logo
India, Pakistan maintain war of words after ceasefire

India, Pakistan maintain war of words after ceasefire

Straits Times13-05-2025

An Indian police officer standing guard in Srinagar, Kashmir, on May 12. PHOTO: AFP
– Even after India and Pakistan agreed to a ceasefire on May 10, following four days of high-stakes military confrontation, both sides are still rattling sabres.
Newspapers in both countries have depicted their respective prime ministers with fists raised and eyes blazing. Television anchors added even more combative language as they analysed the speeches.
Both sides are actively trying to shape perceptions of what the fighting across the Line of Control (LoC) – or the de facto border between the nuclear-armed neighbours – has achieved and, most importantly, who has 'won'.
How they frame their wins and losses will have a bearing on not only the strength of the ceasefire and future bilateral relations, but also the political performance of each leader's party at home, analysts say.
Accusing Pakistan of having a hand in an April 22 terror attack that killed 26 civilians in Pahalgam, in Indian-held Kashmir, India's military on May 7 struck nine 'terror infrastructure' targets in Pakistan.
Pakistan, which denies involvement in the April attack, responded with artillery fire across the border into Indian-held Kashmir.
Tit-for-tat hostilities ensued, marked by claims, counterclaims and disinformation on both sides, till the conflict was paused by the ceasefire that US President Donald Trump said was brokered by Washington.
Immediately after the ceasefire, Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif praised his military's 'professional and effective' response to what he described as Indian aggression.
He credited the military for reducing Indian military depots, ammunition storage places and airbases to ruins. India panned this claim as 'a tissue of lies'.
In a national address on May 12, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi said: 'The world saw how Pakistan's drones and missiles crumbled like straw before India's powerful air defence systems... Pakistan had planned attacks at the border, but India struck deep into Pakistan's heart.'
He added: 'Following India's aggressive action, Pakistan began seeking escape routes. It started appealing globally to de-escalate tensions.'
He warned that India would keep a close eye on any state-sponsored terrorism, and the 'new normal' would be to treat every terror attack as an act of war that will get 'a fitting response'.
Mr Modi also said trade talks and terror cannot go together, and 'water and blood can't go together' – which analysts interpret as a signal that both the trade freeze and recent suspension of the 65-year-old Indus Water Treaty with Pakistan on water distribution will remain in place.
Islamabad had said in April that 'any attempt to stop or divert the flow of water belonging to Pakistan... will be considered as an act of war'.
Victory signals will win votes
Mr Ajai Sahni, executive director of the Institute for Conflict Management in New Delhi, said that compared with Mr Sharif's 'relatively modest' speech, Mr Modi's had 'more belligerence, conditionalities and policy assertions', which have definite implications for India-Pakistan relations.
The 'new normal' is that if there are any further transgressions by Pakistan, India will use targeted force against terror infrastructure, as it did in the recent conflict, he added.
'The tough nationalist stances are meant for the domestic audiences,' Mr Sahni said.
The rhetoric seeks to mollify domestic hardliners who are attacking the Modi government for stopping the conflict too quickly.
Mr Modi's ruling Bharatiya Janata Party faces elections in the eastern state of Bihar around November. Analysts say the party could ride the wave of nationalist sentiment to victory – if military tensions stay in focus.
'Though it is early days to talk about this, by doing what he talked about and striking deep into Pakistan territories – among them, Bahawalpur, Muridke and Rawalpindi – and by avenging the women who lost their husbands and sons in Pahalgam, (Modi) may well have ensured the support of a large constituency of women for his future political battles,' political analyst Neerja Chowdhury wrote in The Indian Express.
