The recent shooting down of an Indian aircraft by Pakistan, followed by the arrest of its pilot and his subsequent return to India within the shortest possible time showed how rapidly change can occur in international relations. No blood was spilled and no territory occupied; yet Pakistan was victorious in this short-lived aerial conflict. For the first time, a civilian leader, Imran Khan, became a hero for both the countries that were at war. This all happened for two simple reasons; use of peace diplomacy and the release of a captive who had entered the country — not by mistake — but with the intention to attack a target. The hostility that had gripped the people and the leadership of Indian polity after the Pulwama attack turned into a feeling of goodwill towards Pakistan, messages of applauses began pouring in even from celebrities of Indian society who were hurling hate and threat messages earlier. Peace activists in both countries took a sigh of relief and used this peaceful diplomacy as an example to prove that good gestures and not warmongering can win the hearts and minds of the people. While the people of India were jubilant that the bloodlust had subsided, the Indian government was going through a phase of embarrassment because their ‘surgical strike’ had failed. For a country that has been aspiring to be one of the regional powers, it was a most discomforting experience to have no solid proof to offer in support of their claim. Meanwhile, the country with fewer resources and statures in many respects had undeniable proofs in their hands to prove their claims. Experiences of every war leave certain lessons that may become a turning point for the warring nations. The experiences of crusades (religious wars to recover holy lands from the Muslims) led Europe to usher in the Renaissance. World War II taught the warring nations to pursue peace instead of war. What positive or negative effects will the latest Pak-India conflict have on the policies of the two beleaguered nations are too early to predict, but one thing appears to be very convincing, and that is that the future policy of India is going to be more focused on revamping their ageing fleet and replenishing their ammunition stock to avert this kind of embarrassment in the future. The future policy of India is going to be more focused on revamping their ageing fleet and replenishing their ammunition stock to avert this kind of embarrassment in the future Commenting on the downing of the IAF aircraft in Pakistan, Indian Prime Minister (PM) Narendra Modi said, “Today, we badly felt the absence of Rafale fighter jets [in our air force fleet]. If we had Rafale, the scenario would have been different.” A realisation that couldn’t yield any support from the Indian opposition but a lawmaker and member of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Defense, Gaurav Gogoi, did admit lack of modernization of Indian army and its assets as causes for the failed operation, “Our troops lack modern equipment, but they have to conduct 21st-century military operations.” According to reports, 68 percent of the Indian army’s equipment is so old, it is officially considered vintage. In a recent move, the Indian Defense Ministry has recently approved the first batch of long-pending reform measures in the Indian Army that is expected to make the 1.3 million Indian force leaner and meaner as well as enhance its combat capabilities. All these observations and comments of Indian authorities are indicative of a recognition that is an outcome of their latest debacle with Pakistan and most of them are pointing towards the need of bringing improvement in their combat capabilities. To overcome this weakness, India will have no option other than to go on a shopping spree for military hardware and thus trigger an arms race that will pull in its rival, Pakistan in this case, to follow the suit because of the fear of repercussions that may result if they lag behind. Being a neighbour of a hostile country, Pakistan already spends a higher percentage of its GDP on its military expenses than India. Over the last decade (2007-17), India annually spent an average of 2.5 percent of its GDP on its military while Pakistan’s military expenditures stood at around 3.3 percent of its GDP. The border areas guarded by Indian force (13798 km) are twice the size of the border areas (7257 km) guarded by Pakistan Army. Currently, India has an army of 1.3 million persons and its total population is 1.3 billion which means there are 100 thousand army personnel for every 100 million persons of its total population. Pakistan, on the other hand, has 300 thousand army personnel for every 100 million persons of its population (0.6 million army personnel for a population of 200 million). A former Indian defence ministry financial adviser for military acquisitions, Amit Cowshish, made a remark on Indian Defense Budget’s rationality deserves to be quoted here, “The thrust of this government is to focus more on economic development, which has to precede military strength,” said Amit Cowshish. “That was what China did – they focused on developing their economy and then focused on acquiring their current military stature.” If the current experience of India in the aerial fight with Pakistan leads them to divert their focus to arms upgrades, the resultant effects of such a policy change would lead to the beginning of an arms race between India and Pakistan. The first victim of this race would be the developmental programs and the next would be the dream of peaceful coexistence as the tolerance level may become too fragile once the piles of arms get accumulated and the issues that have been the cause of conflicts remain unresolved. It is generally believed that the ultimate beneficiaries of war are the countries that sell arms and not those who fight it. Sound very logical but historically speaking logics and principles remain impractical if ground realities don’t support them. The two great ideological countries, Soviet Union and China, had parted their ways when a territorial dispute became more important than their ideals of working class unity. To deter the suspected expansionist design of the Soviet Union, China didn’t hesitate to develop its relation with USA whom they always considered an arch rival of their communist ideology. As long as Pakistan and India fail to address their disputes through dialogues, the option of war will remain the only means to settle them. The arms sellers and non-state-actors will use the hostile environment as an opportunity to play their games while the desire for peace will become a far cry. Freelance journalist and Senior Fellow Researcher, Center for Research and Security Studies