Category World News

The Indian military launched multiple missile attacks targeting sites in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir early on Wednesday in an attack it called Operation Sindoor. The Pakistani military claims to have retaliated, shooting down multiple Indian military planes.

At least 26 Pakistanis have been killed in the six targeted cities, according to Lieutenant Ahmed Sharif Chaudhry, the director general of the Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) media wing of Pakistan’s military. India says it struck nine sites.

But what’s the significance of the cities and sites that India attacked? And what are India and Pakistan saying about those strikes? And why did India launch these attacks in the first place?

Why did India strike Pakistan?

The missiles were India’s response to the deadly April 22 attack on tourists in Indian-administered Kashmir in Pahalgam, during which 26 men were killed.

An armed group called The Resistance Front (TRF), which demands independence for Kashmir, claimed responsibility for the Pahalgam attack. India claims that the TRF is an offshoot of Pakistan-based armed group, the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT). Islamabad has denied its involvement in the Pahalgam attack and has asked for a neutral investigation into the incident.

However, since the attack, India has suspended its participation in the Indus Waters Treaty that Pakistan relies on for its water supply. Pakistan has responded by threatening to suspend its participation in the Simla Agreement, a pact signed in 1972 following the Indo-Pakistan War. Both countries have also scaled back their diplomatic ties, and each has expelled the other’s citizens.

How has India justified the attacks?

India claims it hit “terrorist infrastructure”, targeting organisations including the LeT and Jaish-e-Muhammad (JeM), an armed group based in Pakistan which claimed responsibility for a suicide bombing in February 2019, which killed 40 Indian paramilitary soldiers in Pulwama in Indian-administered Kashmir.

In a briefing on Wednesday, Indian Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri insisted that the missile strikes “focused on dismantling the terrorist infrastructure and disabling terrorists likely to be sent across to India”.

Joining Misri in the briefing, Indian military officials Colonel Sofiya Qureshi and Wing Commander Vyomika Singh detailed the operation. Five of the nine sites that India hit, they said, were in Pakistan-administered Kashmir. The remaining four were in Punjab – in Bahawalpur, Muridke, Shakar Garh and a village near Sialkot.

During the briefing, the Indian military showed a map marking out what it claimed were 21 “terrorist camps” in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir. Al Jazeera has not been able to independently verify the claims of either the Indian or Pakistani militaries.

What has Pakistan said about the sites attacked?

Chaudhry of the ISPR described the Indian strikes as an “unprovoked attack, targeting innocent people”. He indicated that India had launched a total of 24 strikes across six locations in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir.

Chaudhry said at least 26 civilians, including women and children, had been killed, and at least 46 people were injured. He claimed mosques and residential areas were targeted, killing and injuring civilians.

What’s the significance of the sites targeted by India?

The Indian missile strikes represent the most extensive attacks on Pakistani soil outside the four wars that the nuclear-armed neighbours have fought. They also mark the first time since the war of 1971 that India has attacked Punjab, Pakistan’s most populated province and historical and economic hub.

Unlike previous aerial attacks by India in Pakistan or in Pakistan-administered Kashmir, some of these strikes targeted large population centres. Muridke is next to Lahore, Pakistan’s second-most populous city. Sialkot and Bahawalpur are major cities, too.

But many of the sites chosen as targets by India also hold specific strategic importance, at least from New Delhi’s perspective. Here’s a breakdown:

Muridke, Punjab

Muridke is a city in Punjab’s Sheikhupura District, peppered with totems of historical memory from the Mughal, Mauryan and Gupta eras.

Chaudhry said a mosque named Masjid Ummul Qura was targeted with four strikes. One man was killed and one man was injured as a result. Two people have been missing from this location, Chaudhry said, adding that surrounding residential quarters have also been damaged in these attacks.

But the town, according to India and much of the international community, also hosts the headquarters of the Jamat-ud-Dawa, a charity organisation that New Delhi insists is a front for the LeT.

On Wednesday, India’s Qureshi claimed that Indian missiles struck the LeT’s Markaz Taiba camp in Muridke. The Indian army claimed that key perpetrators of the 2008 Mumbai attack – including Ajmal Kasab, the sole gunman who was captured alive after that assault on India’s financial capital – were trained at that camp.

