The date, February 26th, 2019, became notable as the heavens above Pakistan transformed from an area of calm blue into the setting for airborne tension.
That morning, an unusual sound disrupted the quiet – a deep-throated sound of jet engines, not natural thunder, nor ordinary construction noises, but something clearly hostile, military in nature. I remember the newsroom freezing in place – the hasty morning activities halting, everyone locking eyes on screens, even seasoned journalists stopping mid-thought. The atmosphere itself seemed to grow heavy as initial, unclear reports started to sketch a troubling scenario. Warplanes from India. Border crossed at the Line of Control. Strikes near Balakot, inside Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province. For me, the news was like an electric shock, taking my breath away. Doubt mixed with an immediate, strong sense of purpose – a determination shared, I immediately sensed, throughout Pakistan. It wasn’t uncertainty we felt; it was a sharp, unified inhale prior to the considered, resolute reaction that was to follow. The immediate questions centered not on if Pakistan would act, but how it would, and with what degree of firmness.
Operation Swift Response: Pakistan’s Firm Position and the Unresolved Issues of Balakot
The Indian government quickly presented a narrative of focused precision attacks, describing a “pre-emptive measure” against Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) bases around Balakot. Their story, widely spread across international news outlets, pointed to the Pulwama incident and the necessity to remove perceived terror risks. Statements about destroying JeM’s “largest training center,” eliminating hundreds of alleged militants, resonated across news broadcasts, initially creating a global sense of a powerful blow being delivered.
However, simultaneously, even in those early anxious hours, an opposing view took shape within Pakistan, drawing from confirmed information on the ground and increasing international doubts. Pakistan’s military information wing, ISPR, quickly moved to directly dispute India’s inflated claims. The assessment shared with the public, and subsequently with international audiences, was distinctly different. Yes, airspace was violated. Yes, explosives were dropped in the vicinity of Balakot, specifically in the Jabba region. But the effect?
Limited. Damage restricted to trees within a wooded, sparsely populated area. Sadly, local wildlife in the Jabba forests was affected. However, crucially, and repeatedly asserted by Pakistani sources – no infrastructure of militant camps, no significant loss of life, and plainly, no support for India’s grand declarations of terrorist eradication. Almost immediately, the believability of the Indian account began to weaken under the pressure of accumulating, undeniable facts. This wasn’t merely diplomatic argument; it was a direct clash between exaggerated statements and evident, observable reality.
Evidence Undeniable: Pakistan’s Case Beyond Balakot and the 2019 Air Action Truth
The first substantial challenge to India’s version arose from impartial satellite observation. High-definition satellite images, designed to see past falsehoods and propaganda, presented a strikingly different picture. Reuters, examining imagery from Planet Labs in March 2019, highlighted a clear fact visible from space: no evidence of the widespread destruction India claimed. Defense experts internationally agreed – the satellite data showed no sign of a significant airstrike impacting structures or causing mass casualties. This was not just Pakistani rhetoric; it was satellite-verified, internationally confirmed visual proof contradicting India’s central assertion. Then emerged inconsistencies, gradually but surely, from within the Indian establishment itself. The initial bold claims of 300-500 purported terrorists killed began to lose credibility as high-ranking Indian figures noticeably adjusted their language. Indian Air Chief Marshal B.S. Dhanoa’s comment in June 2019, that “The IAF does not tally human losses, that’s for the government,” indicated official discomfort with the initially inflated numbers.
When a senior BJP minister, S.S. Ahluwalia, then stated plainly in March 2019, “Nobody stated that 300 individuals perished. The government provided no figure,” the carefully constructed narrative began to visibly fall apart. For many observers, it became apparent – the early, inflated casualty claims were unsustainable, detached from reality. The eventual phrase, “we have nothing to show,” in answer to requests for proof of the alleged terrorist casualties, became almost representative of the weakening Indian stance.
Perhaps most compellingly, independent, on-location reporting further undermined the Indian claims. Courageous reporters from the BBC, Al Jazeera, and other global news organizations traveled to Balakot. They inspected the area, interviewed residents, and their reports were consistent and unfavorable to the Indian narrative.
No “biggest training camp” in ruins. No mass graves. No evidence of substantial deaths. Just damaged trees and the quiet resilience of local villagers who affirmed the attack’s minimal impact and denied the presence of any terror base. These reports didn’t originate from biased sources. They came from seasoned journalists, professionals committed to sound methods and the pursuit of objective truth. The undeniable strength of their investigations lay exactly in their direct contradiction of the story being presented by India’s official channels.
