THE recent military confrontation between Pakistan and India in May 2025 has not only intensified regional tensions but also imposed an extraordinary financial cost—one that underscores the immense risks of conflict between two nuclear-armed nations.
Over the course of just four days of military engagement, both countries are estimated to have lost an astonishing $1 billion per hour, translating to $20 billion per day, with India bearing the overwhelming majority of the losses.
“India has a much larger army, a bigger air force and more expensive weaponry.
Once they start moving, it costs them 12 to 20 times more than it costs Pakistan,”
A Comparison of War Costs: Estimates suggest that India accounted for approximately 80–85% of the total economic losses, while Pakistan’s share remained limited to around 15–20%.
Specifically, Pakistan is believed to have lost up to $4 billion per day, while India incurred losses reaching $16 billion daily, owing largely to the scale and cost of its military mobilization and advanced weaponry.
India’s military posture comes at a much higher price, given its deployment of expensive platforms such as the French-made Rafale jets, which cost $240 million each.
With an overall investment of $16 billion into this fleet alone, the burden on India’s defense budget is significant.
In contrast, Pakistan has opted for more economically viable options, such as the JF-17 Thunder and J-10C, priced between $20–25 million per unit, ensuring a more efficient allocation of resources.
In terms of missile usage, India’s reliance on high-cost systems such as the BrahMos, priced at $3 million apiece, adds further strain.
Firing even 10 missiles daily would result in $30 million in expenditure each day on missiles alone.
Pakistan, while maintaining an effective response, demonstrated far greater cost control in its operations.
Had the conflict extended for a month, the combined financial toll could have reached $500 billion, with India potentially losing over $400 billion.
For countries grappling with developmental challenges, such an economic setback is both damaging and deeply unsustainable.
Economic Fallout and Investor Confidence: The military confrontation triggered temporary market volatility in both countries.
Yet, while India’s markets suffered from prolonged uncertainty, Pakistan’s economic resilience was reflected in the Pakistan Stock Exchange’s historic rally, which saw the highest single-day gain in 26 years—an increase of over 10,000 points, or 9.45%, immediately after the ceasefire.
Pakistan contained the conflict within its fiscal limits, requiring no external aid.
Economic activity remained stable—markets stayed open, trade routes functioned and supplies were unaffected.
Military spending was estimated at a manageable $1.5 billion, reflecting strategic discipline.
In contrast, India’s economic ambitions suffered, with the conflict weakening its appeal as a global investment hub and exposing its financial vulnerabilities.
A Case for Peace and Prudence: The May 2025 conflict shows that military escalation between unequal neighbours yields no real gain.
India’s aggressive approach led to heavier losses, while Pakistan’s restraint, efficient strategy and economic discipline safeguarded stability.
With 27% of the world’s poor in both nations, it is time to replace confrontation with economic cooperation.
Pakistan’s balanced response proved that prudence and preparedness can outweigh provocation.
—The writer is contributing columnist, based in Islamabad. (tariqali@hsa.edu.pk)
