The latest Indo-Pakistan crisis, sparked by the April 22, 2025, terrorist attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, which killed 26 people, and culminating in a fragile ceasefire on May 10, 2025, is a stark reminder of the enduring rivalry between the two nations.
Drawing from Sumit Ganguly and S. Paul Kapur’s The India-Pakistan Rivalry: A Perilous Dynamic (2024), which emphasizes the persistent structural and ideological tensions fueling this conflict, and the broader critique of capitalism’s erosion of democracy, this analysis explores the crisis and its abrupt resolution through the eyes of ordinary Indian citizens.
As a vegetable vendor in Delhi, a schoolteacher in Srinagar, or a factory worker in Gujarat, the average Indian experiences this crisis not as a geopolitical chessboard but as a lived reality shaped by fear, economic strain, and a growing disillusionment with the systems—capitalist and democratic—that govern their lives
The Crisis Through Ordinary Eyes
For ordinary Indians, the crisis began with the horrifying news of the Pahalgam attack, attributed to Pakistan-based terrorist groups like Jaish-e-Mohammed. The images of grieving families and the government’s swift retaliation under Operation Sindoor—striking terrorist camps deep in Pakistan—stirred a mix of pride and dread. But every time we hit back, we worry about our brothers and sisters in the army and whether prices will shoot up in the market . Our fear reflects the human toll of the rivalry, which The India-Pakistan Rivalry describes as rooted in irreconcilable national identities: India’s secular democracy versus Pakistan’s Islamic republic, with Kashmir as the flashpoint.
As the crisis escalated with Pakistan’s Operation Bunyan Marsoos, involving drone and missile strikes on Indian military sites, ordinary citizens faced immediate disruptions. In border areas like Jammu and Srinagar, blackouts were imposed, schools closed, and families fled villages littered with explosives. They heard explosions even after the ceasefire, say some in the border areas refering to reports of violations hours after the May 10 truce.
For people in the border areas , the rivalry feels like a curse: Kashmiris are always caught in the middle. India says Pakistan sends terrorists; Pakistan says Kasmiris are oppressed. Nobody truly asks what they need. The rivalry’s persistence stems from domestic political pressures—India’s Hindu nationalist government and Pakistan’s military dominance—trapping citizens in a cycle of violence.
Capitalism’s Role: Eating Democracy and Stability
The critique that “capitalism is eating us and our democracy” resonates deeply in the context of Indo-Pak rivalry. For ordinary Indians, the crisis exposed how capitalist priorities amplify suffering and undermine democratic agency. India’s neoliberal economy, with its reliance on global markets and defense spending, shapes the response to such crises.
The Modi government’s investment in advanced weaponry, like Rafale jets used in Operation Sindoor, is celebrated by some as a symbol of strength. The Government spends billions on fighter jets, but no ventilators and other health equipment . When drones fly, it the poor that are hiding, not the rich. Our frustration reflects capitalism’s skewed priorities, where militarization trumps social welfare. Our media also wasted time an energy on unnessary aggressive posturing.
Capitalism also fuels economic precarity, which the crisis exacerbated. The suspension of Indo-Pakistan trade and visa cancellations hit small traders and cross-border communities hardest.
This economic fallout underscores capitalism’s role in deepening inequality, as elites in Delhi and Islamabad remain insulated while ordinary citizens bear the brunt. Moreover, the media, driven by profit motives, amplifies nationalist fervor, drowning out calls for peace.
Every channel was screaming war. It was like they want us to hate, not think of its consequences. This media sensationalism, a byproduct of capitalist incentives, erodes democratic discourse, leaving citizens feeling powerless.
The critique of capitalism eating democracy is further evident in the government’s response. The Modi administration’s narrative of a “new normal” for punishing terrorism, as stated on May 12, 2025, prioritizes electoral optics over substantive peacebuilding. It is clear that the Government talks tough for vote. This aligns with The India-Pakistan Rivalry’s observation that domestic political gains often drive escalation, with leaders exploiting crises to bolster support.
Capitalism’s influence—through defense contracts, media profits, and electoral funding—thus distorts democratic accountability, leaving ordinary Indians as spectators in their own nation’s fate.
The Abrupt Ceasefire: Relief and Skepticism
The ceasefire, announced after U.S.-mediated talks and hailed by President Trump on May 10, 2025, brought cautious relief. For displaced families in Jammu, it meant a chance to return home, though many villages remained unsafe due to unexploded ordnance. skepticism is warranted because it appears fragile and imposed from outside.
The 2025 truce, already marred by reported violations, feels like a pause, not a resolution.Ordinary Indians also question the role of external mediation. The U.S.’s involvement, downplayed by India but celebrated by Pakistan, sparked unease. The question, “Why is America deciding our peace?” haunting us .It feels like we’re pawns in their game. This sentiment reflects a broader distrust of global capitalist powers, whose interventions often prioritize strategic interests—like countering China—over South Asian stability.
The India-Pakistan Rivalry highlights how great-power involvement, while sometimes appear de-escalatory, complicates bilateral trust, a dynamic evident in India’s irritation at Trump’s announcement.
Ordinary Citizens’ Perspective: Trapped Yet Hopeful
From the perspective of ordinary Indians, the crisis and ceasefire reveal a grim reality: they are trapped in a rivalry fueled by historical grudges of partition, nationalist politics, and capitalist priorities that erode their democratic voice.
The vegetable vendor say in Delhi worries about rising prices; the Srinagar schoo lteacher fears for her students’ safety; the Gujarat factory worker dreads another war’s economic toll. Yet, amid this, there’s a flicker of hope. We just want peace and not this ceasefire nonsense—real peace, where we can live without fear.
This desire of Indians calls for diplomacy over militarism, though they warn that structural barriers make it elusive.The critique of capitalism offers a lens to reimagine solutions. Ordinary Indians envision a democracy unshackled from profit-driven militarism and media hype—a system that prioritizes healthcare, jobs, and education over jets and drones. If India and Pakistan spent half their defense budgets on us, on their respective people , there wont war . This grassroots perspective demands a shift from the rivalry’s peril to a future where citizens, not elites, shape the narrative and destiny of the nation.
Conclusion
The 2025 Indo-Pakistan crisis, viewed through The India-Pakistan Rivalry and the lens of capitalism’s democratic erosion, underscores the human cost of a decades-old conflict. Ordinary Indians—vendors, teachers, artisans—navigate fear, disruption, and economic hardship, their voices drowned by nationalist rhetoric and capitalist priorities. The abrupt ceasefire offers fleeting relief but no resolution, leaving citizens skeptical yet yearning for lasting peace. Their perspective challenges leaders to prioritize people over power, urging a democracy that serves the many, not the few, in a region perpetually on the brink.
