Category World News

Four days after India and Pakistan reached a ceasefire after a rapid escalation in a military conflict between them, key differences between their battlefield claims remain unresolved.

Among them is Pakistan’s assertion that it shot down five Indian fighter jets on May 7, the first day of fighting, in response to Indian attacks on its territory.

As a battle of narratives takes over from the actual fighting, Al Jazeera takes stock of what we know about that claim, and why, if true, it matters.

What happened?

Tensions between India and Pakistan erupted into military confrontation on May 7 after India bombed nine sites across six cities in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir.

India said it had struck what it called “terrorist infrastructure” in response to the deadly April 22 killings of tourists by suspected rebels in India-administered Kashmir.

Gunmen on April 22 shot dead 25 male tourists and a local pony rider in the picturesque meadows of Pahalgam, triggering outrage and calls for revenge in India. New Delhi blamed Pakistan for supporting the fighters responsible for the attack, a charge Islamabad denied.

Pakistan said Indian forces on May 7 struck two cities in Pakistan-administered Kashmir and four sites in the country’s largest province, Punjab. It said civilians were killed in the attacks. India’s Defence Minister Rajnath Singh rejected the Pakistani claims, reiterating that Indian forces “struck only those who harmed our innocents”.

Over the next four days, the two nuclear-armed neighbours were engaged in tit-for-tat strikes on each other’s airbases, while unleashing drones into each other’s territories.

Amid fears of a nuclear exchange, top officials from the United States made calls to Indian and Pakistani officials to end the conflict.

On May 10, US President Donald Trump announced that Washington had successfully mediated a ceasefire between the nuclear-armed neighbours. Despite initial accusations of violations by both sides, the ceasefire has continued to hold so far.

Pakistan reported on Tuesday that Indian strikes killed at least 51 people, including 11 soldiers and several children, while India has said at least five military personnel and 16 civilians died.

What has Pakistan claimed?

Speaking to Al Jazeera shortly after the May 7 attacks, Pakistan’s Information Minister Attaullah Tarar said Islamabad, in retaliation, had shot down five Indian jets, a drone, and many quadcopters.

Later in the day, Pakistan’s military spokesperson Ahmed Sharif Chaudhry said the warplanes had all been downed inside Indian territory, and aircraft from neither side crossed into the other’s territory during the attacks – an assertion India seconded.

“Neither India nor Pakistan had any need to send their own aircraft out of their own national airspace,” British defence analyst Michael Clarke told Al Jazeera.

“Their standoff weapons all had long enough ranges to reach their evident targets whilst flying in their own airspace,” Clarke, who is a visiting professor in the Department of War Studies at King’s College, London, added.

On Friday, Pakistan’s Air Vice Marshal Aurangzeb Ahmed claimed that among the five downed aircraft were three Rafales, a MiG-29, and an Su-30, providing electronic signatures of the aircraft, in addition to the exact locations where the planes were hit.

The battle between Pakistani and Indian jets lasted for just over an hour, Ahmed, who is also the deputy chief of operations, told reporters.

He stated that the confrontation featured at least 60 Indian aircraft, among them 14 French-made Rafales, while Pakistan deployed 42 “hi-tech aircraft,” including American F-16s and Chinese JF-17s and J-10s.

What has been India’s response?

After Chinese state news outlet The Global Times wrote that Pakistan had brought down Indian fighter planes, India’s embassy in China described the report as “disinformation”.

However, beyond that, New Delhi has not formally confirmed or denied the reports.

Asked specifically whether Pakistan had managed to down Indian jets, India’s Director General of Air Operations AK Bharti avoided a direct answer.

“We are in a combat scenario and losses are a part of it,” he said. “As for details, at this time I would not like to comment on that as we are still in combat and give advantage to the adversary. All our pilots are back home.”

What else do we know?

Beyond the official accounts, local and international media outlets have reported different versions of Pakistan’s claims of downing the jets.

According to Indian security sources who spoke to Al Jazeera, three fighter jets crashed inside India-controlled territory.

They did not confirm which country the warplanes belonged to. However, with neither side suggesting that Pakistani planes crossed into Indian airspace, any debris in Indian-controlled territory likely comes from an Indian plane.

Reuters news agency also reported, citing four government sources in Indian-administered Kashmir, that three fighter jets crashed in the region. Reports in CNN said that at least two jets crashed, while a French source told the US outlet that at least one Rafale jet had been shot down.

Photos taken by AP news agency photo journalists showed debris of an aircraft in the Pulwama district in Indian-administered Kashmir.

