A three-day air and missile war between India and Pakistan, sparked by a deadly attack in Kashmir, ended in a ceasefire on May 10th. While both nations claim victory, the conflict highlighted the volatile security situation in South Asia and the ever-present risk of escalation between two nuclear powers.

India's Chief of Defence Staff Anil Chauhan REUTERS/File phot — India’s Chief of Defence Staff Anil Chauhan REUTERS/File phot

PAKISTAN – In a high-stakes confrontation between nuclear-armed neighbors India and Pakistan, India’s strategic pivot following initial setbacks proved decisive, according to General Anil Chauhan, India’s Chief of Defence Staff. Speaking at the Shangri-La Dialogue security forum in Singapore, General Chauhan highlighted how tactical adjustments enabled India to assert dominance in a brief but intense conflict earlier this month.

READ MORE:

The confrontation, the heaviest between the two countries in decades, was ignited by an April 22 attack in Indian-administered Kashmir that left 26 people dead, most of them tourists. New Delhi attributed the attack to Pakistan-backed terrorists—a claim strongly denied by Islamabad.

The conflict escalated on May 7, when Indian fighter jets targeted what New Delhi described as “terrorist infrastructure” across the border. Pakistan responded with force, claiming it downed six Indian jets, including three Rafale fighters, in the opening exchanges. India suffered initial losses in the air, prompting a tactical review.

“We rectified tactics and then went back on the 7th, 8th, and 10th in large numbers to hit air bases deep inside Pakistan, penetrated all their air defenses with impunity, carried out precision strikes,” said General Chauhan. He described a coordinated assault involving diverse aircraft and weaponry, culminating in a decisive May 10 operation. India says changed tactics worked well in conflict with Pakistan.

Indian air force operations reportedly targeted eight Pakistani air bases, including one near Islamabad. Pakistan’s military dismissed claims of substantial damage, maintaining that Indian jets did not re-engage after May 7. However, Pakistan acknowledged some air base hits, insisting losses were minimal.

India’s Director General of Air Operations, Air Marshal A.K. Bharti, conceded the inevitability of losses in combat but affirmed that Indian forces downed several Pakistani aircraft. Islamabad denied any loss of its planes.

Amid mounting international pressure, a ceasefire was brokered on May 10, bringing an end to three days of ferocious air, missile, drone, and artillery exchanges.

The conflict underscored the volatile security dynamics in South Asia, raising fresh concerns about the risks of escalation between two nuclear powers. While both nations claim victory, analysts suggest the episode has heightened tensions and reinforced the need for sustained dialogue to address underlying disputes.

As regional stakeholders and global powers push for diplomacy, the recent conflict serves as a stark reminder of the fragile peace in one of the world’s most dangerous flashpoints.

India-Pakistan Conflict Ends: No Nuclear Threat, Says Indian Official

New Delhi, India – A recent military conflict between India and Pakistan has concluded, with Indian officials emphasizing the absence of any threat to nuclear facilities or the consideration of nuclear weapons. The conflict, which began on April 22nd, saw India launch a series of precise airstrikes targeting militant groups within Pakistan.

Air Marshal B.R. Chauhan, a key figure in the Indian military operation, highlighted the accuracy of the strikes, stating that many were pinpointed to within a meter of their intended targets. Crucially, he and General Sahir Shamshad Mirza, Pakistan’s chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, both publicly affirmed that nuclear weapons were never a consideration during the conflict.

“There’s a lot of space before that nuclear threshold is crossed,” Chauhan explained, emphasizing the room for conventional military operations. He expressed his belief that military leaders demonstrate greater rationality during conflicts, citing the actions of both sides as evidence of this. This suggests a potential shift towards a new norm in regional conflicts, prioritizing conventional warfare.

Despite Pakistan’s close ties with China, Chauhan reported no evidence of Chinese military intervention or support during the conflict. He stated that there was no unusual activity along India’s northern borders, and dismissed suggestions of Chinese intelligence support, noting the commercial availability of satellite imagery from various sources, including China.