Meanwhile, images emerging from Muridke showed rescuers searching for victims amid the debris of a damaged government health and education complex.

Bahawalpur, Punjab

Chaudhry said that four Indian missiles struck Ahmedpur Sharqia, a town near Bahawalpur, targeting a mosque named Masjid Subhan, which was destroyed in the attack. He said that at least five people were killed in the attack, including two men, two women, and a three-year-old girl. Additionally, he said, 31 people were injured – 25 men and six women. He added that four “residential quarters”, where civilian families were living, were damaged.

But Qureshi said India had hit the headquarters of the JeM, called Markaz Subhanallah. India described the site as a hub for “recruitment, training and indoctrination”.

Muzaffarabad, Pakistan-administered Kashmir

Muzaffarabad is the capital city of Pakistan-administered Kashmir, located at the confluence of the Jhelum and Neelum rivers. Muzaffarabad is sustained by its cottage industry ecosystem, including furniture making, wood carving, garment making and embroidery work, according to the State Bank of Pakistan.

Chaudhry said that a mosque called Masjid e Bilal was hit in Muzaffarabad, and a “young girl was injured”.

But Qureshi said India hit a LeT training centre, Sawai Nala camp in Muzaffarabad, 30km (19 miles) away from the Line of Control (LoC), the de facto border that separates Indian-administered and Pakistan-administered Kashmir. She claimed that those responsible for multiple attacks, including the April 22 Pahalgam killings, were trained at this camp.

The Indian military officials also said they attacked a Jaish-e-Muhammad “staging area”, the Syedna Bilal camp in Muzaffarabad. A staging area refers to a place where people, vehicles and equipment are assembled and readied before being assigned a mission.

Kotli, Pakistan-administered Kashmir

Kotli is a city along the Poonch river and is an agricultural and tourist hub.

Chaudhry said a mosque named Masjid Abbas was targeted in Kotli. A 16-year-old girl and an 18-year-old boy were killed. At least two other people were injured, he added.

Qureshi, however, said that India hit a LeT base, Gulpur camp, about 30km (19 miles) away from the LoC. The Indian army added that it also struck what it called the Abbas camp in Kotli, 13km (8 miles) away from the LoC, where Qureshi said up to 15 “terrorists” could be trained at a time.

Qureshi said India has also hit Mehmoona Joya, which she described as a facility of the Hizbul Mujahideen (HuM), a rebel group based in Indian-administered Kashmir. The HuM was founded by separatist leader Muhammad Ahsan Dar in September 1989, with a pro-Pakistan ideology, calling for India to leave the parts of Kashmir that it administers.

Bhimber, Pakistan-administered Kashmir

Qureshi claimed India struck what India called the Barnala camp in Bhimber, about 9km (5.6 miles) away from the LoC. She claimed that fighters were trained in using weapons, improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and in jungle survival at this camp.

Pakistani officials had not mentioned Bhimber as the site of any of the Indian attacks by late Wednesday evening. However, Bhimber is just south of Kotli, so it is unclear whether a missile strike on Bhimber is being counted by Pakistan as among the attacks on Kotli.

Sialkot, Punjab

Sialkot is one of Pakistan’s most important industrial centres for the manufacture of surgical items, sporting goods and leather products.

Chaudhry said that a village north of Sialkot called Kotli Loharan was targeted in two strikes. One of these strikes misfired and did not explode, while the other landed in an open field, resulting in no damage, Chaudhry said.

India’s Qureshi and Singh, however, claimed that India had struck what they called the Sarjal camp in Sialkot. They claimed this was the training centre for those responsible for the killing of four police officers in March this year in Indian-administered Kashmir.

Shakar Garh, Punjab

Chaudhry said Shakar Garh was targeted with two strikes and reported “minor damage” to a “small hospital, a dispensary”.

India has carried out strikes on what it has described as “terrorist infrastructure” in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir in response to last month’s deadly attack in Indian-administered Kashmir, further raising tensions between the two nuclear-armed neighbours.

