Kargil to Pulwama to Now A History of Pakistan’s Airspace as a Strategic Weapon

Remember the days when a flight from New Delhi to London was a straightforward journey? You’d hop on a plane, maybe catch a movie, and be on your way. Not anymore. If you’re flying from North India to Europe or North America, your journey has just gotten a lot longer and a lot more expensive. And here’s the kicker: it’s all because of a piece of sky that’s now a no-go zone.

This isn’t just a minor travel inconvenience; it’s a major geopolitical chess match being played out in our skies. For the 210th consecutive day, Pakistan has extended its ban on Indian-registered and Indian-operated aircraft from its airspace. Think about that for a second. Over seven months of this. And let’s be honest, this isn’t the first time. It’s a pattern, a strategic move that has been used before, and it shows no signs of stopping.

From Treaties to Airspace: How Did We Get Here?

To understand this latest airspace closure, you have to rewind a bit. It all began after a tragic attack in Pahalgam, Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IIOJK). In a dramatic turn, India didn’t just point fingers; they suspended the Indus Water Treaty. This isn’t just about water; this treaty is a foundational agreement between the two nations, a delicate balance that has survived multiple conflicts. Suspending it was a major escalation.

Pakistan’s response was swift and, in a way, predictable. It’s a classic tit-for-tat. They immediately closed their airspace. And just when you thought things couldn’t get more tense, they did.

• Strikes and Counter-Strikes: On May 6-7, India launched strikes on multiple Pakistani cities. This was a direct, military action. Pakistan’s response was a large-scale operation named “Bunyan-um-Marsoos,” which they described as “precise and proportionate.” The stakes were incredibly high.
• The Air Battle: During this intense period, Pakistan claimed to have shot down a number of Indian fighter jets, including three Rafale aircraft, along with dozens of drones. The fighting lasted for 87 hours, a terrifying period of uncertainty, until a ceasefire was finally brokered by the United States on May 10. The fact that two nuclear powers were involved in an aerial confrontation for three and a half days is, you know, a big deal.

Since then, the diplomatic thaw has been, well, non-existent. The airspace closure has become a symbol of this frozen relationship, a daily reminder of the unresolved tensions.

The Financial Fallout: Who’s Losing More?

When an airspace closes, it’s not just a symbolic gesture. It hits the bottom line. For Indian carriers, Pakistan’s airspace is a crucial, direct route to Europe and North America. Without it, they have to take a longer, more circuitous route.

• The Indian Burden: The extended detours mean more fuel burn, longer flight times, and higher operational costs. According to officials, this has put a “heavier burden” on India’s aviation industry. Airlines like Air India and IndiGo have had to re-route flights, adding hours to journeys and burning thousands of extra kilograms of fuel. This isn’t a small problem; it translates to hundreds of millions of dollars in losses. Think of it like this: if you have to drive around a massive city to get to work instead of taking a straight highway, you’re not just wasting time; you’re wasting money on petrol. That’s what’s happening with Indian aviation.
• The Pakistani Perspective: Interestingly, according to Pakistani officials, their own aviation industry has experienced “limited disruption.” This is a key point. Pakistan’s geographical location means it’s not as reliant on a direct flight path over India for most of its major international routes. While the Pakistan Airports Authority (PAA) loses revenue from overflight fees, the overall financial impact on its domestic airlines is reportedly much less severe than the pain felt by their Indian counterparts. It’s a classic case of asymmetric warfare, but in the skies.

A History of Airspace as a Weapon

This isn’t a new playbook. Pakistan has a history of using its airspace as a strategic lever during periods of tension.

• The Kargil Conflict (1999): During the Kargil war, similar airspace bans were enforced by both nations, causing significant disruptions and financial losses for Indian airlines.
• The Pulwama Crisis (2019): After the Pulwama attack, Pakistan closed its entire airspace for nearly five months. This resulted in staggering financial losses for Indian airlines, estimated at hundreds of millions of dollars. The 2019 closure was arguably one of the most prolonged and financially damaging periods for Indian aviation.

Each time, the pattern is the same: in response to a major crisis, Pakistan uses its airspace as a tool of economic and strategic pressure. This latest move, lasting 210 days and counting, is just the latest chapter in this ongoing story. It demonstrates that in this complex relationship, even the sky above is not immune from the political friction on the ground.

FAQs About the Airspace Ban

Q1: How long has the airspace ban been in effect? The current airspace ban on Indian aircraft has been in effect for 210 consecutive days and has been extended for another month.

Q2: Why did Pakistan initially close its airspace to Indian flights? Pakistan initially closed its airspace in response to India’s suspension of the Indus Water Treaty, a move that followed an attack in Pahalgam, IIOJK.

Q3: What has been the economic impact of the closure? The closure has placed a “heavier burden” on India’s aviation industry, causing significant financial losses due to longer flight paths, increased fuel consumption, and higher operational costs. Officials in Pakistan, however, claim their own aviation industry has experienced limited disruption.

Q4: How does this ban compare to previous closures? Pakistan has used similar airspace bans during past periods of tension, such as the 1999 Kargil conflict and the 2019 Pulwama crisis. The current closure, however, is notable for its prolonged duration and the context of the recent military confrontation.

Conclusion

The extended airspace closure is more than a diplomatic spat. It’s a stark reminder of the fragile state of relations between two nuclear-armed neighbors. It shows how even seemingly technical issues, like flight paths, can become weapons in a broader conflict. For now, the Indian aviation industry must continue to bear the burden of this geopolitical tension. And for those of us who fly, it means our journeys are a little longer, a little more complicated, and a whole lot more expensive. It makes you wonder, doesn’t it? When will peace in the skies become as simple as peace on the ground?