Will both sides ever agree on what happened?

Defence analyst Clarke said if India has indeed lost a Rafale, that would certainly be “embarrassing”.

“If it came down inside Indian territory, which must be the case if one was destroyed, then India will want to keep it only as a rumour for as long as possible,” he added.

Lilongwe, Malawi – Since he was young, Enock Dayton has made a living from bananas. The 30-year-old was born and raised in Molele, in the southern Malawian district of Thyolo, which was at the heart of local banana production until a plant virus devastated crops more than a decade ago.

At his stall at Mchesi market, in Malawi’s capital Lilongwe, Dayton serves customers from the bunches of green bananas that he has. “I started this business when I was young, and we had farms where we were growing bananas and we would take trucks and bring them here and sell them to individuals,” he told Al Jazeera.

But in 2013, the deadly banana bunchy top disease wiped out almost all the crops in the country. Farmers were asked to uproot their banana plants to avoid the spread of the virus; hundreds of thousands of people were affected.

Bananas are Malawi’s fourth biggest staple crop, after maize, rice and cassava, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).

The United Nations body – which is working with other organisations to help revive banana farming in the country – said in 2023 that with “the right investments and strategic support, the banana sector has the potential to provide greater benefits in food and nutrition security and commercial value for growers, transporters, consumers and food processors”.

But in the meantime, to maintain their businesses in the absence of sufficient local produce, farmers and fruit-sellers like Dayton turned to neighbouring Tanzania to import the crop and complement their own meagre local supplies. In 2023 alone, for instance, Malawi imported more than $491,000 worth of bananas, with the majority of that – 5,564,180kg (12,266,920lb) – coming primarily from Tanzania. The remainder came from South Africa and Mozambique.

But this year, that arrangement came to a sudden halt. In March, Malawi said it was temporarily banning the import of some farm produce, including bananas, from Tanzania and other countries. The government said this was to help support local industries and stabilise the country’s foreign exchange shortage, which has led to challenges that include the inability to import some necessities, like pharmaceuticals.

But Malawi might have underestimated the effect of its bold move, observers say.

In retaliation, in April, Tanzania banned the entry of all agricultural imports from Malawi, responding to what it described as restrictions on some of its exports. That ban also extended to South Africa, which for years prohibited the entry of bananas from Tanzania.

This was bad news for Malawi, observers say, as it is more on the receiving end of trade between the neighbours. According to data from the Observatory of Economic Complexity (OEC), Malawi exports less than $50m worth of products to Tanzania, including soybean meal, soybeans and dried legumes, while it imports hundreds of millions of dollars in the form of mineral fuels, oil, distilled products, soaps, lubricants, cement and glassware, among other products.

In its response, Dar es Salaam went a step further, extending its trade ban to the export of fertiliser from Tanzania to landlocked Malawi. It also threatened to stop goods en route to Malawi from passing through Tanzania.

By land, Malawi depends on Tanzania, Zambia and Mozambique for the import of goods. As it lacks direct access to the sea, Malawi utilises seaports in Tanzania and Mozambique. But the instability of the Mozambique route – due to insecurity caused by conflict, recent post-election violence and truck drivers facing harassment – made the deadlock with Tanzania a bigger challenge for industry. Businesses that rely on the import of farm produce started crying foul as their trucks of groundnuts and other produce stood in line at the Songwe border.

Malawi also found itself in a tricky situation as it depends on Tanzania for its harbours to import fuel.

Soon, even Kenya found itself entangled in the conflict as cargo from Malawi, which has to travel through Tanzania, was also stopped en route.

The ensuing row shone a light on Malawi’s precarious geographical location, as well as regional agreements aimed at facilitating trade, the efforts by individual nations to follow the rules, and the macroeconomic imbalances in a nation designated as one of the poorest in the world.

After weeks of tensions, this month, a high-level meeting between Malawi and Tanzania appeared to have brokered the differences, paving the way for the lifting of the bans between the two countries, according to a spokesperson for Malawi’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

‘Symptom of a huge challenge’

For Ernest Thindwa, a political commentator based at the University of Malawi, the recent trade dispute does not exist in isolation – and should also be viewed from a political lens.

Both countries are heading for polls this year, first Malawi in September and then Tanzania in November. Within an election environment, the dispute says something about the attempts by both countries’ leaders to display patriotism and a sense of empowerment to their citizens, the analyst said.

“The current administration [in Malawi] wants to be seen to be delivering and they want to be seen to be responding to people’s concerns,” Thindwa told Al Jazeera. “And certainly they need to make sure that local producers are protected, which has become more urgent as we go towards elections.”

