Reuters
In a stunning midnight operation, India claimed to have used "credible intelligence" to undertake air and missile attacks on nine locations throughout Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir, hitting what it described as militant bases.
During the brief 25-minute strikes, which took place between 01:05 and 01:30 India time (19:35 and 20:00 GMT on Tuesday), locals were startled awake by loud explosions.
Pakistan claimed to have shot down five Indian fighter jets and a drone, however, India has not verified their claims that just six places were targeted.
According to Islamabad, Indian airstrikes and shelling across the Line of Control (LoC), the de facto boundary between India and Pakistan, resulted in 26 fatalities and 46 injuries. India's army, meanwhile, said that Pakistani fire on its side of the de facto border killed ten people.
Following the deadly militant attack on tourists in Pahalgam, Indian-administered Kashmir, last month, tensions between the nuclear-armed rivals have escalated sharply to dangerous new levels. Pakistan vehemently disputes India's assertion that it has unmistakable proof that the attack was carried out by terrorists and outside parties based in Pakistan. Islamabad also noted that India has not provided any proof to back up its assertion.
Is there a fresh escalation in this attack?
Following the deaths of 19 Indian soldiers in Uri in 2016, India began "surgical strikes" throughout the Line of Control.
The Pulwama bombing in 2019 resulted in airstrikes deep into Balakot, the first inside Pakistan since 1971, killing 40 Indian paramilitary troops. This sparked an aerial dogfight and retaliatory raids.
According to experts, the Pahalgam attack reprisal is notable for its wider reach, since it targets the infrastructure of three significant extremist groups operating in Pakistan at the same time.
India claims to have targeted nine militant targets in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir, deeply infiltrating important bastions of Hizbul Mujahideen, Jaish-e-Mohammed, and Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT).
According to an Indian official, two camps in Sialkot, which are only 6–18 km from the border, were among the closest targets.
India claims that the Jaish-e-Mohammed headquarters in Bahawalpur, which is 100 kilometers inside Pakistan, was the most severely damaged. According to the spokesperson, recent strikes in Indian-administered Kashmir were connected to a LeT camp in Muzaffarabad, the capital of Pakistan-administered Kashmir and 30 kilometers from the Line of Control.
Pakistan disputes claims that there are terror camps, but claims that six sites have been struck.
This time, what's remarkable is how India's targets have grown above historical trends. A historian from Delhi named Srinath Raghavan told the BBC that previous strikes like Balakot targeted Pakistan-administered Kashmir over the Line of Control, a militarized border.
This time, India has crossed the international border into Pakistan's Punjab province, targeting terrorist facilities, headquarters, and known Lashkar-e-Taiba strongholds in Bahawalpur and Muridke. They have also targeted the assets of Hizbul Mujahideen and Jaish-e-Mohammed. This implies a wider, more geographically extended response, indicating that several organizations are now under attack in India and conveying a more comprehensive message," he argues.
The officially acknowledged border between India and Pakistan, which runs from Gujarat to Jammu, is known as the India-Pakistan International Border.
Ajay Bisaria, a former Indian high commissioner in Pakistan, told the BBC that India's response was a "Balakot plus response meant to establish deterrence, targeting known terrorist hubs but accompanied by a strong de-escalation message."
"These strikes were more accurate, targeted, and noticeable than before. As a result, [they are less deniable by Pakistan," Mr Bisaria claims.
According to Indian authorities, the strikes attempted to "re-establish deterrence."
"The Indian government thinks that the deterrence established in 2019 has worn thin and needs to be re-established," Prof. Raghavan says.
"This appears to reflect Israel's concept that deterrence necessitates periodic, repeated strikes. But if we believe that just responding will deter terrorism, we risk giving Pakistan every motive to react - and this can swiftly spiral out of control."
Could this lead to a bigger conflict?
The majority of experts agree that Pakistan would retaliate, and diplomacy will be used to mitigate the situation.