People gathering at a border post in the frontier village of Chakothi, near the Line of Control, in Pakistan-administered Kashmir on May 11.
PHOTO: AFP
Pakistan rallies against common foe
In Pakistan, the conflict has been a great unifying force.
'Before the conflict, Pakistan was very politically polarised and the masses suffering under the bad economy were critical of the military and the ruling administration it supported,' said Professor Murad Ali, chairman of the department of political science at Pakistan's University of Malakand.
'But standing up to a powerful, economically superior India has boosted the popularity and image of the Pakistan government and the military,' he said.
Citizens in cities from Islamabad to Karachi took to the streets, waving national flags, playing patriotic songs, and dancing.
'Our army has emerged as one of the finest and most professional forces,' Mr Mohsin Gilani, a 56-year-old resident of Islamabad, told The Straits Times.
In Karachi, a city often marred by political polarisation, even supporters of former prime minister Imran Khan's Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf – once anti-military for its alleged role in Khan's imprisonment – joined in the celebrations.
A large gathering formed on Shahrah-e-Faisal, Karachi's main thoroughfare, where people raised portraits of army chief Asim Munir and burned an effigy of Mr Modi in defiance.
Mr Amin Ansar, 30, who joined the victory rally, said: 'We had lost trust in the army because of its political interference. But this war reminded us of its real strength, its battlefield prowess.'
Field realities don't matter
The competing political narratives have overtaken the ground realities of the conflict on both sides of the border.
In New Delhi, at a press briefing on May 11, Indian military officials said Pakistani firing across the LoC killed five Indian soldiers, and Pakistan lost 40 soldiers. They also said 100 terrorists were killed as they hit nine targets in Pakistan on May 7.
They also claimed to have 'downed a few Pakistani planes' but did not offer details.
The Pakistani military said on May 13 that at least 40 civilians, including 15 children and seven women, were killed and 121 others injured in Indian missile strikes across Pakistan last week.
According to a statement issued by the Inter-Services Public Relations, the media wing of the Pakistani military, 11 members of the Pakistan Armed Forces were killed and 78 others sustained injuries.
Pakistani officials earlier claimed Indian fighter jets crashed or were shot down by Pakistan in an aerial clash on May 7. International media reports on telling debris seemed to add credence to these claims, but India has not confirmed anything.
When asked about the claims during the May 11 press conference, India's director-general of air operations, Air Marshal Awadhesh Kumar Bharti, said that 'losses are part of combat', but that the forces had 'achieved the objectives' and 'all the pilots are back home'.
Foreign military and strategic analysts said that if India's French-made Rafale fighter jets were indeed shot down by Pakistan's China-made J-10C Vigorous Dragon jets, it would be the first combat loss for the Western aircraft that is considered one of the world's most capable.
Regardless of who won this round of fighting, analysts say that the use of modern weapons like armed drones for the first time across the LoC presented a new challenge for both nations.
'The truth of what really happened will unfortunately not be known to more than a handful of strategists. There lies the danger of nationalist narratives – amplified by pliant media in both countries. Going forward, attitudes, future plans and military strategies could be shaped by the mythology and not reality,' said Mr Sahni.
Additional reporting by Ashraf Khan
Rohini Mohan is The Straits Times' India Correspondent based in Bengaluru. She covers politics, business and human rights in South Asia.
Ashraf Khan is a Pakistan-based journalist who has been writing on geopolitics, economics, the environment and human rights for wire agencies for the past 25 years.
Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Police make 'mass arrests' in LA during nighttime curfew
Police make 'mass arrests' in LA during nighttime curfew

