Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif issued a defiant response to Wednesday’s Indian air campaign, pledging to “avenge each drop of the blood of these martyrs” in a televised address on state broadcaster PTV. Sharif condemned the strikes on Punjab and Pakistan-administered Kashmir as “reckless aggression” and warned New Delhi that “this is a nation of brave people” that would not back down in the face of civilian casualties.
Sharif’s language marked one of the sternest Pakistani reactions since the 2003 ceasefire. Local officials reported at least 31 innocent civilians killed and 46 wounded when Indian jets struck what New Delhi called “terrorist infrastructure” but Islamabad insists were civilian sites, including a mosque-seminary in Muzaffarabad. Photographs from the wreckage show shattered walls, twisted metal, and household items strewn across the prayer hall, underscoring the human toll of the latest escalation.
Defence Minister’s Measured Response
Despite the Prime Minister’s vow of revenge, Defence Minister Khawaja Muhammad Asif struck a notably cautious tone in an interview with the New York Times. While reserving Pakistan’s right to retaliate against any further strikes, Asif emphasised that Islamabad was “ready to de-escalate” if India refrained from additional action.
“As it stands, restraint is still being applied,” Asif said. “But if the same situation arises tonight, the situation could flare up very easily.” He downplayed fears of nuclear war, stating he did “not foresee any risk, at the moment,” even as both countries stand on the brink. Asif also welcomed U.S. diplomatic engagement, affirming Pakistan’s openness to American mediation to defuse the crisis.
READ MORE: India Claims Strikes on Terrorist Infrastructure in Pakistan as Tensions Flare
Escalation and Retaliation
The flare-up follows a deadly Islamist militant attack in Indian-administered Kashmir late last month, which New Delhi blamed on camps run by Pakistan-based Jaish-e-Mohammed and Lashkar-e-Taiba. Indian forces responded with “Operation Sindoor,” striking nine sites that Defence Minister Rajnath Singh described as “terrorist infrastructure” – recruitment centres, indoctrination facilities, and weapons depots.
“The targets we had set were destroyed with exactness according to a well-planned strategy,” Singh said in New Delhi. He insisted there were no civilian casualties, a point flatly denied by Pakistan. Islamabad charged India with hitting purely civilian locations for the first time since full-scale war in 1971, including the historic Jamia Masjid Subhan Allah mosque.
Cross-Border Exchanges
In the aftermath, both militaries exchanged intense artillery fire along the Line of Control (LoC). Pakistan claimed to have shot down five Indian fighter jets and unmanned drones, although New Delhi dismissed these accounts as “disinformation.” Indian sources told Reuters three jets crashed in separate incidents and their pilots were hospitalised, but there has been no independent verification.
The artillery duels inflicted further civilian harm: India reported 13 deaths and 43 injuries on its side of the LoC, while Pakistani officials confirmed six military fatalities. Alarmingly, Pakistan noted that 57 commercial airliners—belonging to carriers from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, Thailand, South Korea, and China—overflew the region during the strikes, endangering thousands of passengers.
International Mediation Efforts
Global powers rushed to cool tensions. U.S. President Donald Trump, speaking at the White House, urged both sides to “stop now,” offering America’s good offices. “It’s so terrible,” Trump said. “I get along with both. I know both very well, and I want to see them work it out. If I can do anything to help, I will be there.”
China’s Foreign Ministry called for “maximum restraint” and offered to host talks between security advisers. Russia’s Ministry of Defence urged both armies to “immediately cease fire” and reinstated its readiness to facilitate dialogue under the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation framework. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation condemned the strikes against Pakistan’s civilian targets and appealed for an urgent de-escalation.
Pakistan’s Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar confirmed that national security advisers from Islamabad and New Delhi had held preliminary discussions since the air strikes. “Yes, there has been contact between the two,” Dar told TRT World, without disclosing details. Meanwhile, UN Secretary-General António Guterres called on both nations to “step back from the precipice” and invited them to a virtual crisis summit next week.
Historical Context
India and Pakistan have fought three full-scale wars since gaining independence in 1947, two of them over Kashmir. The mountainous region remains divided roughly into three parts controlled by India, Pakistan, and China, and is revered in both countries’ national narratives. Since a 2003 ceasefire, cross-border incidents had steadily declined until the 2019 Balakot air strikes reignited hostilities and shattered mutual trust.
The latest violence follows years of mounting tensions: militant attacks in Kashmir, reciprocal ceasefire violations, and inflammatory political rhetoric. Civilians on both sides of the LoC have borne the brunt, with villages regularly shelled and crops destroyed. Analysts warn that years of military posturing have left field commanders on hair-trigger alert, raising the spectre of accidental escalation.
Expert Analysis and Regional Implications
Ian Hall, professor of international relations at Griffith University, described Islamabad’s dual messaging—roaring threats and quiet diplomacy—as an attempt to keep New Delhi off-balance. “They may reserve the right to hit back, but they’re also signalling a door is open to talks,” Hall observed. “That ambiguity can be useful strategically, but it’s a double-edged sword.”
Strategic analysts point to Pakistan’s growing arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons, designed for battlefield use, as complicating the crisis. “Once battlefield nuclear weapons enter the calculus, the risk of miscalculation multiplies,” said Sarah Ahmed, a South Asia security expert at the International Institute for Strategic Studies. “Neither side wants to go nuclear, but the existence of these weapons lowers the threshold for escalation.”
Beyond the bilateral front, a wider regional conflagration could draw in China—Pakistan’s close ally—and potentially destabilise Afghanistan, where the Taliban seek to exploit chaos. A Gulf spillover is also possible, given Pakistan’s deep economic ties to Saudi Arabia and the UAE, both of which have already engaged diplomatically.
The Path Forward
Both Islamabad and New Delhi have emphasised that further strikes would invite reciprocal action, yet appear equally cautious about widening the conflict. Pakistan’s Defence Minister warned that any new Indian attack “could flare up very easily,” while New Delhi has vowed to respond “if Pakistan responds.” This precarious balance leaves scant margin for error.
Diplomats and security experts are calling for an immediate reinstatement of bilateral hotlines, revival of the ceasefire monitoring mechanism, and dispatch of neutral observers along the LoC. Confidence-building measures—such as mutual notifications of air exercises and restraint in high-altitude drone flights—could help reduce the risk of misreading routine military movements as acts of aggression.
Next week’s UN crisis summit may provide a diplomatic lifeline. U.S. Special Envoy for South Asia, Mira Reddy, is expected to shuttle between Islamabad and New Delhi, backed by senior representatives from China, Russia, and the European Union. Whether these efforts can break the cycle of tit-for-tat strikes remains uncertain.
As both nuclear-armed neighbours jockey for advantage, the world watches anxiously. The coming days will reveal whether Pakistan’s pledge of vengeance was mere rhetoric or a prelude to further conflict—and whether the signals of de-escalation can hold long enough for cooler heads to prevail. Only time will tell if this latest crisis ends in renewed dialogue or a descent into a broader, more devastating war.
