Latest news with #terroristGroups
New York Times
11-05-2025
- Politics
- New York Times
What We Know About How the 4-Day India and Pakistan Clashes Unfolded
The spark for the recent conflict between India and Pakistan was a terrorist attack on the Indian side of Kashmir on April 22. India pointed to its neighbor's history of sheltering terrorist groups and initiated a cross-border military campaign. It quickly escalated into four nights of clashes in which the two countries hit deeper into each other's territory than at any time in half a century, and that was unprecedented in how the use of new-generation technology created a dizzying escalation in the skies. While the damage on both sides will take weeks and months to tally, particularly in a space of media blackouts and extreme disinformation, here is what we know about how the clashes played out. The First Shots In its opening round of airstrikes, in the pre-dawn hours on Wednesday, India struck targets deeper inside the enemy territory than it had in decades, and by all accounts had hit close enough to facilities associated with terrorist groups that it could claim victory. But it quickly became clear that it had not been a clean strike, but more of a protracted dogfight between the two air forces — both sides with their jets in the sky going at each other, with the boundary between them as a line that neither crossed. And India lost aircraft in the exchanges, including at least two of its most advanced fighter jets. The Escalations On the second day, as a diplomatic push for an off-ramp intensified, India said it had thwarted a Pakistani attempt overnight to hit military targets across over a dozen border cities and towns. In response, it had taken the kind of action that analysts say almost always escalates a conflict: It struck sensitive military targets, particularly air defense systems in the Pakistani city of Lahore. 'A move like that is quite strident and would have concerned Pakistani forces, because in other contexts, taking out air defenses is a prelude to more serious action,' said Kim Heriot-Darragh, a strategic and defense analyst at the Australia India Institute. 'You'd knock out defenses to open a corridor through which aircraft could fly and strike their actual target.' Diplomats and analysts are uncertain about just how the events of early Thursday morning played out, but it is clear that something major had changed and was seen as an important shift in the pattern of escalation. Whether Pakistan was using a mass of drone incursions and missiles to actually try to hit India's military sites or just to warn India and probe its air-defense systems for something bigger later is still unclear. Pakistan's astonishing official response — a complete denial that it had done anything on the second night — left two explanations for the events: that it was just a probing mission that Pakistan did not want to distract from the actual retaliation that was coming, or that it was an initial retaliation that had not succeeded. But India nonetheless took the opportunity to actually damage crucial Pakistani military sites, and with that all bets were off. Pakistan vowed it would retaliate. The only way the escalation could be arrested was the way it had always been: with an outside power stepping in to tell both sides to knock it off. Alarm Over Strategic Sites On the nights of Friday and Saturday, the situation escalated rapidly to an air war with few holds barred, but in which ground forces had not been moved. Pakistan launched a massive campaign of drone and missile strikes, targeting military bases across several Indian cities — this time with clear acknowledgment from the Indian side that not only there was damage to some bases and equipment, but also that it had lost security personnel. There was clear evidence that India had also managed to create damage on the Pakistani side, targeting air fields and more defense systems, and also striking near one of Pakistan's crucial strategic headquarters. What alarmed the United States, and intensified the diplomatic push for the cease-fire that was announced late on Saturday, was not only that the two sides were increasing strikes to sensitive sites but also just what the next step in a rapid escalation ladder for two alarmed nuclear powers could mean. What Is Ahead While the scores are still being tallied, and damage assessed, the four days may have fundamentally changed the reality of conflict in this part of the world toward noncontact warfare: barrages from a distance until the very last stages of battle, but still leading to escalation and the potential loss of restraint. The abundance of new-generation technology, particularly cheap drones and loitering munitions, might initially suggest more precision targeting and less human cost. But in this latest India-Pakistan conflict, those technologies still prompted a cycle of escalation that led to concerns that the use of nuclear weapons could be put on the table.
