12. Dr Usman W. Chohan-Cost-War-Ind-Oped thumbnail-April-2025-AP

Has the Indian leadership worked out the magnitude of damage that would be wrought on India’s economy if it were to initiate a war with Pakistan?

A macroeconomic analysis by the Centre for Aerospace & Security Studies (CASS) indicates that a four-week conventional war would incur USD 750 billion in economic losses to India — three-fourths of a trillion dollars in just four weeks. This analysis echoes the findings of a previous study made during the height of the 2019 India-Pakistan standoff, which found that India’s losses over such a period would have exceeded half a trillion dollars — USD 500 billion at a minimum back then. This would not be a trifling sum by any means for an economy that had not reached even 3 trillion US dollars at that time and which is now approaching USD 4.2 trillion. With the exception of the COVID-19 Pandemic that was very poorly handled by the Indian government, India’s economy has grown larger, and so too have its economic stakes in the event of a confrontation with any neighbour.

The multifactor macroeconomic model used in both studies (2025 post-Pahalgam and 2019 post-Pulwama) assessed aggregate output categories of consumption, government spending (civilian and military), investment, and foreign receipts, with key subcategories within each factor calculated and then normalised on a monthly basis. It was cautioned in 2019 that, if the damage were to approach anywhere near this mark, India would have faced a GDP decline of nearly 20 per cent, and a similar proportion today as well. This is an amount seldom seen in recent history, except in the cases of catastrophic economic dissolution as experienced in Argentina (2001) and Greece (2011) during peacetime, and Iraq (2003) and Libya (2011) in wartime. Even countries hit by the worst of COVID-19 would not countenance such destruction.

The greater number of roughly USD 750 billion today (3/4 of a trillion dollars) should not be surprising when seen in light of the nature of tallying the damage of war. A costing exercise of this sort is not merely a question of cheques issued by a government as war spending, but rather an estimation of the catastrophe arising from disrupted or destroyed human lives, military hardware, property, projects, markets, savings, morale, psychology, and any semblance of sanity in society.

At a time when India is aiming to draw greater investment from around the world, and negotiating tariffs, how would the course of fixed capital and financial investment proceed in the midst of a full-blown conventional war with a neighbour? How would economic activity maintain the semblance of normalcy? The damage to retail activity, to FDI, infrastructure projects, to internal and external commerce would be incomparably worse than even the darkest periods of South Asian history. This does not even begin to touch the ultimate fear — that of a very limited nuclear exchange, since the loss in that instance would be near-incalculable and long-term.

As we had noted previously, citing a 2019 example of how quickly losses are incurred in modern warfare, the reckless employment of the Indian Air force in operations when the Pakistan Air Force shot down two Indian fighters and a fratricide helicopter downed resulted in a loss of over USD 100 million in less than ten minutes of air action. As such, the ultimate figure in the study helps to frame India’s risks and stakes as a deterrent to further violence and conflict. As India’s economy has grown, so too has the glass house in which it sits. The dividends of India’s GDP growth on paper have gone almost exclusively to the top 5% of their society, with the bottom 51% majority holding barely  3 per cent of all economic assets. India has 1.2 billion poor people, and barely 2 million high income individuals, and the thin stratum of ‘middle class’ is calculated at an income of just USD 10 per day.

It is those teeming masses who would suffer the most as the Indian establishment works its people into a war frenzy that would cause devastation at the levels we have modelled out, if not worse. Yet the Indian jingoism of its ‘Billionaire Raj’ elite is fanning a hysteria after Pahalgam on their media that would annihilate their economic futures. They are threatening the water security of the region and playing fast and loose with longstanding water agreements that help address the requirements of nearly one billion people in the northern section of the subcontinent.

As it stands, India does not enjoy stable relations of trust with any of its neighbours, but as with the previous study, the updated calculation bolsters the very same claim: that peace must prevail in South Asia, for without it, the region cannot realise its full economic potential — certainly not while its largest member, India, repeatedly absolves itself of its responsibilities to its people, to its neighbours, and to the world at large.

