Operation Bunyan-ul-Marsoos was never launched for spectacle. Had that been the objective, Pakistan’s armed forces would have responded with equal vigour after the very first strike instead of waiting out a long-drawn saga that prioritised deterrence and avoided walking into Modi’s mousetrap. More than 30 Indian military targets were hit (interestingly, in broad daylight as opposed to the night before’s cowardly strikes), including divisional command posts, air defence systems, and surveillance infrastructure. Among them, a battery of the much-vaunted S-400 was neutralised-a direct blow to India’s claims of strategic invulnerability. When the ceasefire was finally agreed upon on Saturday afternoon, Pakistan stood not weakened but reinforced. The myth of India’s conventional superiority, long parroted in international commentary, appeared to be collapsing under the weight of battlefield facts. In an 82-to-42 air engagement, Pakistan recorded five confirmed kills. Over 80 Indian and Israeli-built drones were brought down, while Pakistan retained control of its airspace. In the end, doctrine, not volume, emerged as the decisive factor. India’s inability to convert escalation into advantage exposed more than just military gaps. It revealed a fundamental strategic miscalculation. Yet Pakistan must resist the temptation of complacency. Deterrence is not static. This confrontation needs to be translated into institutional reforms: doctrinal evolution, faster inter-service integration, and deeper investment in local defence production. Capability must sustain credibility. Diplomatically, Pakistan navigated the crisis with composure and clarity while India found itself isolated. No major global power echoed its war narrative. The United States, much to the dismay of India’s lobbying efforts, remained neutral, as China and Türkiye openly backed Pakistan’s restraint. Even traditional Indian allies declined to endorse its claims because Islamabad’s measured response and effective outreach ensured it did not lose the information war before winning the military one. That restraint extended to narrative warfare. While India’s media machine collapsed into misinformation and jingoism, Pakistan’s ecosystem-state outlets, independent journalists, and strategic communicators-presented a united, fact-based front. The reputational gap is no longer anecdotal. It is visible, traceable, and increasingly carries diplomatic cost. Perhaps the most significant gain came in an unexpected theatre: Kashmir. After years of Indian efforts to internalise the issue post-Article 370, it has returned to the global agenda. Forums like the UNHRC have resumed references to its disputed status. This opening must not be lost to silence. Pakistan acted with discipline when it could have postured. That is its strength. Strategic maturity (not emotional retaliation) won the day. And in doing so, Pakistan reminded the world, and itself, that its security is safeguarded not only by weapons, but by wisdom. It need not be said that the worst may not be over. Reports continue to surface of India’s ceasefire violations along the working boundary. The last word has yet to be written. But one thing remains tragically constant: the damage small men in oversized offices are capable of. *