"I am confident that Pakistan will respond. The issue would be to handle the next stage of escalation. "This is where crisis diplomacy will be important," adds Mr Bisaria.
Pakistan will be advised to maintain restraint. But the key will be diplomacy following Pakistan's response to ensure that both countries do not swiftly escalate."
Indian surgical attacks targeting areas like Muridke and Bahawalpur were "largely anticipated given the prevailing tensions," according to Pakistan-based experts like Ejaz Hussain, a political and military analyst based in Lahore.
Retaliatory strikes are likely, according to Dr. Hussain.
"Given the Pakistani military's media rhetoric and stated resolve to settle the scores, retaliatory action, possibly in the form of surgical strikes across the border, appears likely in the coming days," he asserted to the BBC.
Dr. Hussain is concerned that both sides may "escalate into a limited conventional war" as a result of surgical strikes.
According to Christopher Clary of the University at Albany in the United States, Pakistan is likely to retaliate given the scope of India's strikes, "visible damage at key sites," and reported casualties.
Mr. Clary, a specialist in South Asian politics, told the BBC that doing otherwise would "essentially give India permission to strike Pakistan whenever Delhi feels aggrieved and would run contrary to the Pakistan military's commitment to retaliate with 'quid pro quo plus'."
"Given India's stated targets of groups and facilities associated with terrorism and militancy in India, I think it is likely-but far from certain-that Pakistan will confine itself to attacks on Indian military targets," he remarked.
Some experts remain optimistic about de-escalation despite the escalating tensions.
"There is a decent chance we escape this crisis with just one round of reciprocal standoff strikes and a period of heightened firing along the Line of Control," adds Clary.
The "most dangerous" India-Pakistan conflict since 2002, he argues, is even more dangerous than the standoffs in 2016 and 2019, because there is still a strong chance of further escalation.
Will Pakistan now inevitably retaliate?
Although there was no war frenzy before India's strike, Pakistani experts warn that things could change rapidly.
"The nation's most popular leader is incarcerated, and our political system is severely divided. The public's reaction to Imran Khan's arrest was strongly anti-military, according to Umer Farooq, an analyst based in Islamabad and a former Jane's Defence Weekly correspondent.
Compared to 2016 or 2019, the Pakistani populace is much less willing to support the military today; the typical surge of war frenzy is conspicuously lacking. But we might witness more civilian pressure on the military to act if popular sentiment changes in central Punjab, where anti-India sentiment is more pronounced. Additionally, this clash will help the military regain its popularity.
Dr. Hussain shares a similar perspective.
"I think the ongoing standoff with India provides an opportunity for the Pakistani military to win back public support, especially from urban middle-class individuals who have recently voiced concerns about its perceived involvement in politics," he explains.
"The military's proactive defence strategy is already being highlighted through both mainstream and social media, with some reports asserting that six or seven Indian aircraft were downed.
"While these assertions need independent confirmation, they help enhance the military's reputation among portions of the public that typically unite around national defence narratives during times of foreign threats."
Is it possible for India and Pakistan to retreat from the edge?
India is once again treading a delicate balance between escalation and restraint.
Following the attack in Pahalgam, India quickly responded by shutting down the main border crossing, terminating a water-sharing agreement, expelling diplomats, and freezing most visas for Pakistani citizens. There have been exchanges of small-arms fire between troops on both sides, and India has barred all Pakistani planes from its airspace, reflecting an earlier action taken by Pakistan. In retaliation, Pakistan suspended the peace treaty from 1972 and
The situation had intensified when India conducted air strikes on Balakot, which was followed by retaliatory air strikes from Pakistan and the capture of Indian pilot Abhinandan Varthaman, escalating the tensions further. Nevertheless, diplomatic efforts ultimately resulted in a de-escalation, with Pakistan releasing the pilot as a gesture of goodwill.
"India was open to giving traditional diplomacy another opportunity.... This occurred with India having achieved a strategic and military goal while Pakistan claimed a form of victory for its domestic audience."
0 Comments