As tensions between India and Pakistan simmer dangerously close to conflict, the toll is already immense. From billion-dollar defence expenditures to devastated trade, stock market shocks, and rising fuel taxes, the true cost of war is borne not by Generals or Governments — but by the people

I am sick and tired of old men sending young innocent boys to die in their wars,” said George McGovern, a US senator who was a voice against the Vietnam War.

That was indeed a sane voice for warring countries. It is not just young boys, but now girls as well  and it has a terrible cost on a country in terms of monetary expense and well-being. So far, it is not a war between India and Pakistan. It is the warming-up process — and it, too, has a cost. Missiles, drones, aircraft, machine guns, rifles, or every bit used for the war has cost — including food for the warring men.

Most battleground materials are never collected and left there. It dumps costs on the people of the country that supports a war. A major loss since May 7 is the death of Rajouri’s Additional Deputy Commissioner Raj Kumar Thapa in a Pakistan shelling. There have been at least 19 deaths of other civilians and many injured, apart from the losses along the border.

Pakistan specialises in low-cost manoeuvres but inflicts heavy losses on India through proxy wars, air space closure, and decoy unarmed or low-explosive drone attacks in swarms near Jaisalmer. It attracts heavy responses from India as it cannot risk not to combat.

The common joke is, “Decoy Rs 10 drones face million-dollar action.” So how much India might have spent in the first three days of the assault since May 7 can be an approximation.

Thirty-two airports closed and many flights were cancelled. Suspension of commercial IPL cricket is expensive. The BSE stock investors have lost Rs 13 lakh crore since May 6. The BSE lost 156 points — Rs 6 lakh crore — on May 6; gained 106 points on May 7; lost 412 points — nearly Rs 5 lakh crore — on May 8; and lost 880 points — about Rs 2 lakh crore — on May 9 as tension mounted.

Both currencies of India and Pakistan are under pressure. BrahMos missiles cost between $2.5 to $5.6 million. Smaller missiles cost less. Kamikaze drones cost $500 each. The sorties are never flown alone.

Deployment, manning, logistics, and troop movements have separate costs. Precision bombardment with hi-tech drones costs Russia roughly $350,000 per target struck.

The Kh-22 air-to-ground missile’s target cost is said to be around $1 million. During the low-intensity Kargil conflict, India reportedly spent Rs 14.6 billion per day while Pakistan spent close to Rs 3.7 billion per day.

According to an analysis by the UAE-based Foreign Affairs Forum, even a brief conventional war could cost India between Rs 1,460 crore and Rs 5,000 crore per day. A prolonged conflict could trigger massive economic disruptions, with estimated daily losses surpassing $17.8 billion (Rs 1.34 lakh crore). The cost of the present conflict is so heavy that the Government is mulling recovering some of it from common citizens. It is considering doubling excise duty on petrol and diesel to Rs 4 from Rs 2 levied a fortnight back.

It is estimated to realise Rs 64,000 crore. This is over the 2025–2026 defence allocation of Rs 6.81 trillion (USD 78.3 billion), a 9.5 per cent rise over 2024–25.  Of this, only 26.4 per cent is for new acquisitions.

Pakistan increases its 2025–26 military budget by 18 per cent to Pakistani Rs 6.8 lakh crore ($80 billion). About 22 per cent is for new weapons. A report by the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry highlights that ongoing India–Pakistan tensions have significantly limited trade between the two — making it minimal compared to India’s trade with neighbours like Bangladesh and Sri Lanka.

Following the Pulwama attack, Pakistan’s exports to India plummeted from $550 million to just $480,000, while Indian exports — mainly pharmaceuticals, chemicals, and agricultural goods — totalled around $1.2 billion.

The India–Pakistan conflict squeezes out 3 per cent of India’s economic potential, according to an analysis done by the Mumbai-based think tank Strategic Foresight Group in 2004.

In a report titled Cost of Conflict, the group analysed military expenditures of the two countries to conclude that even low-intensity warfare could have “financial costs, human lives and policy losses.” Each war — 1948, 1962, 1965, 1971, and 1999 Kargil — cost the nation enormously. Since 1947, each war brought claims of victory — but both sides paid in blood, broken trust, and lost chances for peace. Kashmir remains contested and borders tense. The borders didn’t just divide land — they divided minds. Decades later, the quest is if either side truly won, or did both lose what mattered most? Let us take the crucial Peer Panjal Pass.

After tough battles and the loss of soldiers’ lives, India won and returned it to Pakistan at the negotiating table. By 2003, India had raised its military budget from Rs 560 billion to Rs 653 billion, while Pakistan’s increased slightly from Rs 158 billion to Rs 160 billion.

Parliament Attack Post the December 13th, 2001 terrorist attack on Parliament House, India spent $600 million between December 2001 and January 2002, and Pakistan $400 million on military preparedness.

According to the Strategic Foresight Group, an Indian think tank, the total cost of the standoff — driven by heightened tensions and the looming threat of nuclear conflict — exceeded $3 billion in just a few months.

In the 1971 war, around 3,843 Indian soldiers and nearly 8,000 Pakistani soldiers lost their lives, with the conflict ending in India capturing over 93,000 Pakistani prisoners of war. While exact figures on civilian casualties and disappearances are unavailable, the Strategic Foresight Group estimates that the four wars between India and Pakistan directly affected at least one lakh families through human loss.

Pakistan reneges repeatedly on its commitment to peace. It foments a terror proxy war, imposing huge costs on India.

“Although there have been occasional moves toward confidence — building measures and, most recently, toward more open borders for trade, deep mistrust and suspicion mark this sibling rivalry,” said a paper by the US-based Atlantic Council, which analysed the opportunity cost of an India – Pakistan conflict, arguing that war is the last thing the subcontinent needs.

The remedy is not simple. The common forum, SAARC, has been supine for a decade. Pakistan should be forced to the negotiating table before yet another flare-up.

A low-cost war suits Pakistan — but India must call the shots to save young lives, economic growth and the future of the Indian subcontinent. For now the war is paused and that is a sigh of relief but efforts must be made to make it permanent.

(The writer, a political analyst, writes on political issues. Views are personal)