Pakistan said on Wednesday that at least 26 people were killed and 46 others injured in the Indian attacks. In retaliatory attacks by Pakistani forces, at least 10 people have been killed in Indian-administered Kashmir.

Islamabad said civilians were targeted in India’s strikes, while India’s defence ministry said its forces only hit bases from where attacks on India are “planned and directed”.

India has blamed Pakistan for the April 22 attack in Pahalgam, Indian-administered Kashmir, that killed 26 people. Islamabad has denied it played any role and called for a “neutral” investigation into the worst attack on tourists in Kashmir in a quarter century – a call rejected by India.

India claims Pakistan has provided a haven for armed groups, which have carried out deadly attacks, including the 2008 Mumbai attack and the 2019 Pulwama attack. More than 200 people, including security forces, were killed in the two attacks combined.

Amid soaring tensions, international leaders have called for restraint after New Delhi’s biggest attack on Pakistan and territory it controls in decades.

Islamabad has long welcomed mediation or international involvement to resolve the decades-old conflict over Kashmir, which lies at the heart of their broader dispute, but New Delhi has tried to avoid internationalisation of the conflict. Both India and Pakistan claim Kashmir, but each controls a part of it — with China also administering a chunk of northern Kashmir.

Here is what you need to know about the international efforts to calm tensions between the nuclear-armed nations.

What have countries said so far about the escalation?

While reactions from the international community continue to trickle in, there is an overwhelming consensus that both countries should exercise maximum restraint.

United States: Secretary of State Marco Rubio spoke with the national security advisers of India and Pakistan on Wednesday, urging the two sides to “keep lines of communication open and avoid escalation”, the US State Department said. Rubio said he would continue to stay engaged with both sides, was monitoring the situation between the neighbours closely and hoping for a “peaceful resolution”.

United Kingdom: The UK too has offered to play a diplomatic role in the India-Pakistan conflict. “We stand ready to support both countries,” UK Trade Secretary Jonathan Reynolds told BBC Radio.

“Both have a huge interest in regional stability, in dialogue, in de-escalation and anything we can do to support that, we are here and willing to do.” The conflict dates back to the 1947 partition of the Indian subcontinent by British colonial rulers into India and Pakistan.

China: Beijing called India’s attack “regrettable” while urging both sides to exercise restraint. “They’re both China’s neighbours as well. China opposes all forms of terrorism,” the Chinese foreign ministry said in a statement.

France: Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot said that while India’s desire to “protect itself from the scourge of terrorism” was understandable, it called on both countries to avoid escalation and protect civilians.

United Nations: Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said the international community could not “afford a military confrontation” between the nuclear-armed nations.

Prior to India’s much-anticipated attack, a number of countries said they would be willing to get involved to help de-escalate the continuing crisis.

China: After Pakistan suggested that China could play a role in an international probe to investigate the Pahalgam attack, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Guo Jiakun welcomed “fair and just investigations at an early date”. He urged “dialogue and consultation to … uphold regional peace and stability”.

Russia: Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told his Pakistani counterpart Ishaq Dar that Moscow was ready to “act for a political settlement of the situation”, in the case there was a mutual willingness “on the part of Islamabad and New Delhi”, his ministry said in a statement. Lavrov spoke to Dar on May 4, two days after speaking to Indian Foreign Minister S Jaishankar.

Malaysia: Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim in a post on X expressed support for Pakistan’s call for an “independent and transparent investigation” into the Pahalgam attack. “Malaysia remains open to playing a constructive role, should the need arise,” he added, suggesting a willingness to mediate if acceptable to New Delhi and Islamabad.

Iran: Tehran was willing to “use its good offices in Islamabad and New Delhi to forge greater understanding at this difficult time”, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on X, four days after the Pahalgam attack.

India has stationed more than half a million forces in the part of Kashmir it administers, to quash decades-old armed rebellion. Ties between the neighbours have been practically frozen since India’s right-wing Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government stripped Kashmir of its special status in 2019.

