India-Pakistan live: Pakistan ‘committed' to truce; India claims breaches
Jubilation at a ceasefire between India and Pakistan has been short-lived, with reports of explosions and gunfire in several cities in Indian-administered Kashmir.India's Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri accuses Pakistan of 'repeated violations' of the truce, and said the Indian military has been instructed to 'deal strongly' with any breaches.In response, Pakistan's Foreign Ministry says it 'remains committed' to the ceasefire agreement with India and blames India for the violations.More than 60 people have been reported killed on both sides of the Line of Control (LoC), the de facto border between the two countries dividing the disputed Kashmir region, since India launched missiles under 'Operation Sindoor' on WednesdayIndia has said it was responding to an attack that killed 26 tourists in Pahalgam on April 22, which it blamed on Pakistan-based armed groups.
Update:
Date: 3m ago (00:03 GMT)
Title: A recap of recent developments
Content:
Update:
Date: 6m ago (00:00 GMT)
Title: Welcome to our live coverage
Content: Hello, and thank you for joining our coverage of tensions between India and Pakistan after the deadly attack in Pahalgam in Indian-administered Kashmir last month.
Follow this page for up-to-the-minute updates on the latest developments, along with context and analysis.
You can find all our updates from Saturday, May 10, here.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Jazeera
21 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Why Ukraine peace talks are failing
This month's peace talks between Russia and Ukraine in Istanbul have once again failed to bring the war any closer to a ceasefire. The only outcome – a limited agreement on prisoner exchanges – underscores a troubling truth: the current negotiation framework is not working. Meanwhile, military escalation on both sides shows no signs of slowing. In such an atmosphere, diplomacy becomes increasingly difficult. A ceasefire feels out of reach, and uneasy comparisons with the Korean Peninsula's frozen armistice are beginning to surface – a scenario that would only entrench division, fuel resentment, and leave key territorial issues unresolved. That is why we must fundamentally rethink how these talks are structured and led. Yes, a full, unconditional 30-day ceasefire – as Ukraine proposed in Istanbul – is the bare minimum needed to create space for diplomacy. Talks must be convened without preconditions, offering all parties a seat at the table on neutral ground. There is no shortage of thoughtful policy proposals in Western circles outlining feasible paths to peace. We support calls for stronger international engagement, particularly from the United Nations, the United States and the European Union. What is needed now is urgent, coordinated global action – before tit-for-tat escalations spiral even further out of control. But there is a deeper flaw in the way current negotiations are being facilitated – often by foreign ministers approaching the conflict as a technical problem to be solved: add a concession here, subtract a demand there. Each side calculates whether the outcome adds up in its favour. That arithmetic approach cannot work – not in a conflict defined by trauma, identity, loss and justice. What continues to be absent from these discussions is any real conversation about justice, accountability and healing. There can be no sustainable peace without a process of transitional justice. As scholars and practitioners have long noted, a frozen conflict without accountability only prolongs suffering and sets the stage for future violence. Likewise, there is too little attention paid to societal trauma – the emotional and psychological toll of war on civilians, soldiers and entire communities. Too much blood has been shed to exclude these dimensions from the peace process. A negotiation cannot succeed if one side is focused on saving face at the expense of the truth. A durable outcome is only possible when facts are acknowledged – the aggression, the occupation and the suffering of millions. What is required now is a new kind of diplomacy – one that accounts for the deep trauma of this war. The mood in Ukraine is heavy, haunted by daily reminders of loss: the sirens, the shattered homes, the soldier's coffin quietly passing by on an otherwise ordinary street. Peace must begin with recognition – not only of legal borders and security guarantees, but of pain. This is the essential – and too often overlooked – precondition for any meaningful dialogue, in Turkiye or elsewhere. Recognising the human cost is not weakness; it is strength. Without it, any ceasefire will remain fragile, any agreement incomplete. Peace in Ukraine requires more than a political settlement. It demands social reconciliation – a process as vital as the diplomatic one. History, language, identity: these are not peripheral issues in this war; they are its heart. That means rethinking everything – who hosts the talks, where they happen, and how they are facilitated. We need less of a closed-door negotiation in Istanbul and more of a public-facing truth and reconciliation process, with real international backing. It all hinges on who convenes this process, and how. The United States is uniquely positioned to lead, perhaps more effectively than a divided European Union. But recent statements from the Trump camp – seen by many in Ukraine as indifferent or incendiary – have only inflamed tensions. They do more harm than good. What is needed now is serious, strategic engagement – led by the US, in concert with the EU and UN – that meets this moment with the gravity it demands. This is not a maths problem. It is a matter of justice, healing and human survival. It is time we approached it that way. The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.