Business Times

time3 minutes ago

  • Business Times

Police make 'mass arrests' in LA during nighttime curfew

[LOS ANGELES] Los Angeles police began arresting people in the city's downtown late Tuesday (Jun 10), as groups gathered in violation of an overnight curfew after a fifth day of protests against Donald Trump's immigration crackdown. Looting and vandalism in the second-biggest US city have marred the largely peaceful protests over ramped-up arrests by immigration authorities. The demonstrations, which began on Friday, and isolated acts of violence prompted Trump to take the extraordinary step of sending in troops, over the objection of the state governor. The protests again turned ugly after dark on Tuesday, but an hour into the overnight curfew only a handful of protesters were left downtown, with police making several arrests as they warned stragglers to leave. 'Multiple groups continue to congregate on 1st St between Spring and Alameda' within the designated downtown curfew area, the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) wrote on X late Tuesday. 'Those groups are being addressed and mass arrests are being initiated.' BT in your inbox Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox. Sign Up Sign Up Police arrested 25 people on suspicion of violating the curfew as of Tuesday evening, the Los Angeles Times reported, citing an LAPD spokesperson. The number of arrests was likely to rise as law enforcement worked to remove the remaining protesters from the area, the newspaper said. Earlier, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass said she had issued the curfew 'to stop the vandalism, to stop the looting.' One square mile (2.5 square kilometers) of the city's more-than-500 square mile area will be off-limits from 8:00 pm and 6:00 am (0300 to 1300 GMT) for everyone apart from residents, journalists and emergency services, she added. One protester told AFP the arrest of migrants in a city with large immigrant and Latino populations was the root of the unrest. 'I think that obviously they're doing it for safety,' she said of the curfew. 'But I don't think that part of the problem is the peaceful protests. It's whatever else is happening on the other side that is inciting violence.' At their largest, the protests have included a few thousand people taking to the streets, but smaller mobs have used the cover of darkness to set fires, daub graffiti and smash windows. Overnight, Monday 23 businesses were looted, police said, adding that more than 500 people had been arrested over recent days. Protests against immigration arrests by federal law enforcement have also sprung up in cities around the country, including New York, Atlanta, Chicago, San Francisco and Austin. Trump has ordered 4,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles, along with 700 active-duty Marines, in what he has claimed is a necessary escalation to take back control – despite the insistence of local law enforcement that they could handle matters. A military spokeswoman said the Marines were expected to be on the streets by Wednesday. Their mission will be to guard federal facilities and to accompany 'federal officers in immigration enforcement operations in order to provide protection.' Demonstrators told AFP the soldiers 'should be respected' because they had not chosen to be in Los Angeles, but Lisa Orman blasted it as 'ridiculous.' 'I was here for the Dodger parade,' she said, referring to the LA team's World Series victory. 'It was 100 times bigger,' she said, branding the idea that Marines were necessary as 'a big show' that Trump wanted. The Pentagon said the deployment would cost US taxpayers US$134 million. Photographs issued by the Marine Corps showed men in combat fatigues using riot shields to practice crowd control techniques at the Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach. Late Tuesday, Texas Governor Greg Abbott said his state would deploy its National Guard 'to locations across the state to ensure peace & order' after solidarity protests. 'Peaceful protest is legal. Harming a person or property is illegal & will lead to arrest,' Abbott wrote on X. The Texas National Guard 'will use every tool & strategy to help law enforcement maintain order.' In sprawling Los Angeles on Tuesday, it was largely a typical day: tourists thronged Hollywood Boulevard, celebrities attended red carpet premieres, tens of thousands of children went to school and commuter traffic choked the streets. But at a military base in North Carolina, Trump was painting a much darker picture. 'What you're witnessing in California is a full-blown assault on peace, on public order and national sovereignty,' the Republican told troops at Fort Bragg. 'This anarchy will not stand. We will not allow an American city to be invaded and conquered by a foreign enemy.' California Governor Gavin Newsom, a Democrat who has clashed with the president before, said Trump's shock militarisation of the city was the behaviour of 'a tyrant, not a president.' In a filing to the US District Court in Northern California, Newsom asked for an injunction preventing the use of troops for policing. US law largely prevents the use of the military as a policing force – absent the declaration of an insurrection, which Trump has mused. The president 'is trying to use emergency declarations to justify bringing in first the National Guard and then mobilising Marines,' said law professor Frank Bowman. AFP

Trump's LA intervention sets the stage for a bigger political showdown
Trump's LA intervention sets the stage for a bigger political showdown