The two countries have fought three out of four wars over the Himalayan region. They briefly stood on the brink of war in the wake of a deadly attack in 2019 on Indian soldiers in Indian-administered Kashmir.

India’s longstanding position on Kashmir is that the issue remains a bilateral one between New Delhi and Islamabad, and it has historically rejected any third party from mediating in the conflict. India cites the Simla Agreement, a 1972 pact between the nations that spoke of the bilateral resolution of disputes, to buttress its position.

Senior analyst at the International Crisis Group, Praveen Donthi, believes India’s “suspicion” of foreign involvement in the Kashmir conflict is derived from the view that international invention would amount to “levelling the field”.

“India considers its claims to be stronger,” Donthi told Al Jazeera. India, he added, sees itself as a regional power and would like to “use its heft to negotiate with Pakistan bilaterally”.

In 1948, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 47 mandating the holding of a plebiscite in the territory, giving residents a choice between joining India or Pakistan.

On the other hand, Pakistan has been open to third-party mediation from individual countries and global organisations like the UN. Pakistan has regularly brought up the Kashmir issue at different UN forums, calling on the organisation to help solve the conflict.

The UN human rights council and international rights organisations have accused India of rights violations in Indian-administered Kashmir.

Rabia Akhtar, director at the Centre for Security, Strategy and Policy Research at the University of Lahore, said Pakistan seeks third-party mediation over the Kashmir conflict because it sees it as “a matter of international concern given deep humanitarian, legal and political dimensions of the conflict”.

“With limited leverage in direct bilateral engagement since India continues to shun it, Islamabad sees international mediation as the only way to level the diplomatic playing field and keep the issue alive globally,” she told Al Jazeera.

While India has consistently opposed third-party mediation over the Kashmir conflict, external involvement has played a key role in helping pause previous wars and military standoffs between the two neighbours.

The second war between India and Pakistan in 1965 ended with the two nations signing the Tashkent Declaration in January 1966, after it was brokered by the Soviet Union.

The accord saw the Indian Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri and Pakistani President Mohammad Ayub Khan agree to a mutual withdrawal to pre-war positions and the restoration of diplomatic and economic ties.

In 1999, during the Kargil War, Pakistani-backed rebels and soldiers crossed the Line of Control (LoC) – the de facto border dividing Kashmir between Indian-administered and Pakistan-administered parts – and took over positions on the Indian side. However, former US President Bill Clinton successfully pressured then Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to withdraw Pakistani forces, using the threat of international isolation.

The 10-week fighting over the snowy heights of Kargil led to the deaths of nearly 1,000 soldiers and fighters on both sides.

Akhtar said that historically, third-party mediation has played a critical role in de-escalating India-Pakistan tensions.

“Both countries lack bilateral crisis mechanisms and have outsourced escalation control to third parties,” she said. “Traditionally, these backchannels have been run by the US, China, United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia.”

While she noted that such efforts had failed to resolve the Kashmir issue, “they have helped both sides save face and step back from the brink”.

“In the current crisis, discreet backchannel facilitation, not formal mediation, may be the most viable option,” she added.

Donthi from the International Crisis Group said mediation will be difficult as “both sides show a greater appetite for risk, driven by domestic pressures”, adding that they are “already at a higher point on the escalatory ladder”.

Due to the two neighboring nations’ worst exchange of fire in the last 20 years, several Asian airlines have announced they are rerouting or cancelling flights to and from India and Pakistan.

According to navigational information, the airspace over northern India and southern Pakistan had been completely cleared on Wednesday. With the exception of a few flights, Pakistan’s entire airspace was essentially free of civilian aircraft.

Through air navigation tracking sites, Sanad, Al Jazeera’s verification agency, tracked Indian military aircraft over northern India and a government aircraft in southern Pakistan. This occurred just before the airspace was completely cleared, and it caused several flights to depart Pakistan for Pakistan.

52 flights to and from Pakistan were canceled as of Wednesday morning, according to FlightRadar24, a global flight monitoring service.

When India struck, 57 international flights and flights were taking place in Pakistan’s airspace, according to a Pakistani army spokesman.

Only two international flights have been reported so far at Karachi’s airport following an eight-hour suspension for heightened tensions.

