Pakistan’s Artillery Buildup Near India: New Chinese Howitzers, Old Border Tensions
(File:Kashmir Region (working boundary).jpg - Wikimedia Commons) A detailed map of the Kashmir region, highlighting the Line of Control (LoC) between India and Pakistan and indicating areas of recent military activity along the border.
Recent Military Deployments Near the Indian Border
Pakistan has recently accelerated its military buildup along the Indian border, especially after a deadly terror attack in Pahalgam on April 22 that killed 26 civilians. In the weeks following the attack, Islamabad positioned new Chinese-made artillery and bolstered air defenses in forward areas adjacent to India (Pakistan Deploys Chinese SH-15 Howitzers Along LoC, Escalating Artillery Race with India). According to defense sources, Pakistan’s military deployed radar systems and air defense weaponry opposite the Longewala sector in Barmer, Rajasthan, not far from the famed site of a 1971 war battle. Pakistani Strike Corps units have also been conducting field exercises, and multiple Pakistan Air Force (PAF) drills are underway simultaneously.
A major addition to Pakistan’s firepower is the induction of SH-15 155mm self-propelled howitzers, advanced truck-mounted artillery systems procured from China. Over the past week, Pakistan moved dozens of these howitzers into forward positions along the Line of Control (LoC) and border regions (Pakistan Deploys Chinese SH-15 Howitzers Along LoC, Escalating Artillery Race with India). Videos circulating on social media – and confirmed by local media – show heavy SH-15 guns rumbling through Pakistani streets near the frontier. The SH-15, built by China’s NORINCO, can fire 155mm shells beyond 50 km and is prized for its “shoot-and-scoot” mobility (Pakistan Deploys Chinese SH-15 Howitzers Along LoC, Escalating Artillery Race with India). Defense analysts see the deployment as Islamabad’s bid to counterbalance India’s growing artillery capabilities (Pakistan Deploys Chinese SH-15 Howitzers Along LoC, Escalating Artillery Race with India). Rising Kashmir newspaper reports that these new Chinese guns have been placed both in the desert sectors near Rajasthan and along the LoC in Kashmir.
Pakistan’s air force has been equally active. From April 29 onward, the PAF launched three simultaneous exercises – Fiza-e-Badr, Lalkar-e-Momin, and Zarb-e-Haidari – involving its entire fighter fleet, including American-built F-16s and Chinese-supplied J-10 and JF-17 jets. Saab airborne early-warning aircraft are patrolling the skies as part of these drills, indicating a high state of readiness. On the ground, Pakistan’s Airport Security Force has been tasked with fortifying airbases. In Punjab province’s Sialkot sector (near Jammu), additional radars and electronic warfare units have been moved up to detect any Indian Air Force incursions. Overall, Pakistan’s military appears to be on high alert, with troops, air defenses, and heavy weapons surging toward the border.
(Pakistan Deploys Chinese SH-15 Howitzers Along LoC, Escalating Artillery Race with India) Chinese-made SH-15 self-propelled howitzers spotted in Pakistan’s Punjab province, April 2025. Pakistan has deployed dozens of these new 155mm artillery pieces near the Indian border, significantly boosting its long-range firepower. (Pakistan Deploys Chinese SH-15 Howitzers Along LoC, Escalating Artillery Race with India)
Implications for Indian National Security
This Pakistani military buildup – especially the forward deployment of long-range artillery – has set off alarm bells in New Delhi. India views the moves as provocative and destabilizing, coming on the heels of a terror attack India blames on Pakistan-based militants. Indian defense officials note that enhanced Pakistani radars in Rajasthan’s vicinity could threaten Indian airspace and limit the element of surprise in case India conducts retaliatory strikes. The induction of Chinese howitzers, in particular, has sharpened India’s focus: these guns could potentially target Indian border outposts or critical infrastructure from deeper within Pakistani territory, complicating India’s defense planning.
India has responded with a mix of military readiness and diplomatic pressure. In late April, Indian Army units were reported to have conducted their own artillery firing drills along the LoC, clearly meant as a signal that India is prepared to answer fire with fire. On April 23, Prime Minister Narendra Modi convened a high-level security meeting, granting his military “complete operational freedom” to respond to the Pahalgam attack (Any military misadventure by India will be met with swift, resolute, notch-up response: COAS - Pakistan - DAWN.COM). This carte blanche for the Indian Army, Navy, and Air Force implies that New Delhi is actively considering punitive action, ranging from cross-border special operations to stand-off strikes on terror infrastructure.
Diplomatically, India has also escalated pressure. It announced the suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty, a 1960 water-sharing pact long seen as a barometer of India-Pakistan relations (India and Pakistan near strategic standoff after Pahalgam attack in Kashmir | Armed Groups News | Al Jazeera). This treaty move is largely symbolic for now, but in Pakistan it was interpreted as a grave step – Pakistan’s National Security Committee warned any disruption of water flow would be an “act of war” (India and Pakistan near strategic standoff after Pahalgam attack in Kashmir | Armed Groups News | Al Jazeera) (India and Pakistan near strategic standoff after Pahalgam attack in Kashmir | Armed Groups News | Al Jazeera). India further downsized its diplomatic mission in Islamabad and closed its airspace to Pakistani flights as part of a broader package of reprisals (Fears of attack in Pakistan-administered Kashmir amid acute India tensions | News | Al Jazeera).
