It is easy for the public to say that “military and defence are paramount” — but when that same defence decision weighs heavily on the national exchequer, the public wants to hear the message of saving the treasure louder. Pakistan closed its airspace to Indian aircraft (from 24 April), a day after India suspended the Indus Water Treaty on 23 April 2025. The military and political reason for this move was clear, but its economic implications are perhaps not right to ignore.
Economic loss: Rs 127 crore burden
Pakistan’s Defence Ministry told the National Assembly that the airspace closure had caused a total loss of ₹127 crore (approximately PKR 4.10 billion) from April 24 to June 30, 2025. About 100–150 Indian aircraft were affected daily, causing Pakistan’s air traffic to fall by about 20%.
Comparing this decision with the same decision of 2019, when Pakistan closed its airspace after the Balakot attack, it suffered a loss of about $540 million (about PKR 7.6 billion). In fact, the loss this time was clearly less than in 2019, but the decline in revenue is a serious sign.
Unexpected increase in income
Interestingly, Pakistan Airports Authority’s overall revenues grew — daily average overflight revenue rose from $508,000 in 2019 to $760,000 in 2025. This increase suggests that the impact of the losses may not be entirely on arrivals; new ticketing structures, improvements in fee structures or other types of revenue sources may have provided some relief.
‘Political message’ vs ‘economic understanding’
Pakistan’s defence ministry clarified that these figures represent “revenue shortfall”, not fiscal deficit; i.e. the impact of expensive times is evident, but the economy has not completely collapsed.
Issuing Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) is part of the government’s decision-making process, in which “best interest” is stated as paramount. Though they acknowledged that “financial losses are possible, but sovereignty and national security take precedence over economic interests”, the statement makes it clear that the move was considered a strategic compulsion – the decision was “critical” from a security perspective, even if it was costly financially.
Regional approach and greater impact
The decision was not just a bilateral move but was part of the broader Indo-Pak crisis of 2025, which included actions such as the cancellation of the Indus Water Treaty, border clashes, Operation Sindoor, etc. The airspace closure disrupted transit traffic, forced international airlines to take alternate routes, resulting in a double blow of time and fuel – and most importantly, impacting Pakistan’s economy.
Was this strategic decision correct?
The question is not just economic; it is about political, military and diplomatic balance. Overall, if the cost of defence and sovereignty — even if financial — is to be borne, the move can be called a “need of the hour”. But can it be sustained over a long period of time? Will it affect Pakistan’s ability to be an airline hub? Will foreign airlines continue to rely on it?
This is not a question of criticism, but of awareness: such national decisions should be foreseeable and transparent. Should the public be given information beyond what is stated — such as alternative revenue measures, a roadmap for air traffic restoration, or a profit-loss statement?
Conclusion
The strategic objective for which Pakistan closed its airspace to Indian aircraft — stated to be to protect national security and sovereignty — resulted in a revenue loss of Rs 127 crore. However, there were some positive signs — such as an increase in the total revenue of the Airports Authority. The entire episode is a reminder of the complexity between political decisions and economic outcomes. Actions inspired by public excitement and national sentiment may have immediate impact, but they also come at a cost — and perhaps this forces us to think about how to find the right balance.
—End— more