Both countries experienced delays to other domestic flights.

Due to the airport closures caused by the tensions with Pakistan, Air India canceled flights to and from Jammu, Srinagar, Leh, Jodhpur, Jodhpur, Amritsar, Bhuj, Jamnagar, Chandigarh, and Rajkot.

Flights would be suspended until at least May 10 according to India’s flagship airline.

In its northern region, India has also shut down a number of airports. Additionally, flights to 10 cities in northern and northern India close to the Pakistani border were canceled by other airlines like IndiGo, SpiceJet, and Akasa Air.

Middle Eastern and South Asia operations are already impacted by conflict in the two regions because of the changing airline schedules.

International airlines impacted

After Pakistan’s airspace was closed, Malaysia’s flagship airline, Malaysian Airlines, has since canceled flights to Amritsar, India, and rerouted two long-haul flights.

Meanwhile, Batik Air in Indonesia announced that it had canceled a number of flights to and from Amritsar, India’s and Lahore, Pakistan.

KLM, a Dutch airline, announced that it would not be flying over Pakistan until further notice. Singapore Airlines also announced that it has no longer flys over Pakistani airspace as of May 6.

EVA Air, a Taiwanese airline, said it would adjust its flights to and from Europe to prevent India and Pakistan’s airspace from getting stale.

On Wednesday, Korean Air announced that it had begun switching the routes connecting Seoul Incheon-Dubai and Dubai, choosing a southern route that bypasses Pakistani airspace and passes through Myanmar, Bangladesh, and India.

Vietnam Airlines reported that its flight plans were impacted by tensions between India and Pakistan, while Thai Airways announced that flights to destinations in Europe and South Asia would be rerouted beginning early on Wednesday morning.

Flights from Taiwan’s China Airlines to and from locations like London, Frankfurt, and Rome were canceled, with some having to make technical stops in Bangkok and Prague to refuel and change pilots before reversing flight paths.

Some flights from India to Europe were also observed traveling longer distances.

According to FlightRadar24, Lufthansa’s flights from Delhi to Frankfurt departed from Surat, which is located near the western Indian city of Surat, taking a longer route than Tuesday.

New Delhi, India – In the first hours of Wednesday, Indian armed forces said they struck nine locations in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir, where residents woke up to loud explosions, as the nuclear-armed rivals edged to the precipice of a full-blown military conflict.

New Delhi said its missiles precisely targeted “terrorist infrastructure” across the border while demonstrating “considerable restraint”. The Indian Army, in a statement, said the attack was “non-escalatory in nature” and pointed out that Pakistani military facilities were deliberately not targeted.

Yet a fuming Islamabad claimed that Indian attacks in six Pakistani cities killed at least 8 civilians, including two children. Pakistani ministers also claimed that the country’s air force had shot down several Indian military jets.

India’s missile attacks – called Operation Sindoor – were the country’s response to the deadly April 22 attack in Indian-administered-Kashmir’s Pahalgam, in which 26 people were killed. India blamed Pakistan for that attack, while Islamabad denied it had any role. Since then, Indian armed forces have combed the forests near Pahalgam, arrested more than 2,000 people and raided homes in an unsuccessful manhunt for the gunmen who fled after shooting tourists dead.

The May 7 attacks on Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir offer Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi a chance to bolster his strongman image at home, analysts told Al Jazeera. But the Indian government’s emphasis on signalling “restraint” points to an attempt to balance that domestic message with a different narrative for the rest of the world.

Amid it all stands an undisputed fact, say analysts: India’s attacks have raised the risks of the region spiralling into a wider conflict.

‘Concerning development’

The Indian attacks were the most expansive since the neighbours last fought a full-fledged war in 1971 – a time when neither had nuclear weapons at their disposal as they do now.

Of the six places that Indian missiles struck, two are cities – Muzaffarabad and Kotli – in Pakistan-administered Kashmir. The region of Kashmir – one of the world’s most militarised zones – is claimed in full, and ruled in parts, by India and Pakistan, who have fought three wars over it.

