among the world’s most dynamic markets; by contrast, Pakistan’s economy remains heavily agrarian and vulnerable to global commodity price swings.
Maharashtra, India’s most industrialized state, has an economy larger than Pakistan’s entire GDP, a reflection of the divergence in economic might. Pakistan’s struggles with inflation, a volatile currency, and limited foreign reserves have compounded its woes, as evidenced by the recent images of citizens scrambling for basic necessities like wheat flour. India, on the other hand, continues to build an aspirational middle class, lifting nearly 270 million people out of poverty over the last decade, according to the U.N. Development Programme.
Pakistan’s rhetoric often masks an unease with its neighbour’s strides. Recent statements from its leadership suggest a kind of psychological defence mechanism, a tendency to downplay India’s successes while overstating their own. Yet as history has shown, such rhetoric only galvanizes India further, driving it to new heights. Today, India is globally acknowledged as both a military and economic powerhouse, a nation that has built resilience through prudence and perseverance. Its navy stands among the few blue-water fleets capable of extended missions, its economy an anchor of stability in a world rife with financial volatility.
Psychologists might say that boasting belies a sense of inferiority; history, in turn, reveals its futility. For India, actions have spoken louder than words, a dictum the world now acknowledges. Rather than chest-thumping, India’s record speaks for itself, while Pakistan’s bluster serves as an unintended but effective motivator. And for this reason, India marches forward, confident in the quiet strength born from enduring challenges rather than merely proclaiming them.
(The author is a motivational speaker. Views personal.)
Comments