Al Jazeera
a day ago
- Al Jazeera
‘Catastrophic' Air India plane crash near Ahmedabad: What we know
An Air India Boeing 787 Dreamliner plane has crashed close to an airport on the edge of India's western city of Ahmedabad with at least 242 people on board. According to Reuters, rescue workers said between 30 and 35 bodies had been recovered from the crash site in a densely populated area of the city. So far, no survivors have been reported. Flight AI171 was headed to London Gatwick Airport on Thursday where it was due to land at 6:25pm local time (17:25 GMT). 'Of these [on board], 169 are Indian nationals, 53 are British nationals, 1 Canadian national and 7 Portuguese nationals,' Air India said in a statement. The airline described the incident as 'a tragic accident'. 'Many people' have died in the crash, the country's health minister Jagat Prakash Nadda wrote in a post on X. Prime Minister Narendra Modi wrote on X: 'The tragedy in Ahmedabad has stunned and saddened us. It is heartbreaking beyond words. In this sad hour, my thoughts are with everyone affected by it. 'Have been in touch with ministers and authorities who are working to assist those affected.' This incident is the latest in a series of serious and fatal events in the civil aviation industry this year, including a midair collision in Washington in January between a military helicopter and an plane crashed in a residential area called Meghani Nagar, Faiz Ahmed Kidwai, head of the Directorate General of Civil Aviation, told The Associated Press. The city of 7-8 million people is in President Modi's home state of Gujarat. Modi has directed the Ministry of Civil Aviation to take 'all possible action' to assist at the crash site. There is a large Gujarat population in Great Britain, and the Ahmedabad-London route is a popular one. According to flight tracking website Flightradar24, the plane's final signal was received just seconds after takeoff at 1:38pm local time (08:08 GMT). It had reached an altitude of 625 feet (190 metres) before crashing back to the ground outside the airport, close to densely populated residential areas on the outskirts of the city. The plane issued a mayday alert to air traffic control before all communications from the aircraft ceased. Ahmedabad airport has been closed and all flight operations have been suspended until further notice. Footage shared on social media of the crash site showed debris on fire, with huge plumes of thick, black smoke rising into the sky near the airport. They also showed people being moved in stretchers and being taken away in ambulances. India's CNN News-18 TV channels said the plane crashed on top of the dining area of state-run B.J. Medical College hostel, killing many medical students as well. It showed a visual of a portion of the aircraft perched atop the building. 'The building on which it has crashed is a doctors' hostel…We have cleared almost 70 percent to 80 percent of the area and will clear the rest soon,' a senior police officer also told reporters. Local journalist Sunil Vaidya told Al Jazeera: 'The crash site is very close to a civil hospital where there is a medical college,' he said. 'It is quite possible that students studying there are staying in a hostel nearby.' This could be a very serious crash, experts say. Alex Macheras, an independent aviation analyst, told Al Jazeera that the Boeing 787 is a long-haul craft, which means it has capacity for a large number of passengers. 'This is probably going to be one of the worst aviation incidents for Indian aviation history in recent decades,' Macheras said. However, he added that the Boeing 787 Dreamliner, of which there are 1,100 in operation around the world, has a very good track record for safety. 'There has never been a fatal crash involving a 787 Dreamliner before this,' Macheras said. He said the incident would raise serious questions about what could have gone wrong with this flight and why the aircraft was 'struggling to gain altitude' after takeoff. 'The 787 has been in service for 15 years – this is a mid to long-haul passenger aircraft, one of the latest from Boeing in terms of the development and the introduction of carbon-fibre aircraft,' Macheras told Al Jazeera. 'It provides airlines with immense efficiency but also with the promise of stellar safety record that the 787 has. In fact, in its 15 years of commercial service globally, the Boeing 787 Dreamliner has never been involved in a crash or a whole loss or a fatal accident,' Macheras said. 'So combined, it's an aircraft that the industry knows is of the highest standards in terms of meeting safety regulations globally, across different markets but also one that is trusted and essentially a workhorse of the skies when it comes to long-haul travel'. Macheras added that he is hearing from executives within the aviation industry who are 'utterly shocked' at the footage. They 'can't quite believe that an aircraft with an impeccable safety record was involved in something that looks like is going to be so catastrophic', he said. ANI news agency reported that at least 90 emergency response workers are currently deployed at the site of the crash. India's Minister of Civil Aviation Ram Mohan Naidu Kinjarapu said he was 'shocked and devastated' by the plane crash. 'I am personally monitoring the situation and have directed all aviation and emergency response agencies to take swift and coordinated action. Rescue teams have been mobilised, and all efforts are being made to ensure medical aid and relief support are being rushed to the site.' 