While hostilities have ceased, India maintains a state of high alert. The Indian government has made clear its intention to respond decisively to any future attacks originating from Pakistan, necessitating a continued state of readiness for the Indian armed forces. The situation remains tense, but the absence of nuclear escalation offers a glimmer of hope for regional stability.

De-escalation on the Horizon? Pakistan and India Near Troop Reduction After Border Clashes

A fragile peace emerges after intense fighting between nuclear-armed neighbors.

The recent escalation of conflict between Pakistan and India, marked by intense cross-border clashes involving fighter jets, missiles, and artillery, appears to be nearing a resolution. A top Pakistani military official, General Sahir Shamshad Mirza, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, announced on Friday that both countries are actively reducing troop levels along their shared border, aiming to return to the pre-April 22nd status quo. This statement, made during the Shangri-La Dialogue forum in Singapore, offers a glimmer of hope amidst the heightened tensions that gripped the region earlier this month.

The four-day conflict, the worst between the two nations in decades, was ignited by an April 22nd attack in Indian-administered Kashmir that claimed the lives of 26 people, mostly tourists. India blamed Pakistan-backed terrorists for the incident, a claim Islamabad vehemently denied. This accusation sparked a retaliatory exchange, with India launching missiles at alleged “terrorist infrastructure” across the border, prompting a swift and forceful response from Pakistan. Both sides subsequently deployed additional troops, raising fears of a wider conflict.

General Mirza’s statement suggests a significant de-escalation is underway. He asserted that the troop drawdown is nearing completion, bringing the military presence back to levels seen before the recent crisis. While this development is undoubtedly positive, the General cautioned against complacency. He stressed that the recent conflict, unlike previous skirmishes largely confined to the disputed territory of Kashmir, involved attacks on military installations within the mainlands of both countries. This expansion of the conflict zone, according to Mirza, significantly increases the risk of future escalation.

The lack of immediate comment from the Indian Ministry of Defence and the office of the Indian Chief of Defence Staff leaves a degree of uncertainty. However, General Mirza’s remarks, representing the most senior Pakistani military voice since the conflict, carry considerable weight. His assertion that the situation is returning to normal is a crucial indicator, though the absence of confirmation from the Indian side necessitates a cautious approach to interpreting the situation’s full extent.

Adding to the complexity, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi issued a stern warning to Pakistan earlier this month, vowing to target “terrorist hideouts” across the border should further attacks on India occur. This threat underscores the underlying tensions and the precarious nature of the current peace. While the immediate threat of large-scale conflict may have receded, the underlying causes of the dispute remain unresolved, and the potential for future escalation persists.

The situation highlights the delicate balance of power between these two nuclear-armed nations. The recent events serve as a stark reminder of the ever-present danger of miscalculation and the urgent need for sustained dialogue and diplomatic efforts to address the long-standing Kashmir dispute and prevent future crises. The world watches with bated breath, hoping this de-escalation marks a genuine step towards lasting peace, but remaining acutely aware of the volatile nature of the relationship between India and Pakistan. The road to lasting peace remains long and challenging, requiring sustained commitment from both sides and the continued engagement of the international community.

India-Pakistan Brinkmanship: A Perilous Dance on the Nuclear Edge

Singapore – The recent escalation of hostilities between India and Pakistan, two nuclear-armed neighbors with a history steeped in conflict, has sent shockwaves through the international community. While a ceasefire has been declared, the underlying tensions remain dangerously high, raising concerns about the potential for a wider, catastrophic conflict. Pakistan, India close to completing border troop reduction, senior Pakistani general says.

The two nations, born from the ashes of British colonial India in 1947, have engaged in three major wars, two centered on the disputed territory of Kashmir, and countless smaller skirmishes. India accuses Pakistan of fueling a decades-long insurgency in Kashmir, resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands. Pakistan, in turn, claims to offer only moral and diplomatic support to Kashmiris seeking self-determination.