Security experts in India are actively debating how to handle the situation. A key question is whether to launch a limited punitive strike – akin to the 2019 Balakot airstrike on a Jaish-e-Mohammed camp – or to prepare for a broader conflict if Pakistan retaliates. “The government has to explain… whether they want a punitive strike, a deep punitive strike, or… limited war or an all-out war,” a former Indian military officer was quoted as saying, emphasizing the spectrum of choices before New Delhi. Some retired generals argue that merely “surgical” strikes may not deter Pakistan’s security establishment and suggest India should be ready for escalation dominance, including the capture of key territories in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) if war breaks out. However, such drastic measures carry huge risks, not least because both countries are nuclear-armed.
U.S. Positioning and Diplomatic Messaging
The United States has been watching this standoff warily, balancing condemnation of terrorism with calls for restraint. President Donald Trump’s public statements in the aftermath of the Pahalgam attack have been somewhat mixed. In a phone call with PM Modi, Trump “strongly condemned” the terrorist attack and offered “full support” to bring the perpetrators to justice, according to Indian officials (‘They’ll figure it out’: Donald Trump on India-Pakistan tensions after Pahalgam attack | World News - The Indian Express). Yet, when asked by reporters about the India-Pakistan tensions, Trump struck a non-committal tone, saying “I am very close to India, and I am very close to Pakistan… They’ve had that fight for a thousand years in Kashmir.” He suggested that “there always has been” tension and expressed confidence that “they’ll figure it out one way or the other” (Trump alums line up against each other on India-Pakistan dispute - POLITICO) (Trump alums line up against each other on India-Pakistan dispute - POLITICO). Trump notably declined to directly mediate in the Kashmir dispute, framing it as a historic feud that predates modern states by centuries (Trump alums line up against each other on India-Pakistan dispute - POLITICO). (His remark about “1,000 years” of fighting in Kashmir drew some criticism for historical inaccuracy – India and Pakistan have existed for 77 years, not a millennium – but it underscored his reluctance to pick sides too openly.)
Behind the scenes, however, Washington’s foreign policy apparatus has leaned towards India’s position more explicitly. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio (in this scenario) spoke with both India’s External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar and Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif. Rubio offered condolences for the victims and “reaffirmed Washington’s support to India’s fight against terrorism,” according to a State Department readout. He urged Islamabad’s “cooperation in investigating the unconscionable attack”. Importantly, Rubio also encouraged both nations to de-escalate and maintain peace, a message echoed by the U.S. Embassy in both capitals (Fears of attack in Pakistan-administered Kashmir amid acute India tensions | News | Al Jazeera). In a separate call, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth assured Indian Defence Minister Rajnath Singh of America’s support for “India’s right to defend itself”. This is a strong signal backing India’s stance against cross-border terrorism.
American officials are walking a tightrope: backing India’s counter-terrorism anger without green-lighting a war. The U.S. has a strategic interest in preventing an India-Pakistan war, which could draw in China and destabilize a region where both the U.S. and China have stakes. At the United Nations, Secretary-General AntΓ³nio Guterres has also offered to help mediate “de-escalation,” speaking to both New Delhi and Islamabad (Fears of attack in Pakistan-administered Kashmir amid acute India tensions | News | Al Jazeera).
For Trump personally – who often touts his deal-making prowess – the South Asian flare-up is a delicate challenge. Publicly he remains neutral-friendly (“very close to both”) and historically minded (“fight for a thousand years”), avoiding direct criticism of Pakistan. But his administration’s actions suggest a tilt: an intelligence official (notably, CIA Director Tulsi Gabbard) openly voiced “stunning support for India” after the attack, as per Indian media. All of this indicates Washington is tacitly aligned with India’s effort to punish terror groups, so long as the crisis doesn’t spiral into a full-blown war. Trump’s hope, as he stated, is that India and Pakistan can resolve things peacefully “one way or another” (Trump alums line up against each other on India-Pakistan dispute - POLITICO) – a sentiment greeted with relief in Delhi, which feared more ambiguous messaging (India and Pakistan will figure it out 'one way or the other': Trump).
Geopolitical Ripples and PoK Escalation Fears
The current military posturing has raised the specter of escalation, especially in the contested region of Kashmir. Both sides have exchanged intermittent cross-border fire in recent days. In Pakistan-administered Kashmir (often called PoK in India), civilians are bracing for possible conflict. Authorities there shut down more than 1,000 religious schools (madrassas) and locals have begun digging underground bunkers in anticipation of Indian strikes. “For one week we have been living in constant fear… we make sure [the children] come straight home [from school],” said Iftikhar Ahmad Mir, a shopkeeper near the LoC, describing the tense atmosphere as people prepare bunkers with mud and concrete. Emergency drills are being conducted in border villages – an eerie throwback to previous Indo-Pak crises.