'My thoughts and prayers are with all those on board and their families,' he added. Elsewhere, Air India's chairman, Natarajan Chandrasekaran said that 'further updates will be shared as we receive more verified information. An emergency centre has been activated and support team have been set up for families seeking information.' However, local people said little information was reaching those worried about loved ones on the flight or on the ground where it crashed. Vaidya told Al Jazeera: 'It is chaos. They have cordoned off the accident site and ambulances are rushing to hospitals. But the general public and relatives – they are not getting any information.' Yes, but not for some time. Air India's safety record is comparable with international carriers such as Turkish Airlines, American Airlines or Lufthansa. However, it is not as safe as 'top-tier' carriers like Singapore Airlines or Emirates (which have had zero, or near-zero, fatal crashes in recent decades). Previous instances of fatal Air India crashes include: The unprofitable carrier was acquired by the Tata Group from the Indian government in 2021. Air India is currently in the middle of a strategic turnaround, including making a large aircraft order as it seeks to tap growing demand from India's expanding middle class. Yes. Boeing, which leads the global aircraft market alongside Europe's Airbus, has come under intense scrutiny over its safety record since two fatal crashes involving the Boeing 737 Max in 2018 and 2019. The 737 Max jets were grounded worldwide for almost two years after a crash killed 189 people in Indonesia in October 2018 and another killed 157 people in Ethiopia five months later. It was found that the crashes had occurred due to defects in the automated flight control software, which activated erroneously. The software was improved and the Boeing 737s were revamped and cleared to fly again. Then, in January 2024, the door plug of a Boeing 737 Max 9 flew off midair during an Alaska Airlines flight. The Alaska Airlines incident was found to have been caused by a defect in the manufacturing process, with loose hardware on the aircraft. In March 2024, John Barnett, 62, who reported safety problems at Boeing, died from an apparent 'self-inflicted' injury during the time he was giving evidence in a whistleblower lawsuit against the company. Barnett worked as a quality manager for the US aircraft giant for more than three decades until he retired in 2017. In 2019, Barnett alleged the aircraft maker, based just outside Washington, DC, had deliberately fitted planes with faulty parts and passengers on its 787 Dreamliner could be left without oxygen in the event of a sudden decompression. Boeing has denied these allegations.
Al Jazeera
a day ago
- Al Jazeera
How is Pakistan raising money for a 20 percent hike in defence spending?
Islamabad, Pakistan – Pakistan has increased its defence spending by more than 20 percent – the most substantial hike in a decade – following last month's military confrontation with neighbouring India. Presenting the annual federal budget on June 10, Finance Minister Muhammad Aurangzeb proposed an allocation of 2.55 trillion rupees ($9bn) for the country's three armed services – the army, air force and navy – amounting to 1.97 percent of Pakistan's gross domestic product (GDP), up from 1.7 percent in the previous budget. 'The security situation in the country is precarious, and the armed forces have rendered commendable service in protecting the borders,' Aurangzeb said during his speech, as India has threatened to carry out strikes if armed groups carry out attacks on India or Indian-administered Kashmir. But analysts say that Islamabad will need to walk a fine balance in spending more on defence at a time when its fragile economy is under strict oversight from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and cuts in social sector expenditure could embolden the opposition. On May 7, India carried out missile strikes on what it called 'terrorist infrastructure' in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir after blaming Islamabad for backing fighters responsible for the killing of 26 people in Indian-administered Kashmir's Pahalgam town on April 22. Pakistan denied involvement in the Pahalgam attacks, demanding a 'credible, transparent, independent' investigation. Islamabad said innocent civilians were killed in India's attacks on May 7. Tensions escalated after the two nuclear-armed neighbours engaged in tit-for-tat missile and drone attacks over four days, primarily targeting each other's military installations. By the time a ceasefire was announced by United States President Donald Trump on May 10, in excess of 70 people had been killed – more than 50 in Pakistan and at least 20 in India. Against that backdrop, Pakistan's defence hike was expected, say analysts. India, which presented its budget before the conflict, also increased its defence spending to $78.7bn, a 9.5 percent rise from the previous year. But unlike India, Pakistan has more than a neighbour to keep an eye on: It also confronts pressure from the IMF. The IMF approved a 37-month, $7bn loan programme for Pakistan last September, its 25th since 1958. The most recent tranche of $1.3bn was released in May this year, a day before the ceasefire between India and Pakistan took place. But in exchange, the global lender has been pressuring Pakistan to streamline its expenditure, reduce subsidies and improve the efficiency of its governance structures. Pakistan appears to have paid heed to those demands from the IMF. Even as its defence spending has gone up substantially, its overall budget for the next fiscal year has been slashed by 17.57 trillion rupees ($62bn), marking a 6.9 percent decrease from last year. The defence spending hike, while massive, is in line with growing defence allocation in recent years. The military's budget has nearly doubled in the past five years. In fiscal year 2020-21, the