The gravity of the situation was underscored by Lieutenant General Muhammad Khalid Mirza, Pakistan’s Director General of Military Operations (DGMO), who spoke at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore. He painted a stark picture of the escalating risk, stating, “This (conflict) lowers the threshold between two countries who are contiguous nuclear powers…in the future, it will not be restricted to the disputed territory. It would come down to (the) whole of India and (the) whole of Pakistan. This is a very dangerous trend.”

Reports suggest that behind-the-scenes diplomacy, notably involving the United States, played a crucial role in de-escalating the recent crisis. However, India denies any third-party mediation, insisting on bilateral engagement. Mirza expressed concern that the lack of established crisis management mechanisms between the two countries could hinder future international intervention. He warned, “The time window for the international community to intervene would now be very less, and I would say that damage and destruction may take place even before that time window is exploited by the international community.”

Despite Pakistan’s stated openness to dialogue, beyond minimal communication channels between military officials, substantive communication remains absent. India, meanwhile, has adopted a firm stance, with Defence Minister Rajnath Singh stating that any talks would focus solely on terrorism and Pakistan-administered Kashmir, demanding the handover of terrorists to India as a precondition for dialogue.

Mirza confirmed the absence of any backchannel discussions or informal talks to ease tensions, ruling out a meeting with India’s Chief of Defence Staff, General Anil Chauhan, also present at the Shangri-La forum. He emphasized the need for dialogue, stating, “These issues can only be resolved by dialogue and consultations, on the table. They cannot be resolved on the battlefield.”

The current situation highlights the urgent need for effective communication and de-escalation strategies between India and Pakistan. The potential consequences of further escalation are too dire to ignore, demanding immediate attention from both nations and the international community. The world watches with bated breath, hoping diplomacy, not destruction, will prevail.

–

South Asia on the Brink: A Hair’s Breadth from Nuclear War

Rawalpindi, Pakistan – The pre-dawn hours of Saturday, February 15th, witnessed a terrifying escalation of conflict between India and Pakistan, bringing the two nuclear-armed rivals to the precipice of all-out war. The events, which unfolded over a critical eight-hour period, culminated in a dramatic ceasefire brokered by the United States, leaving the world reeling from the near-miss.

The narrative begins at 2:09 a.m. in Rawalpindi, a city intimately connected to Pakistan’s military might. Ahmad Subhan, a resident near the Nur Khan air base, recounts the jarring experience: “The first explosion rattled the windows. We grabbed our children and ran.” This initial blast, followed by another, marked the beginning of the heaviest fighting between India and Pakistan in decades.

The ensuing hours saw a furious exchange of missiles and fighter jets across the skies of South Asia. Indian missile barrages targeted three major Pakistani air bases, including Nur Khan, located a mere 20-minute drive from Islamabad. The proximity of the strikes to civilian areas, like Subhan’s home, underscores the terrifying reality of the situation.

Accounts from multiple sources – including interviews with over a dozen individuals, among them U.S., Indian, and Pakistani officials, and a review of public statements from the three capitals – paint a picture of a rapid escalation. The attack on Nur Khan, according to Subhan and Pakistani security officials (speaking anonymously), involved at least two missile strikes and drone attacks. One official, who visited the base the following day, reported damage to hangars and roofs, impacting a refueling plane that was fortunately airborne at the time. A senior Indian military officer, however, claimed that an operations command center was the target.

Pakistan’s response was swift and forceful. Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar explained to Reuters, “The attack on Nur Khan…close to our capital, that left us with no option but to retaliate.” The base’s proximity to the military body responsible for Pakistan’s nuclear planning adds a layer of profound concern. Christopher Clary, an associate professor at the University at Albany, highlights the inherent danger: “If you are playing Russian roulette and pull the trigger, the lesson isn’t that you should pull the trigger again.” The potential for miscalculation and unintended escalation into nuclear conflict is undeniable.