Reuters
10-05-2025
- Politics
- Reuters
India and Pakistan exchange fire despite ceasefire agreement
NEW DELHI, May 10 (Reuters) - India and Pakistan agreed to a ceasefire on Saturday after U.S.-led diplomacy, but hours later India said that Pakistan had violated the truce. Here's how the conflict unfolded between the two nuclear-armed neighbors and where it stands now: After four days of intense military exchanges, India and Pakistan agreed to a ceasefire on Saturday, facilitated by U.S.-led diplomatic efforts. The ceasefire came amid heightened fears that the conflict could escalate into a broader confrontation, with both nations on high alert. But within hours, violations were reported from the main cities of Indian Kashmir, the territory that had borne the brunt of four days of fighting. The Indian armed forces were responding to ceasefire violations by Pakistan hours after the truce was reached on Saturday, Indian Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri told a press briefing in New Delhi. The current hostilities began after a deadly April 22 attack targeting Hindu tourists in Indian Kashmir, which left 26 people dead. India blamed Pakistan-based militant groups for the assault, prompting New Delhi to launch air strikes earlier this week on what it described as "terrorist infrastructure" within Pakistan. Pakistan, which denies involvement in the Kashmir attack, condemned the strikes and vowed to retaliate. India said it struck nine "terrorist camps" in Pakistan on Wednesday, claiming these sites were indoctrination centers, training grounds, and launchpads for attacks. Some of these, according to Indian officials, were linked to the perpetrators of last month's violence. Pakistan said the Indian attacks hit six locations in its territory, none of them militant camps. Pakistan initially claimed it shot down five Indian fighter jets during the first wave of strikes, a claim the Indian embassy in Beijing dismissed as "misinformation." In response to subsequent escalations, Pakistan said it shot down 25 Indian drones overnight, including some over its largest cities, Karachi and Lahore. India, meanwhile, stated that it had "neutralized" Pakistani attempts to strike military targets with drones and missiles, including targeting air defense systems in Pakistan. Global leaders have welcomed the de-escalation between India and Pakistan. U.S. President Donald Trump credited American diplomatic efforts and described it as a result of "a long night of talks" mediated by the United States. European Union foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas welcomed the ceasefire as a "vital step toward de-escalation," while British Foreign Minister David Lammy urged both sides to maintain it. The ceasefire agreement marks a significant step back from the brink of a major conflict. However, despite the agreement, the Indus Waters Treaty, a key water-sharing pact between the two countries remains suspended, four government sources told Reuters. Two Indian government sources also told Reuters that other punitive measures announced by India and reciprocated by Pakistan, such as trade suspension and visa cancellations, would remain in place for now.
ABC News
09-05-2025
- Politics
- ABC News
India has been trying a new strategy to deter terrorism from Pakistan. Is it working?
War drums are beating in India and Pakistan for the third time in 10 years, while the world watches anxiously. As the nuclear-armed rivals engage in attacks and counterattacks, it's a good idea to revisit how things have played out in the recent past, and evaluate whether India's policy of muscular retaliation is working. India has, for decades, struggled to deter terrorist attacks from across the border in the disputed Kashmir region. Though Pakistan has always denied involvement in these incidents, the denials largely fall on deaf ears in India and internationally, given the country's self-admitted history of supporting terrorism in Kashmir. India's relationship with its north-western neighbour has been marred and twisted over the decades by repeated attacks from Pakistan-backed terrorists. Many times, those attacks came as the two governments tried to conduct peace talks and normalise relations, forcing India to abandon those efforts. Prior to 2014, under successive governments, India had followed a policy of restraint. When an attack by Pakistan-based militants occurred, killing soldiers or civilians, India would take largely diplomatic actions, like suspending dialogue, expelling diplomats, and issuing public condemnations. But military action was considered