A major worry is that any Indian military response might center on Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. Indian leaders often refer to PoK (which includes Gilgit-Baltistan and Azad Kashmir) as “our territory under illegal occupation.” If India were to launch ground operations, seizing strategic ground in PoK might be an objective to both punish Pakistan and alter the status quo. This is not openly stated policy – India has not tried to significantly redraw the Line of Control since the 1971 war – but hawkish voices in New Delhi occasionally call for “taking back PoK.” Such a move, however, risks uncontrolled escalation. Pakistan’s Army chief, General Asim Munir, delivered a stark warning on May 1, saying “any military misadventure by India will be met with a swift, resolute, and notch-up response” (Any military misadventure by India will be met with swift, resolute, notch-up response: COAS - Pakistan - DAWN.COM) (Any military misadventure by India will be met with swift, resolute, notch-up response: COAS - Pakistan - DAWN.COM). Munir’s comments, made while overseeing a live-fire exercise of Pakistan’s Mangla Strike Corps, underscore that Pakistan is prepared to retaliate militarily, even beyond tit-for-tat, if it feels territorial red lines are crossed (Any military misadventure by India will be met with swift, resolute, notch-up response: COAS - Pakistan - DAWN.COM) (Any military misadventure by India will be met with swift, resolute, notch-up response: COAS - Pakistan - DAWN.COM). He invoked the possibility of “full force” defense of Pakistan’s sovereignty (Any military misadventure by India will be met with swift, resolute, notch-up response: COAS - Pakistan - DAWN.COM). Additionally, Pakistan’s leadership has hinted at its nuclear threshold: Defense Minister Khawaja Asif told Reuters that nuclear weapons would only be used if Pakistan faces a “direct threat to our existence” (Exclusive: Pakistan defence minister says military incursion by India is imminent | Reuters) – implying that limited Indian strikes might not trigger the nuclear option, but any attempt by India to capture large territory likely would.
Regional analysts fear a classic escalation spiral. A militant attack leads to an Indian strike; Pakistan retaliates conventionally; a border war ensues, with each side upping the ante under domestic pressure – all under the shadow of nuclear arsenals. The ongoing deployments of heavy artillery and air assets feed into this worrisome trajectory. As one South Asia expert noted, “It’s a step-by-step climb up the escalation ladder. The danger is each step makes it harder to climb down”.
Strategic Outlook: High Alert and Careful Calculations
The standoff along the India-Pakistan border now is as much about psychological signaling as physical readiness. Pakistan’s high-profile movements of Chinese artillery and air defense units serve a dual purpose: to deter India from launching any attacks by showcasing preparedness, and to galvanize domestic support by projecting strength. India’s visible retaliatory steps – diplomatic isolation of Pakistan and military preparedness – serve to reassure the Indian public that the government is responding firmly, while also trying to pressure Pakistan to crack down on militant groups.
Both nations’ militaries remain on hair-trigger alert. Cross-border skirmishes have already been reported for several consecutive nights. Each side insists it does not want war, yet each also vows robust retaliation to any aggression. Internationally, there is a scramble to prevent the worst. The United States, United Nations, and other powers are quietly working the phones, urging caution. Behind closed doors, Beijing’s influence looms as well: China, as Pakistan’s closest ally and the supplier of those SH-15 howitzers, has a vested interest in preventing a war that could threaten its investments in Pakistan (like CPEC infrastructure). So far, Beijing has publicly kept a low profile, but it’s undoubtedly monitoring how its weapons are being employed in this crisis.
For now, the broad geopolitical implication is a sharp reminder of how fraught South Asia remains. The India-Pakistan border is often cited as one of the world’s most dangerous flashpoints (India–Pakistan border - Wikipedia), and recent events reinforce that reputation. New Delhi’s strategic community is recalculating risks: if punitive strikes invite an artillery duel with Chinese guns on the other side, how can India neutralize those? Islamabad, meanwhile, sees any Indian operation – however limited – as a potential existential threat given India’s conventional superiority, hence the chest-thumping about “notch-up” responses and the nuclear card kept on the table.
Ultimately, unless the crisis is defused, even an accidental incident could ignite a larger conflagration. Both armies are forward-deployed, both air forces are patrolling nervously, and big guns (literally) are now within range of each other. A miscalculation or rogue provocation could set off a chain reaction. As U.S. and European diplomats have hinted in private, the situation is “too close for comfort”. They hope back-channel communications and intelligence-sharing will help both India and Pakistan walk back from the brink after they’ve each “shown strength” to domestic audiences.
As of this writing, no major strikes have occurred. But the coming days are critical. India’s government is under pressure to avenge the Pahalgam massacre, while Pakistan’s new artillery on the border stands as both a sword and a shield. The world is watching whether South Asia’s nuclear neighbors can step back from confrontation, or whether this military buildup is a prelude to something far more dangerous.
Sources:
.jpg){kind=link}