Thindwa said that both Malawi and Tanzania are signatories to regional and international trade agreements, the frameworks of which entitle them to take measures to protect their trade interests when they deem necessary.

However, he questioned the timing of these moves, asking why the initiatives by Malawi were not implemented earlier if they were indeed to protect local industries.

Answering his own question, he said, “Because then it might have not been an agent in terms of attracting votes.”

“What you would call subsistence or smallholder producers … would be significant for the government in terms of trying to win votes from such social groups,” he observed.

Meanwhile, in Tanzania, something similar was at play in its decision to retaliate, Thindwa said.

“The incumbent administration in Tanzania wants to be seen to be responding to the needs and interests of its citizens. So the administration in that country, in Tanzania, also wanted to project an image that it cares for its people. That’s why it responded rather quickly.”

Broadly speaking, Thindwa noted that the trade dispute points to overall challenges African countries face – in terms of promoting internal trade, and trading more within Africa than with other continents.

Citing the example of Angola, he said that despite it having oil, countries within the Southern African Development Community (SADC) bloc continue to import oil from the Middle East.

“There is Angola there,” he said. “Why can’t they put together a regional project, for instance, and invest in the capabilities to make sure that the end product is being produced in Angola and Angola serves the region, to be much cheaper for the region? And it will make sure that the resources of the region remain within the region.”

Such examples show that “in spite of these trade protocols, Africa still struggles to encourage trade between member states”, he said.

“So the case of Tanzania and Malawi is just a symptom of a huge challenge Africa faces in terms of promoting internal trade.”

Tensions eased

In a statement on May 9, Malawi’s Ministry of Trade said Malawi and Tanzania had held bilateral discussions in Tanzania regarding the implementation and resolution of its prohibition order.

After that, a letter from the ministry, addressed to Malawi’s Revenue Authority, read: “In this regard, I wish to advise that you facilitate the clearance of exports and imports of goods between the Republic of Malawi and the Republic of Tanzania. This, however, does not exempt importers from complying with legal and regulatory requirements, including obtaining the relevant licences and certifications from regulatory bodies.”

After the talks, Charles Nkhalamba, Malawi’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson, told Al Jazeera the neighbours had signed “a joint communique” to resolve the dispute between them.

The “high-level discussions” were a result of “robust diplomatic efforts” by the foreign ministries of both countries, he said in a message on WhatsApp, adding that Tanzania also “acknowledg[ed] the economic circumstances that necessitated the import restrictions”.

During the meeting, both parties agreed in principle on the importance of continuous engagement and communication on all matters impacting their bilateral trade relations, Nkhalamba added.

Weeks earlier, Tanzania’s Ministry of Agriculture also released a statement acknowledging that Lilongwe had reached out to Dar es Salaam to resolve the problem and stating that “Tanzania is lifting a ban on export and import of agricultural produce to and from Malawi”.

In principle, the trade war between the neighbours appears to have stalled for now.

But experts told Al Jazeera that practically speaking, it will take time for the logistics to be sorted out and for things to return to normal for sellers left in limbo when their supplies dried up.

At the market in Lilongwe, Dayton is eagerly awaiting the trucks of sweet bananas from across the border, so he has enough to sell to his customers.

He is grateful for the cross-border trade, and the arrangement that has over the years helped business people like him make money selling the crop from their neighbours.

But he also had mixed feelings as he reminisced about their lost opportunity to grow their own crops.

“The amount of money we used to have when we grew our own bananas is different from what we’re earning now,” Dayton said. “While we were growing and buying them at a cheap price … we were making a lot of money, apart from the transport [costs]. The ones from Tanzania are quite expensive.

“We need our bananas back.”

A decade ago, Dayton was a casualty of a natural disaster that made his garden back in the village dormant. Now, he feels that he is a casualty of the decisions made by authorities in offices far away.

Islamabad, Pakistan – Four days after a May 10 ceasefire pulled India and Pakistan back from the brink of a full-fledged war following days of rapidly escalating military tensions, a battle of narratives has broken out, with each country claiming “victory” over the other.

The conflict erupted after gunmen killed 26 civilians in Pahalgam, in Indian-administered Kashmir, on April 22. A little-known armed group, The Resistance Front (TRF), initially claimed responsibility, with India accusing Pakistan of backing it. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi promised retaliation, even though Pakistan denied any role in the attack.