The day’s events culminated in a late-evening announcement by U.S. President Donald Trump, declaring a ceasefire. While the details of the behind-the-scenes diplomacy remain largely undisclosed, the U.S. played a pivotal role in brokering the peace. However, official responses from India’s defense and foreign ministries, as well as Pakistan’s military and foreign ministry, remained unavailable at the time of publication. A U.S. State Department spokesperson, while not directly addressing the American role, acknowledged the serious threat to regional stability posed by further military escalation.

The near-miss serves as a stark reminder of the fragility of peace in South Asia and the inherent dangers of escalating conflicts between nuclear powers. The lack of official responses and the veiled nature of the behind-the-scenes diplomacy leave many questions unanswered, underscoring the urgent need for increased transparency and robust communication channels to prevent future crises. The world narrowly avoided catastrophe, but the underlying tensions remain, demanding immediate and sustained efforts towards lasting peace.

India-Pakistan Conflict: A Precarious Ceasefire

The escalating conflict between India and Pakistan, two nuclear-armed nations with a history of animosity, reached a critical juncture this week, prompting urgent intervention from the United States. The immediate trigger was a deadly April 22nd attack in Indian-administered Kashmir, which claimed the lives of 26 people, mostly tourists. India swiftly blamed Pakistan-backed “terrorists,” a claim Islamabad vehemently denied. This incident, however, ignited a powder keg of long-simmering tensions, pushing the two nations to the brink of a full-blown war.

The Kashmir conflict, a festering wound in the heart of the Himalayas, has fueled decades of hostility. Both India and Pakistan claim the region in its entirety, controlling only portions. India, a Hindu-majority nation, accuses its Muslim-majority neighbor of arming and supporting militant groups operating within Kashmir. Pakistan counters, asserting it only provides diplomatic support to Kashmiri separatists. This fundamental disagreement has been the bedrock of numerous clashes and skirmishes over the years.

The current crisis escalated dramatically on May 7th when, with the approval of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the Indian military launched air strikes targeting what it described as “terrorist infrastructure” within Pakistan. This aggressive action was a direct response to the April 22nd attack. The ensuing aerial battles saw Pakistan claiming the downing of five Indian aircraft, including the recently acquired Rafale fighter jets from France. While India acknowledged losses, it also claimed to have inflicted damage on Pakistani forces.

By May 9th, the situation had deteriorated significantly, causing grave concern amongst senior U.S. officials. Sources familiar with the matter revealed that Secretary of State Marco Rubio engaged in a flurry of diplomatic calls between May 6th and 8th, speaking with Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, as well as foreign ministers and national security advisors from both countries. The escalating tension prompted a meeting between Rubio, Vice President JD Vance, and President Trump in the Oval Office on the morning of May 9th. The discussion centered on a plan for Vance to contact Prime Minister Modi, emphasizing the high likelihood of a dramatic escalation if the conflict continued.

Vice President Vance urged Modi to consider de-escalatory measures, proposing a potential pathway to de-escalation that the U.S. believed Pakistan would accept. Secretary Rubio then embarked on an intensive round of diplomatic efforts, lasting into the early hours of May 10th, aiming to facilitate communication between India and Pakistan and secure a ceasefire agreement.

This U.S. intervention came despite Vice President Vance’s earlier public statement on May 8th that the U.S. would not interfere in a conflict it deemed “none of our business.” While specifics of the U.S. proposals remain undisclosed, sources indicate that Prime Minister Modi’s response was non-committal. One source even revealed that Modi warned Vance that any further escalation from Pakistan would be met with an even stronger response.

Tragically, hours later, according to Indian officials, Pakistan launched attacks on at least 26 locations within India in the pre-dawn hours of May 10th. Pakistan justified these strikes as a response to pre-dawn Indian attacks on its air bases, including Nur Khan.

The current ceasefire, brokered through intense U.S. diplomatic pressure, remains fragile. The underlying issues fueling this conflict—the disputed territory of Kashmir and the deep-seated mistrust between India and Pakistan—remain unresolved. The world watches with bated breath, hoping this precarious peace will hold, but acutely aware of the potential for renewed conflict between these two nuclear powers. The international community faces the urgent task of fostering lasting peace in the region, a challenge that demands sustained diplomatic engagement and a commitment to finding a just and equitable resolution to the Kashmir dispute. The future stability of South Asia hangs precariously in the balance.