too risky under the nuclear umbrella. It is hard to overstate just how much the Pakistan problem influenced India's domestic politics. The desire to respond strongly to these attacks became a central plank in Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi's election campaign in 2014 and beyond. After witnessing years of Indian self-control, much of its public now believe the risk of escalating into war is worth it — because no country can go on absorbing terrorist attacks forever. Under Modi's government, India pursued a bold new policy against cross-border terrorism in Kashmir — one where it isn't too afraid to escalate. So, how have these conflicts provoked by terrorism played out under the new strategy? In September 2016, 19 Indian soldiers were killed by terrorists from internationally proscribed Pakistan-based group Jaish-e-Mohamed (JeM). The attackers hit an army brigade headquarters in the town of Uri in the wee hours of the morning. The Indian government was under pressure to retaliate. India undertook "surgical strikes" in Pakistan-controlled Kashmir in response, in what was considered a serious escalation. It claimed "significant casualties" were dealt to "terrorist launch pads" along the de facto border, but never officially released numbers. Pakistan denied such an incursion happened, claiming that only small arms fire was exchanged across the border, and that only two of its soldiers were killed. Many news outlets jumped the gun, reporting that commandos had crossed the Line of Control, which divides the disputed Kashmir region between India and Pakistan, and killed large numbers of terrorists after being airdropped from helicopters. Independent analysts and reports in the days after, suggested limited action had been taken across the border with ground forces, and did not penetrate deep into Pakistani territory. Indian opposition politicians then came out and said that these strikes were actually no different to what previous governments had carried out, they had just not been as widely publicised. But the publicity was part of Modi's new strategy of dealing with terrorists in stronger language. In this new formulation, "soft" responses by India to cross-border militancy, like suspending dialogue and issuing condemnations, did nothing to deter future attacks. With these "surgical" attacks, the public's appetite to see something done, was sated. Again in 2019, JeM terrorists attacked a convoy of vehicles carrying Indian security personnel in the town of Pulwama in Kashmir. Forty personnel were killed by four terrorists who crossed the border. This time, India responded with more force than before: it launched air strikes deep into Pakistani territory at Balakot, for the first time since their 1971 war, alarming international observers. India claimed it had struck JeM's "biggest training camp", and killed a "very large number" of terrorists, trainers and "groups of jihadis". While the government did not provide figures, India's home minister put the number at 250 during a speech at an election rally. The air strike was praised in Indian media as a strong message to Pakistan. But there was a hitch. Pakistan launched retaliatory air raids on Indian territory the next morning, capturing an Indian pilot after an aerial dogfight. It was an ignominious development for the Indian government, which had billed itself as the unquestionably superior military power. Pakistan eventually handed the pilot back to India unharmed after his much-publicised capture, giving both countries a face-saving measure they could each declare victory over, and the conflict fizzled out. Independent analysts, including the foreign policy think tank Australian Strategic Policy Institute, later said there had been little evidence of India killing large numbers of people in the Balakot air strikes, but suggested this was a deliberate decision to avoid further escalation. But in the elections that followed, Modi was rewarded with a landslide victory. On April 22, four terrorists attacked tourists in the Kashmiri town of Pahalgam, killing 26 Indian civilians and one Nepali. India blamed Pakistan-backed terrorists for the attack and 15 days later, struck nine sites in Pakistan, and Pakistan-administered Kashmir. It deemed the response "non-escalatory" as it hit only "terrorist infrastructure". This week, the flurry of fake news and misinformation online has reached fever-pitch. Pakistani and Indian social media accounts are each posting videos of strikes and attacks from unrelated past conflicts, capitalising on the global interest, each pushing a nationalist