WHO won and who lost in a war or a conflict between two or more nations is a question that is not often easily answered, especially in a limited military contest fought with long-range weapons where two sides inflict pain on each other from a distance, without actually crossing over into and holding one another`s territory.

In the recent Pakistan-India (hyphenated they are whether the Modi-Jaishanker duo likes it or not) military exchange, not only did Pakistan signal its victory by conferring the title of `field marshal` on the army chief, Asim Munir, but went beyond the signalling with its leaders sayingthatthe1971defeathadbeen avenged.

Of course, like with all things that have to do with the evolving hybrid power structure in the country, it wasn`t clear who was supposed to hand over the baton of field marshal to the army chief as both the president and prime minister were on the podium during the Aiwan-i-Sadr ceremony. In any case, a win it was.

The loser in the conflict had to content itself with announcing a `pause`. It`s important to understand you don`t pause anything if you are on a winning streak. Having very comprehensively lost, for once, the battle on two fronts, a pause appeared to be the best option.

The first front was following the Pahalgam terrorist attack in late April where more than two dozen unarmed civilians, with one exception all Hindu tourists, were mowed down by unidentified gunmen who seemed to disappear without a trace in a part of the world with one of the highest security personnel to population ratios.

India attempted to blame Pakistan for the attack within hours, if not minutes, of the incident and at a time when the US vice president was on a visit to India. New Delhi`s inability to provide any evidence to those who it wanted onside particularly the US and other Western nations, backfired as not one country agreed Pakistan was to blame, while roundly condemningthe terrorist strike.

Perhaps their own intelligence assessments told these nations the truth, which was different from the Indian version.

And the second front was the disastrous air campaign in which `stand-off weapons` were fired from Indian Air Force (IAF) warplanesthat remained on the Indian side of the Line of Control and the Working Boundary and the international border further south between the two countries.

While India managed to hit some mosques and the residences within their compounds in Azad Kashmir and in Muridke and Bahawalpur in mainland Pakistan and claimed a big win against the `LeT and JeM terrorist infrastructure`, the Pakistan Air Force retaliated and shot down a number of their warplanes, including the IAF`s pride, the $250 million-a-piece Rafale, with Chinese weapons. The world`s media lapped up the story.

Had Prime Minister Narendra Modi`s pride not been badly mauled by the loss of the narra-tives war, followed by the downing of IAF planes, perhaps a de-escalation would have come earlier and not at the behest of the US. Smarting from the twin setbacks, India upped the ante and deployed dual-use (conventional and nuclear) BrahMos missiles to target Pakistani military bases.

While Pakistan showed restraint in retaliating with regular short-range artillery missiles and PAF weapons, and did not deploy a single dual-use missile from its strategic forces command arsenal, I have it on good authority that the US and UK were informed by the highest level of Pakistan`s military and intelligence leadership that India`s deployment and use of dual-use missiles was an irresponsible and unacceptable escalation.

The Indian attempt at setting a `new normal` with Pakistan appears to have been a failure.

But Pakistan`s strategists would do well to keep in mind the size of the Indian economy and its defence spending and foreign exchange reserves.

The Hindu nationalist leadership will again tryand push for its new normal of blaming and attacking Pakistan for its own intelligence failures and/ or for electioneering purposes.

The danger for Pakistan is not to fall into the trap that spelled disaster for the Soviet Union when Ronald Reagan unveiled his Strategic Defence Initiative or Star Wars plan as it was called. The resultant increase in Soviet defence expenditure had terrible consequences for the USSR`s e conomy.

Pakistan will have to prudently manage its defence spending and leverage its relationship with China which, since India rather foolishly and pretentiously joined the US-led Quad partnership aimed at encircling the People`s Republic, has grown ever stronger.

It isn`t clear if in the recent China trip, Deputy Prime Minister Ishaq Dar`s delegation had a defence component, but one can be sure Pakistan`s military needs in the light of the recent Indian aggression must have been discussed.

India`s `pause` gives it an opportunity to assess its failures and losses and to try and ensure that these deficiencies are removed for any future campaign to reinforce its revocation of Article 370 of its constitution and the unilateral annexation of India-held Kashmir.

In Pakistan, there is a lot of speculation that China is accelerating its planned delivery of the fifth generation stealth J-35 warplane. Equally, Pakistan will have assessed what it needs to further its formidable missile defence shield and to consolidate on its reported edge in electronic warfare. These matters are best left to the experts.

A vital aspect will be the price tag. A country steeped in so much poverty needs poverty alleviation and delivery of social services to the have-nots at a mass scale and on a war footing. If India expresses no interest in the ideal, a peaceful resolution of disputes and living as good neighbours, defence needs will remain a priority too. If Pakistan can find a balance between these two musts and move ahead it can make a justifiable claim to being a winner. • The wnter is a former editor of Dawn.

abbas.nasir @hotmail.com