Straits Times

timean hour ago

  • Straits Times

Trump's LA intervention sets the stage for a bigger political showdown

Mr Trump's obsession with immigration has dominated his 2024 presidential campaign and US politics for the past decade. PHOTO: AFP LONDON - The clashes between rioters and federal and California National Guards troops now unfolding in Los Angeles have played out in typical American fashion, with exaggerated claims and disputes about the interpretation of supposedly grand constitutional principles. US President Donald Trump claims that, had he not deployed a total of around 5,000 troops, Los Angeles 'would be burning'. But Ms Karen Bass, Los Angeles' mayor, argues that law and order was never truly threatened in her city, and that the solution to the violence is simple: the 'administration needs to stop the raids'. Meanwhile, Mr Gavin Newsom, California's Governor, is suing the Trump administration , alleging that the President's actions violate the US Constitution, and particularly the 10th Amendment that says that any power not expressly granted to the US federal government in the Constitution goes to the states. But in reality, both the confrontation and the surrounding spectacle are proxy battles in preparation not only for next year's mid-term Congressional elections, but also for the much more significant political landmark of 2027, when the two parties will pick their following presidential candidates. The illegal immigrants and soldiers are merely actors in this political tussle. What both sides got wrong on immigration Mr Trump's obsession with immigration has dominated his 2024 presidential campaign and US politics for the past decade. As they went to the ballots in November 2024, almost two-thirds of US voters saw immigration as a priority for them in the election. Democratic party bosses now readily acknowledge that their inability to provide convincing answers to the immigration dilemma and the perception that the borders between the US and Mexico were wide open to illegal migrants cost them dearly. Worries about illegal immigration were not confined to white Americans, as some Democratic politicians like to claim. A large number of Black US citizens also voted for Mr Trump because they felt threatened by influxes of illegal immigrants. The idea that Latino voters in the US are in solidarity with Spanish-speakers arriving from various parts of Central and South America is also an urban political myth: there is little in common between the sons and daughters of refugees from Cuba who are key players in states such as Florida, and the Hispanic migrants who are predominant in states such as New Mexico or California. From the moment Mr Trump was sworn into the White House, it was clear that clamping down on immigration would remain one of the President's key policy objectives. Still, most of Mr Trump's statistics on question of immigration have been plucked out of thin air. The President claims, for instance, that 'over 22 million' illegal migrants entered the US under Mr Joe Biden, his White House predecessor. However, the Department of Homeland Security suggests that only 11 million 'unauthorised immigrants' lived in the country in 2022, the last year for which complete figures were released. Mr Trump is also wrong to pretend that his Democratic predecessors 'did nothing' to deport illegal migrants. The administration of President Joe Biden carried out 1.5 million deportations in its four years in power, not much fewer than the total deported from the US during Mr Trump's first term. And during Mr Barack Obama's presidency, up to a total of 2.9 million illegal immigrants were removed, a record that Mr Trump still struggles to break. The new battlelines Where the Trump administration is correct, however, is that immigration questions are federal, rather than state matters, and that the White House retains a very wide latitude on who gets admitted to the US, or who gets deported from it. The total number of illegal migrants residing in California is disputed. Yet there is broad agreement that up to a quarter of all illegal migrants in the US are in this state. California legislators have granted illegal immigrants privileges they cannot get in most other states, including driver's licences, healthcare, college tuition and some financial aid. It was, therefore, only a question of time before officers of the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) started arresting alleged illegal migrants in California. Most Republican voters also see California as a bastion of America's most left-wing political establishment. There is no question that, in ordering the ICE raids, the Trump administration knew it was igniting a major political clash. Californian politicians claim that Mr Trump's decision to take control of the state's National Guard – which is usually under the command of the state's governor - and deploy additional US federal military in Los Angeles are an abuse of powers. Such powers should only be used in an extreme emergency of a complete breakdown of law and order, which was clearly not the case in Los Angeles. In his filings before the courts, California Attorney-General Rob Bonta called the deployment an 'inflammatory escalation unsupported by conditions on the ground' and one which 'exceeds the federal government's authority'. However, this glosses over the fact that the last time US presidents used such powers was during the 1960s, to quell riots against the abolition of racial segregation in schools. These were more violent affairs than what happened in Los Angeles over the past week. Still, they hardly amounted to the complete breakdown of law and order. Yet those 1960s deployments are now accepted by most Americans as entirely justified, even though they did not come in response to extreme violence, despite flaming passions at that time. Furthermore, California passed laws banning the state's police forces and other law enforcement agencies from helping with detention and deportation cases unless these involve illegal migrants suspected of committing a serious crime. So, the Trump administration can justifiably claim that although the demonstrations against the ICE arrests in Los Angeles were initially small, local police could not be relied upon to quell them, and federal intervention was, therefore, required. Who wins? The courts will debate the question for many months to come. And it will probably end up in the US Supreme Court, where judges are more likely to side with the administration, not because a majority of the Court's judges were appointed by Republicans, but more because the Supreme Court is traditionally reluctant to restrict the US president's discretion in deciding on what are national emergencies. Mr Trump has already invoked obscure laws dating back to America's independence more than two centuries ago to seal the border with Mexico, without encountering serious objections. What is clear, however, is that the protests against harsh immigration policies in Los Angeles are propelling California Governor Gavin Newsom into his favourite political role: that of chief Democratic opponent to President Trump. The confrontation with Mr Trump could now determine whether California's governor has what it takes to play his long-coveted role: that of US president. Jonathan Eyal is based in London and Brussels and writes on global political and security matters. Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.