agenda. Fact-checkers like Indian outlet Alt News have been debunking these posts as they proliferate, trying to keep a check on the fearmongering and chest-thumping. The enormous amounts of fake news and unverified claims emanating from both countries make a sensible reading of the risks difficult. Already, two prominent publications covering this conflict — Bloomberg TV and Indian publication The Hindu — have been forced to make substantive retractions. But this time around, the Indian government hit deeper into Pakistani territory than before, striking nine sites, though it did so from its own airspace. India showed footage in a press conference of its missiles hitting targets in Pakistani territory, showing the "terrorist infrastructure". The JeM chief Masood Azhar himself came out and said that 10 of his family members, including children, had been killed in the Indian strikes, while Pakistan claims 26 civilian casualties. India denies any civilians were killed. In response to India's attack, Pakistan claims it has downed five Indian planes as the two countries' air forces battled it out in the skies from their own airspaces. India has not addressed the claim yet, adding to the general confusion, but US and French officials have confirmed to Reuters and CNN that at least one Indian plane appears to have been downed. Over the past few hours, each side claimed the other launched drone attacks into their territory, which were repelled successfully. It would mark the first time the two countries have engaged in drone warfare. There are also face-saving off-ramps available now. Pakistan can say it got the better of the Indian attack into its territory by downing planes, and India can say it extracted a price for terrorism. The Indian government's policy around retaliation, despite the risk of escalating into war, was based on the idea that this would deter terrorist attacks from across the border. But the terror attacks that India has responded to militarily over the Modi government's reign aren't the only such attacks India has suffered. Data on fatalities from terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir from the New Delhi-based South Asia Terrorism Portal indicate a complicated picture. From highs of over 4,000 fatalities per year in 2001, the numbers in recent years are down to 100-200 — a sharp decline. They began dropping steadily in 2002, and continued on that trajectory for 11 years, dropping to 121 in 2012, two years before Modi took over. That was the lowest level since 1990. "The reason for that is the change in the international environment after 9/11," said Dr Ajai Sahni, Executive Director of the South Asia Terrorism Portal, the largest database on such conflicts in the region. "The Americans conducted thousands of drone attacks in Pakistan on terrorists and terrorist camps, Pakistan was under a lot of pressure," he said. The Modi government came to power in 2014, and the numbers started inching back up, peaking at 452 in 2018. In 2023, the fatalities dropped again, sitting at 127 in 2024. There's little indication in the data that the Indian government's new policy of military retaliation to terror over the last 11 years has had an effect on the numbers, either directly or indirectly. Sahni said a different tactic does seem to have an effect in bringing the numbers down since 2023. "One positive policy was that [the government] started prosecuting people associated with terrorism. There was prosecution for funding terrorism, for associating with terrorists, for facilitating terrorists, not just the primary acts of terrorism," he said. Proponents of the muscular Indian policy say the aim is not merely to reduce the numbers in the short-term, but to cause enough political pain and embarrassment to Pakistan in the long-term, that its leadership is forced to give up its support of terrorism. But whether Pakistan is being embarrassed on the global stage is far from clear. A lack of clarity around the specifics of these battles leaves a question in the world's minds as to who has actually come out on top. All this leaves India in a difficult position. Decades of restraint in the face of deadly terrorism incensed the Indian population, helping sweep the ruling party to power. Now, over a decade of retaliation has given a large portion of the public what they wanted, but it comes with serious escalation risks, and ever-greater scrutiny by the international community. For a country that wants to be focusing on its competition with China and its play for great power status, India can't seem to get out of the Pakistan quagmire.