But the other four targets that India struck are in Punjab -Bahawalpur, Muridke, Sialkot and Shakar Garh. Among them, Bahawalpur falls in southern Punjab province, facing the Thar desert, while Muridke is just next to Lahore, Pakistan’s second-largest city, with a population of 14 million.

The Indian military has not hit Punjab, Pakistan’s economic heartland that is also home to 60 percent of the country’s population, since 1971.

Indian air attacks since then have mostly targeted remote parts of Pakistan or Pakistan-administered Kashmir. Six years ago, Indian jets fired missiles at Balakot in Pakistan’s Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, after a suicide bomber killed at least 40 Indian paramilitary soldiers in Indian-administered Kashmir.

These May 7 attacks are different. Lahore, next to Muridke, is close to the Indian border and is Pakistan’s second-most populous city, pointed out Sumantra Bose, an Indian political scientist whose work focuses on the intersection of nationalism and conflict in South Asia. Bahawalpur, in southern Punjab, is also a key city.

The Indian government claims that it strategically hit only “terror infrastructure”. And in a post on X, the Indian army said, “Justice is served.”

But Bose said the attacks were “a very concerning development”.

“Surgically targeted precision strikes do not change the fact that there have been these large explosions in major Pakistani population centres,” said Bose. “This is proper Pakistan, not Pakistan-administered-Kashmir [claimed by India].”

‘Likely domestic dividends’ for Modi

Two days after the Pahalgam attack, Modi said, in an address at an election rally in the poll-bound state of Bihar, that his government would “identify, trace, and punish every terrorist and their backers”, promising to pursue them “to the ends of the Earth”.

Following the attack, India suspended its participation in the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) that Pakistan counts on for its water security. Islamabad has threatened to walk out of past peace deals. Both nations have also expelled each other’s diplomats, military attaches and hundreds of civilians.

But there has been growing domestic pressure on the Modi government, said political analysts, to attack Pakistan after the Pahalgam attack.

“There was a high level of pressure on Modi to respond with muscle,” said Michael Kugelman, director of the South Asia Institute at the Wilson Center in Washington, DC. “It would have been unfathomable for India’s government not to respond militarily, given Modi’s self-projection as an administrator who is strong, confident, decisive, determined to hit back hard against terrorism.”

Rasheed Kidwai, a political analyst in New Delhi, said the Pahalgam attack had “emotionally” driven a desire in the Indian public for retribution against the attackers and those seen as their enablers. And Modi, with his image as someone who delivers on national security, was catering to those sentiments. “India is retaliating in a precise manner,” Kidwai said.

In many ways, the May 7 Indian missile attacks were in keeping with the script New Delhi had outlined since the April 22 killings in Pahalgam, said Praveen Donthi, a senior analyst at the International Crisis Group.

Like Kugelman and Kidwai, Donthi referred to the image that the Modi government has created for itself domestically. “This moment aligns with India’s self-projection as a strong security state with zero tolerance for terrorism, primarily directed against Pakistan, and Modi’s strongman persona. It was a self-created litmus test that the Indian government needed to ace,” he told Al Jazeera. “There are likely domestic dividends for it.”

But, Donthi warned, the Indian attack on Pakistan also “portends future risks”.

Kugelman agreed, describing the Wednesday missile attacks as “the most intense levels of Indian military actions we’ve seen in Pakistan for quite a few years now”.

What’s next?

Back in Pakistan, as officials pledge retaliation against what they call India’s “act of war”, Kugelman said the situation suits Islamabad’s military leadership, too.

The attacks “will actually bolster Pakistan’s current regime because the military leadership can use these attacks to rally the public around the military leadership,” he said. “The military has tended to derive its legitimacy from this idea that it needs to protect the country from the threat posed by India. We could see a rally around the flag effect [in Pakistan].”

Since the Indian attack, both armies have traded heavy artillery and gunfire across the de facto border in disputed Kashmir. Currently, Kugelman said, there is “a pretty strong possibility of escalation, given that both countries have nuclear weapons”.

“The more hostilities that are used through conventional military force under a nuclear umbrella, the higher the risk of nuclear escalation.