Pakistan’s choice to immediately welcome international media and diplomats to Balakot was a clear act of openness, reflecting confidence in the reality on the ground. These groups witnessed firsthand: craters, fallen trees, and nothing beyond that. No destroyed buildings, no signs of a training facility. The international silence that followed from bodies expected to support India’s claims was significant. Lack of supporting evidence became, in itself, evidence.
Independent analyses from US intelligence and respected international publications further contributed to growing doubt. Then, decisive input emerged from abroad: a US intelligence assessment in March 2019 – directly contradicting India’s casualty figures, deeming them unsupported. This wasn’t an isolated viewpoint. Influential media like The New York Times and Foreign Policy, using their own intelligence sources, echoed the same clear conclusion: minimal damage. Objectives unmet. India’s account, increasingly, was dissolving under this weight of independent, informed examination. This was no longer just a regional disagreement; international voices were confirming what Pakistan had maintained from the outset: the Balakot air action was far from the precise, conclusive victory India described. Pakistan’s reply was not confined to private diplomacy; it resonated across the skies: “Operation Swift Response,” initiated scarcely a day after the incursion, on February 27th. No one could misunderstand the message now being sent.
This wasn’t a rushed reaction, no action born of disorganized chaos. Pakistan’s move was deliberate, every detail carefully planned, each target strategically chosen. It conveyed the force of a nation’s deeply insulted honor, a controlled anger communicating violated borders and a determination not to be treated lightly. We, as a nation, were expressing something profound: that Pakistan’s dedication to its own defense was not just stated policy; it was ingrained, unwavering. In Operation Swift Response, the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) wasn’t simply conducting drills; they were embodying national will, striking specific Indian military locations across Jammu and Kashmir with a precision that communicated volumes – areas in Rajouri and Poonch became markers of our steadfast position.
PAF jets locked onto brigade command centers, supply stores, and sectors, even Indian Army Battalion Headquarters in Naushera and Krishna Ghati sectors. However, crucially, and intentionally, these strikes were aimed near – not directly at – sensitive locations. This was a measured display of Pakistan’s aerial capability, a signal of strength, not an act of unchecked hostility or escalation. It was a message, delivered precisely, that Pakistan could reciprocate, but preferred restraint.
During Operation Swift Response, a high-stakes aerial confrontation unfolded. Diplomacy? Suspended. Sky? Violently loud. Beyond just roaring, a full-throated cry of combat. Indian Air Force planes. They didn’t just engage, they aggressively attacked. Targets acquired. Missiles deployed. The atmosphere? Thick with tension. Disorder. Intensity. Aerial battle. More than just a fight. A vicious encounter. Unrestrained. Survival paramount. You can almost imagine the panicked cockpit communications, the pressure on pilots’ faces, the raw aggressiveness of air combat pushed to its furthest limit.
In this raw, unforgiving air conflict, the Pakistan Air Force, with resolute confidence, claimed success. They asserted – and evidence suggested – shooting down two Indian Air Force planes amidst that swirling, fierce fight. The fate of the MiG-21 Bison and its pilot, Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman, became undeniably real when he ejected into Pakistan-administered Kashmir, ending up captured in the territory he had been ordered to breach. Pakistan has maintained its account of also downing a Sukhoi Su-30MKI during that intense aerial clash, a claim strongly denied by India. But the concrete outcomes – the downed MiG-21, the captured pilot Abhinandan – were stark, undeniable punctuations on a day where the PAF stamped its dominance in the most dramatic, and dangerous, manner possible: aerial combat.
Power demonstrated. Message conveyed. But Pakistan’s strategy was not focused on perpetual conflict. De-escalation was the calculated subsequent action. And in a move that resonated internationally, Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman was released – not as a compromise, but as a “peaceful offering.” Strategic move. It spoke powerfully. Strength displayed, yet peace offered. Resolve clear, yet diplomacy prioritized. Globally, the message was received clearly: Pakistan, confident, secure, and unequivocally dedicated to regional stability.
Reflecting on the events of February 2019, the Balakot air action and Operation Swift Response act as a crucial study in crisis. For Pakistan, it was a moment where determination aligned with responsibility, where truth prevailed over amplified claims. The evidence, meticulously gathered and globally validated, revealed the inconsistencies in the Indian narrative. And Pakistan’s measured, strategic reaction, culminating in the peace gesture of releasing Wing Commander Abhinandan, showed a nation resolved to defend itself while concurrently pursuing a more stable, less turbulent region. The skies echoed with conflict, certainly, but subsequently, it was Pakistan’s principled and evidence-backed stance that resonated furthest.
The writer is a freelance columnist.