Cooler heads must prevail, and India must dispassionately examine the consequences of three generations of militarised occupation of Jammu and Kashmir for its own future. With 1.5 million military and paramilitary personnel to tyrannize the Kashmiri people, and only to find the Kashmiris still mustering resistance to Indian atrocities, the futility of Indian policies requires a sober revision to move beyond imbroglios. Operation Swift Retort is a firm reminder of India’s failures and follies. The Indian leadership must be mindful of this and urge for peace and confidence-building, with mutual economic prosperity in mind. That is the only way through which the economic potential of the region can be redeemed and assured in the future.

Dr Usman W. Chohan is Advisor (Economic Affairs and National Development) at the Centre for Aerospace & Security Studies, Islamabad, Pakistan. The article was first published in The Nation. He can be reached at [email protected].


Share this article

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

Recent Publications

Browse through the list of recent publications.

The Cover-up: IAF Narrative of the May 2025 Air Battle

Even after one year since the India-Pakistan May war of 2025, the Indian discourse regarding Operation Sindoor remains uncertain under its pretence of restraint. The Pahalgam attack on 22 April, which killed 26 people, triggered an escalatory spiral. New Delhi quickly accused Pakistan-linked elements, while Islamabad refuted the allegation and demanded an independent investigation. On 7 May, India launched attacks deep inside Pakistan under what it later termed as Operation Sindoor. The political motive was intended to turn the crisis into coercive signalling by shifting the blame onto the enemy and projecting a sense of military superiority.
This episode, however, began to fray immediately as war seldom follows the intended script. Within minutes PAF shot down 7 IAF aircraft including 4 Rafales. On 8 May, Reuters reported that at least two Indian aircraft were shot down by a Pakistani J-10C, while the local government sources reported other aircraft crashes in Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir

Read More »

Why the IAF’s Post-Sindoor Spending Surge is a Sign of Panic

After Operation Sindoor, India is spending billions of dollars on new weapons. This is being taken by many people as an indication of military prowess. It is not. This rush to procure weapons is in fact an acknowledgement that the Air Force in India had failed to do what it was meant to do. The costly jets and missiles that India had purchased over the years failed to yield the promised results.

Sindoor was soon followed by India in sealing the gaps which the operation had exposed. It was reported that Indian Air Force (IAF) is looking to speed up its purchases of more than 7 billion USD. This will involve other Rafale fighter jets with India already ordering 26 more Rafales to the Navy in 2024 at an estimated cost of about 3.9 billion USD. India is also seeking long-range standoff missiles, Israeli loitering munitions and increased drone capabilities. Special financial powers of the Indian military were activated to issue emergency procurement orders. The magnitude and rate of these purchases speak volumes.

Indian media and defence analysts have over the years considered the Rafale as a game changer. When India purchased 36 Rafales aircrafts at an approximate cost of 8.7 billion USD, analysts vowed that the aircraft would provide India with air superiority over Pakistan. Operation Sindoor disproved all those allegations. Indian aircraft did not even fly in Pakistani airspace when the fighting started. India solely depended on standoff weapons that were launched at a safe distance. The air defence system of Pakistan, comprising of the HQ-9 surface-to-air missile system and its own fighters, stood its ground.

Read More »

May 2025: Mosaic Warfare and the Myth of Centralised Air Power

Visualise a modern-day Air Force commander sitting in the operations room, miles away from the combat zone, overseeing every friendly and enemy aircraft and all assets involved in the campaign. In a split second, he can task a fighter, reposition a drone, and authorise a strike. In today’s promising technological era, he does not even need an operations room; a laptop on his desktop will suffice. The situation looks promising as it offers efficiency, precision, and control. The term used for such operational control is ‘centralisation’, which has been made possible with advanced networking, integrating space, cyber, surveillance, artificial intelligence, and seamless communication, enabling a single commander to manage an entire campaign from a single node. Centralised command and control, championed by the Western air forces and then adopted by many others, has thus been seen as a pinnacle of modern military power.
The concept of centralisation, enabled by state-of-the-art networking, may seem promising, but it is nothing more than a myth.

Read More »