Trump tariffs may remain in effect while appeals proceed, US appeals court rules, World News
Trump tariffs may remain in effect while appeals proceed, US appeals court rules, World News

AsiaOne

timean hour ago

  • AsiaOne

Trump tariffs may remain in effect while appeals proceed, US appeals court rules, World News

A federal appeals court allowed President Donald Trump's most sweeping tariffs to remain in effect on Tuesday (June 10) while it reviews a lower-court decision blocking them on grounds that he had exceeded his authority by imposing them. The decision by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, DC means Trump may continue to enforce, for now, his "Liberation Day" tariffs on imports from most US trading partners, as well as a separate set of tariffs levied on Canada, China and Mexico. The appeals court has yet to rule on whether the tariffs are permissible under an emergency economic powers act that Trump cited to justify them, but it allowed the duties to remain in place while the appeals play out. The Federal Circuit said the litigation raised issues of "exceptional importance" warranting the court to take the rare step of having the 11-member court hear the appeal, rather than have it go before a three-judge panel first. It scheduled arguments for July 31. The tariffs, used by Trump as negotiating leverage with US trading partners, and their on-again, off-again nature, have shocked markets and whipsawed companies of all sizes as they seek to manage supply chains, production, staffing and prices. The ruling has no impact on other tariffs levied under more traditional legal authority, such as duties on steel and aluminium imports. A three-judge panel of the US Court of International Trade ruled on May 28 that the US Constitution gave Congress, not the president, the power to levy taxes and tariffs, and that the president had exceeded his authority by invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a law intended to address "unusual and extraordinary" threats during national emergencies. The Trump administration quickly appealed the ruling, and the Federal Circuit in Washington put the lower court decision on hold the next day while it considered whether to impose a longer-term pause. The May 28 ruling came in a pair of lawsuits, one filed by the nonpartisan Liberty Justice Centre on behalf of five small US businesses that import goods from countries targeted by the duties, and the other by 12 US states led by Oregon. Jeffrey Schwab, an attorney for the small businesses that sued, said Tuesday's federal appeals court decision was disappointing, but it did not mean that the Trump administration would win in the end. "It's important to note that every court to rule on the merits so far has found these tariffs unlawful, and we have faith that this court will likewise see what is plain as day: that IEEPA does not allow the president to impose whatever tax he wants whenever he wants," Schwab said Tuesday. The White House and state of Oregon did not immediately respond to requests for comment after normal business hours on Tuesday. Trump has claimed broad authority to set tariffs under IEEPA. The 1977 law has historically been used to impose sanctions on enemies of the US or freeze their assets. Trump is the first US president to use it to impose tariffs. Trump has said that the tariffs imposed in February on Canada, China and Mexico were to fight illegal fentanyl trafficking at US borders, denied by the three countries, and that the across-the-board tariffs on all US trading partners imposed in April were a response to the US trade deficit. The states and small businesses had argued the tariffs were not a legal or appropriate way to address those matters, and the small businesses argued that the decades-long US practice of buying more goods than it exports does not qualify as an emergency that would trigger IEEPA. At least five other court cases have challenged the tariffs justified under the emergency economic powers act, including other small businesses and the state of California. One of those cases, in federal court in Washington, DC, also resulted in an initial ruling against the tariffs, and no court has yet backed the unlimited emergency tariff authority Trump has claimed. [[nid:718640]]

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store