The Guardian
08-05-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
‘There will be war': fear and defiance across border after Indian airstrikes in Pakistan
The crowd gathered in an angry frenzy, their slogans ringing out across the streets of the Pakistani city of Rawalpindi. 'There will be war,' they cried out in unison. 'The war will continue till Kashmir is freed. Till India is destroyed. There will be war.' Just hours earlier, an alleged Indian drone had crashed amid the food stalls outside the cricket stadium, injuring a passing civilian. It was one of at least 25 drones that Pakistan claimed India had sent into Pakistani territory overnight, in what they described as a 'another blatant military act of aggression'. The previous night, India had carried out the most extensive airstrikes on Pakistan in decades, as it used missiles and drones to target nine locations across the country. India said it had struck only 'terrorist infrastructure', including alleged headquarters and training camps of militant groups behind some of the deadliest terror attacks carried out on India soil. However, women and several children were among the 31 killed in the strikes. After India's alleged second incursion involving drones, which were shot down deep inside Pakistani territory early on Thursday, the mood on the streets of Rawalpindi was one of rage. The crowd had a single demand: 'Attack India and destroy India,' they roared. 'Hail Pakistan's military.' Since the partition of India and the formation of Pakistan in 1947, the two countries have fought four wars. While people-to-people sentiments have often softened in times of peace, any sign of cross-border aggression is known to ignite deep-rooted suspicions and outright anger, and is often met with calls for powerful retaliation. In Rawalpindi – home to the headquarters of Pakistan's military – there was deep frustration that Pakistan had yet to hit back at India after the strikes. Usman Ali, 20, a tailor, said the military should not wait any longer to attack India in a show of strength. 'They fired missiles at us yesterday and today their drones have attacked Punjab again,' he said. ' We should respond to their military strike with more and more powerful military strikes inside Pakistan. Our military should not be silent. They should destroy India. They want a war. We must give them one very soon.' The strikes on Wednesday were the first time since the 1971 war that India had launched missiles into Pakistan's most politically and militarily important province of Punjab. For many in the country, it was seen as a direct provocation that could not be ignored. 'What are we waiting for? Are we not a dignified and brave nation? Our military must strike now,' said a government servant, who asked to remain anonymous. Many have argued that all-out war with India is the last thing that Pakistan needs. It is already fighting a shadow war with Taliban militants along the border with Afghanistan and with separatist militants in Balochistan, and is still emerging from a financial crisis that has left many Pakistanis facing severe economic hardship. Even a few weeks ago, as the two countries exchanged mounting threats, the appetite for a hot war with India had remained largely lacklustre in Pakistan. However, this week's aggressions have changed sentiments entirely, cutting across political divides and economic background, from vendors to students and lawyers. Nabeel Najaf, 34, a government employee, said that India was now 'taking advantage' of Pakistan's restraint. 'They want a war. The Pakistan military and the army chief should give them a war,' she said. The decision on how Pakistan will respond now rests with its powerful military, in particular its chief, Gen Asim Munir. He is known for his hardline stance on India and his appetite for action over diplomacy, so many in the country believed that retaliatory strikes were imminent, especially given frustrations within the army rank-and-file at the lack of decisive action so far. Pakistan's military has historically commanded vast loyalty among the masses, but that has been eroded in recent years. How Munir chooses to respond to India, and the success of any operation, could either re-ignite Pakistan's faith in its powerful generals or push the establishment into greater crisis. Yet not all in the country were baying for war. 'The world must play its role to de-escalate the conflict,' said Yousaf Nisar, 30, a software engineer. 'The world powers are sleeping, sadly. If Pakistan strikes back, India will retaliate and this will go out of control into a full-fledged war.' The consequences of war for Pakistan would be 'unbearable', said Nasir. 'People think war is a joke but imagine the cost to human lives, infrastructure, our economy.' Over the border in India, a similar appetite for the full force of the military to rain down on Pakistan had been circulating for weeks, after a militant attack in Indian-controlled Kashmir killed 26 people. India accused Pakistan of involvement in the attack, in which Hindu men were singled out for their religion and killed, horrifying the Hindu-majority country. After Wednesday's strikes, a mood of jubilance gripped Delhi. 'I thought it was a very smart strike by India,' said Amitav Gosal, a lawyer in Delhi. 'Pakistan can't get away with being a haven for terrorists who sit over the border and plot to kill innocent Indians. Taking out those terrorist camps makes us all safer.' Yet others expressed anxiety, as fears of a Pakistan military response and an escalation of the conflict mounted on Thursday. Sheikh Abir, a security guard, shook his head nervously at the prospect. 'We have seen this issue with Pakistan many times before,' he said. 'It never ends well.'