allocation stood at 1.28 trillion rupees ($4.53bn). The army, long seen as the most powerful institution in Pakistan's defence and political spheres, has received 1.17 trillion rupees ($4.1bn), accounting for nearly 46 percent of the total defence budget. The air force and navy received just more than 520 billion rupees ($1.8m) and 265.9 billion rupees ($941m), respectively. Pakistan's military budget increase also reflects a broader global trend. A report published in April by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), which specialises in conflict and arms control research, stated that global military expenditure reached $2.7 trillion in 2024, a 9.4 percent increase from the previous year and the 'steepest year-on-year rise since the end of the Cold War'. Hina Shaikh, a Lahore-based economist with the International Growth Centre (IGC), said the increase in Pakistan was expected and reflects the government's continued prioritisation of security amid geopolitical tensions and domestic instability. 'While understandable from a strategic lens, this increase does come when economic recovery is just beginning to happen, but still fragile, inflation is easing and fiscal space is constrained,' she told Al Jazeera. Ali Hasanain, an economics professor at the Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS), called the hike in defence spending both 'inevitable and necessary' but warned against sacrificing long-term development. 'The only way out of this dilemma for Pakistan is to undertake deep structural reforms of the sort which no government has shown a commitment to yet, so that both the economy and defence spending can stay robust over the medium and long terms,' Hasanain said. While most analysts agree that the defence spending hike is a fallout of the May conflict, a major challenge for the government is to fund it without compromising the social welfare, health, or education sectors. Due to Pakistan's sizable external debt, recorded at $87.4bn according to the latest government figures, the largest share of the national budget is consumed by debt servicing, which stands at $29bn, which is almost 47 percent of total expenditure. In the budget announced on Tuesday, Pakistan's government has cut subsidies. The budget also outlines plans to expand the tax base, removes exemptions, and introduces new taxes to raise public revenue. The opposition party of jailed former Prime Minister Imran Khan dubbed the budget 'anti-people' and 'crafted for the elite.' The Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party, which remains banned, said on Wednesday that the budget provided no real relief to the public, as government staff salary raises were low and agriculture, the mainstay of the country's economy, witnessed decline. Sajid Amin Javed, a senior economist at the Sustainable Development Policy Institute (SDPI), said that the combination of a decline in the interest payments Pakistan owes its debtors this year, and the cut in subsidies had provided the government 'some fiscal space'. Still, others highlighted that Pakistan's defence spending, while the highest in South Asia as a percentage of GDP, has declined in relative terms compared to past decades as it has been forced to set money aside to repay loans. Hasanain of LUMS said that Pakistan now spends less, as a percentage of GDP, than countries like Singapore (2.8 percent), Greece (3.1 percent), Poland (4.2 percent), or the United States (3.4 percent), and nearly three times less than Saudi Arabia (7.3 percent), Russia (7.1 percent), or Israel (8.8 percent). But he pointed out that Pakistan also collects far less tax than most other countries, so the defence spending hike still eats up a giant chunk of the government's revenue. 'A low tax to GDP ratio means that defence spending is a bigger burden for the government in Pakistan than most other countries in the world.' The last few years have been deeply turbulent for Pakistan's economy. Foreign reserves fell to just under $3bn in 2023, bringing the country of 250 million people to the brink of default. Foreign reserves have since risen to $11bn following IMF deals. Similarly, the Pakistani rupee, having lost more than 60 percent of its value against the US dollar over the last two years, has now stabilised between 280 and 282 rupees per dollar. Javed of SDPI says these indicators show Pakistan's macroeconomic fundamentals are stabilising, but the public impact remains uncertain. 'It is a budget of stabilisation, made in consultation with the IMF, to ensure that the country's revenue, growth and fiscal deficit targets are met. But on the whole, it remains a traditional budget, with no deep-rooted structural changes or strategic change visible, at least for now,' he said. Economist Shaikh argued that the budget lacks inclusive or pro-poor reforms and shows limited investment in sectors like health and education. 'This may be called a technocrat's budget under IMF constraints, fiscally conservative, tax-heavy, and focused on short-term stabilisation. It is focused on restoring macroeconomic stability, controlling inflation, and building reserves,' she said. Hasanain, however, says that the IMF principally concerns itself with helping countries move back towards stability, and does not consider long-term, sustainable growth as its purview. 'By cutting expenditures and running primary budget surpluses, the government is indeed moving out of the acute debt crisis it found itself in two years ago, but the larger project of correcting longstanding structural deficiencies is, despite receiving some lip service, largely neglected to date,' he said. 'Given the lack of any serious political opposition, this excessive caution towards reform is deeply frustrating.'
