In the aftermath of the intense and consequential Four-Day War of May 25, a distorted narrative has emerged from Indian quarters, claiming that the conflict pitted India not just against Pakistan, but against the shadowy hand of Chinese military support. This portrayal is more than just misleading—it is a deliberate attempt to manipulate public perception and conceal uncomfortable truths. The reality is far more sobering: Pakistan stood its ground itself, fighting with indigenous systems and limited resources, against the resources of five technologically advanced powers that provided India with direct operational support.
The assertion of Chinese involvement is an exercise in strategic distraction. By invoking China as the invisible aggressor, India aims to rationalize to its domestic audience how a country many times smaller—Pakistan—could have held its own so effectively. The Indian public, fed for years on the rhetoric of regional dominance, finds it difficult to reconcile the notion of military defeat from Pakistan. To maintain the illusion of superiority, New Delhi has found it convenient to insert Beijing into the equation—not because of any substantiated battlefield role by China, but because blaming a global power is more palatable than acknowledging Pakistan’s outright victory through its resilience and capability.
Here, it will not be out of place to mention the relevant portion of General Sahir Shamshad Mirza’s interview to BBC published by the Express Tribune on June 03, 2025 as below:
“Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee, General Sahir Shamshad Mirza, told BBC that Pakistan fought the recent 96-hour conflict with India using only its own resources.
His remarks counter reports from Indian media claiming China’s military assistance to Pakistan during the clash between the two nuclear-armed neighbours last month.
General Mirza emphasised that Pakistan used equipment comparable to India’s and procured some military hardware from other countries.”
It is important to set the record straight. There was no confirmed deployment of Chinese troops, no battlefield engagement by the PLA. This rhetorical smokescreen serves to obscure the fact that it was Pakistan—relying primarily on its own domestically produced JF-17 Thunder fighter jets, Fateh-I and Fateh-II MLRS which in itself was the outcome of Pakistan’s efforts to shift the reliance of its armed forces from foreign arms to domestic weaponry. The Ministry of Defense Production had revealed a project initiated between 2015-2016 which it said was aimed to develop an “extended range MLRS” with teams from Global Industrial Defense Solutions leading the R&D program, homegrown operational doctrines, and national resolve—that stood in defense of its sovereignty.
What remains largely unspoken in mainstream discourse is the sheer scale of foreign military backing India enjoyed during the conflict. Far from being isolated or self-reliant, India drew strength from the direct and indirect support of five major powers—the United States, Israel, Russia, France, and Sweden—each contributing critical assets that tilted the balance of capability in India’s favor.
The United States played a pivotal role through the Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement (BECA), supplying real-time geospatial intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance data that significantly enhanced India’s situational awareness. This high-end support gave India a strategic advantage in anticipating and intercepting Pakistani movements.
Israel contributed through a combination of drone/UAV’s surveillance and attack, electronic warfare systems, and AI-enabled battlefield software. Reports also suggest the involvement of Israeli-trained personnel embedded within Indian operational units, amplifying the precision and effectiveness of India’s strikes.
The India-Israel military nexus, long in the making, appeared to reach a new peak during this conflict. Many observers noted that Israel may have viewed this as an opportunity to express gratitude to India for its political and logistical alignment during the Gaza conflict that erupted after October 7. Indian media and international reports carried images of armed Indian volunteers and individuals operating in Israeli combat zones—some reportedly involved in acts of violence against unarmed Palestinian civilians, including children. These images sparked global outrage and raised serious legal and ethical questions, particularly in the context of growing allegations of genocide and war crimes. India’s visible partnership with Israel during that period may well have influenced Tel Aviv’s enthusiastic support for New Delhi in the South Asian theatre.
Russia’s contribution was evident in the deployment of advanced platforms like the S-400 air defense system, Su-30MKI fighters, and MiG-29 aircraft, nuclear submarine and aircraft carrier. These assets extended India’s air denial and other military capabilities and added weight to its offensive power.
France provided its latest-generation Rafale jets, armed with Meteor air-to-air and SCALP cruise missiles, alongside the older but upgraded Mirage 2000s. These aircraft formed a core component of India’s deep-strike and air dominance strategy during the conflict.
To this list must be added Sweden, the fifth supporting power. While not directly engaged in operations, Sweden’s long-standing provision of Bofors artillery systems gave India critical firepower that played a significant role in the ground campaign.
In stark contrast, Pakistan fought without a support network. Its capabilities were based on self-reliance—JF-17 and few J-10C fighters, strategic restraint, and a united defense command structure. Despite overwhelming odds, Pakistan held firm, illustrating not just operational resilience but moral clarity in the face of aggressive coalition tactics.
This shifting dynamic makes it clear: India today is not just a regional actor, but a hub of a larger, increasingly militarized axis. For Pakistan, this evolution requires recalibrated defense policies, more robust diplomatic outreach, and a firm commitment to narrative clarity.
Most urgent is the task of correcting falsehoods. Letting the Indian version dominate the international discourse is not merely a reputational issue—it distorts the geopolitical reality. Pakistan must actively tell its side of the story: that it stood alone, unassisted, and unflinching, against a multinational bloc intent on overwhelming it. Truth, after all, is not just a strategic asset—it is a shield against erasure.
By: Syed Nayyar Uddin Ahmad
nayyarahmad51@gmail.com The writer is a senior corporate leader and strategic analyst. His thought-provoking visionary insights have reshaped global discourse, capturing the attention of world leaders. His writings have not only resonated with heads of state and governments but have also influenced the foreign policies of the United States and other major powers.