The Brink and the Breakthrough: How a Ceasefire Averted Catastrophe Between India and Pakistan

The escalating India-Pakistan conflict, a volatile situation involving two nuclear-armed nations, teetered on the precipice of all-out war on May 10th before a dramatic, last-minute intervention averted a potential catastrophe. The day began with a series of retaliatory strikes, escalating tensions to unprecedented levels, but concluded with a hastily arranged ceasefire, a testament to the power of high-stakes diplomacy and the potential consequences of miscalculation.

The morning of May 10th unfolded with alarming speed. Just over an hour after India launched its initial attacks, Pakistani military spokesman Lt. Gen. Ahmed Sharif Chaudhry confirmed strikes on three of its air bases. Adding to the gravity of the situation, some Indian strikes utilized the supersonic BrahMos missile, according to both Pakistani and Indian sources. While India maintains the missile carried a conventional warhead, Pakistan expressed concern over its potential nuclear capability.

By 5:00 AM local time, Pakistan’s military announced its own retaliatory operations against Indian air bases and other facilities. The escalation prompted swift action from Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, who called a meeting of the National Command Authority (NCA), the body responsible for overseeing the country’s nuclear arsenal. This move, while intended to manage the crisis, also inadvertently signaled the extreme gravity of the situation and, according to Michael Kugelman, a South Asia expert based in Washington, “may also have been an indirect call for external mediation.”

The international community, particularly the United States, sprang into action. Approximately an hour after the NCA announcement, the U.S. announced that Secretary of State Marco Rubio had contacted Pakistan Army Chief Gen. Asim Munir, widely considered the most powerful figure in Pakistan, urging both sides to de-escalate. Rubio subsequently spoke with Pakistan’s Finance Minister Ishaq Dar and Indian Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar.

According to Minister Dar, Rubio relayed India’s willingness to cease hostilities, prompting Dar to reciprocate Pakistan’s readiness to stop fighting if India did the same. An Indian official corroborated this account, confirming Rubio’s message about Pakistan’s willingness to de-escalate.

The situation took a confusing turn when Pakistan Defense Minister Khawaja Muhammad Asif, who had only days earlier issued stark warnings of conflict, appeared on a local television news channel around 10:30 AM, contradicting the earlier announcement of the NCA meeting. Asif declared that no such meeting had been scheduled, seemingly attempting to downplay the significance of the earlier announcement.

Despite this apparent attempt to de-escalate the narrative, the U.S.-led international intervention proved crucial. It paved the way for a formal cessation of hostilities, formalized in a mid-afternoon phone call between the Directors General of Military Operations (DGMOs) of India and Pakistan. The two DGMOs spoke again on Monday, solidifying the agreement.

However, conflicting narratives emerged regarding the initiation of these crucial communications. Lt. Gen. Chaudhry stated that India had initially requested the DGMO call following its May 7th cross-border strikes, with Islamabad only responding on Saturday after its own retaliation and requests from unnamed international interlocutors. In contrast, India’s defense ministry spokesperson referred to a statement by Indian DGMO Lt. Gen. Rajiv Ghai, who claimed he had contacted his Pakistani counterpart on May 7th to explain India’s actions but was rebuffed.

Remarkably, almost exactly 12 hours after Pakistan announced its retaliatory strikes, President Trump declared a cessation of hostilities on social media, praising both countries for their “common sense and great intelligence.”

The events of May 10th serve as a stark reminder of the fragility of peace in the India-Pakistan region and the critical role of international diplomacy in preventing a catastrophic escalation. While a ceasefire has been reached, the underlying tensions remain, demanding sustained efforts towards a lasting resolution of the Kashmir dispute and fostering a climate of trust and cooperation between these two nuclear powers. The world narrowly avoided a devastating conflict, but the lessons learned from this near-miss must serve as a catalyst for sustained peace-building initiatives.