After a series of tit-for-tat diplomatic measures between the neighbours, tensions exploded militarily. Early on the morning of May 7, India fired missiles at what it described as “terrorist” bases not just in Pakistan-administered Kashmir, but also four sites in Pakistan’s Punjab province.

In the following days, both sides launched killer drone strikes at each other’s territory and blamed one another for initiating the attacks.

Tensions peaked on Saturday when India and Pakistan fired missiles at each other’s military bases. India initially targeted three Pakistani airbases, including one in Rawalpindi, the garrison city which is home to the headquarters of the Pakistan Army, before then launching projectiles at other Pakistani bases. Pakistan’s missiles targeted military installations across the country’s frontier with India and Indian-administered Kashmir, striking at least four facilities.

Then, as the world braced for total war between the nuclear-armed neighbours, US President Donald Trump announced a ceasefire, which he claimed had been mediated by the United States. Pakistan express gratitude to the US, even as India insisted the decision to halt fighting was made solely by the two neighbours without any third-party intervention.

Since the announcement, both countries have held news conferences, presenting “evidence” of their “achievements”. On Monday, senior military officials in India and Pakistan spoke by phone, pledging to uphold the ceasefire in the coming days.

However, analysts say neither side can truly claim to have emerged from the post-April 22 crisis with a definite upper hand. Instead, they say, both India and Pakistan can claim strategic gains even as they each also suffered losses.

Internationalising Kashmir: Pakistan’s gain

The military standoff last week – like three of the four wars between India and Pakistan – had roots in the two countries’ dispute over the Kashmir region.

Pakistan and India administer different parts of Kashmir, along with China, which governs two narrow strips. India claims all of Kashmir, while Pakistan claims the part India – but not Islamabad’s ally China – administers.

After the 1971 war between India and Pakistan, which led to the creation of Bangladesh, New Delhi and Islamabad inked the Simla Agreement, which, among other things, committed them to settling “their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations”.

Since then, India has argued that the Kashmir dispute – and other tensions between the neighbours – can only be settled bilaterally, without third-party intervention. Pakistan, however, has cited United Nations resolutions to call for the global community to play a role in pushing for a solution.

On Sunday, Trump said that the US was ready to help mediate a resolution to the Kashmir dispute. “I will work with you both to see if, after a thousand years, a solution can be arrived at, concerning Kashmir,” the US president posted on his Truth Social platform.

Walter Ladwig, a senior lecturer at King’s College London, said the latest conflict gave Pakistan a chance to internationalise the Kashmir issue, which had been its longstanding strategic goal.

“Islamabad welcomed mediation from a range of countries, including the US, framing the resulting ceasefire as evidence of the need for external involvement,” Ladwig told Al Jazeera.

By contrast, he said, India had to accept a ceasefire brokered externally, rather than ending the conflict on its own terms.

Sudha Ramachandran, the South Asia editor for The Diplomat magazine, said that Modi’s government in India may have strengthened its nationalist support base through its military operation, though it may have also lost some domestic political points with the ceasefire.

“It was able to score points among its nationalist hawkish support base. But the ceasefire has not gone down well among hardliners,” Ramachandran said.

Highlighting ‘terrorism’: India’s gain

However, analysts also say the spiral in tensions last week, and its trigger in the form of the Pahalgam attack, helped India too.

“Diplomatically, India succeeded in refocusing international attention on Pakistan-based militant groups, renewing calls for Islamabad to take meaningful action,” Ladwig said.

He referred to “the reputational cost [for Pakistan] of once again being associated with militant groups operating from its soil”.

“While Islamabad denied involvement and called for neutral investigations, the burden of proof in international forums increasingly rests on Pakistan to demonstrate proactive counterterrorism efforts,” Ladwig added.

India has long accused Pakistan of financing, training and sheltering armed groups that support the secession of Kashmir from India. Pakistan insists it only provides diplomatic and moral support to Kashmir’s separatist movement.

Planes down may be Pakistan’s gain

India claimed that its strikes on May 7 killed more than 100 “terrorists”. Pakistan said the Indian missiles had hit mosques and residential areas, killing 40 civilians, including children, apart from 11 military personnel.

Islamabad also claimed that it scrambled its fighter planes to respond and had brought down multiple Indian jets.

India has neither confirmed nor denied those claims, but Pakistan’s military has publicly shared details that it says identify the planes that were shot down. French and US officials have confirmed that at least one Rafale and one Russian-made jet were lost by India.

Indian officials have also confirmed to Al Jazeera that at least two planes crashed in Indian-administered territory, but did not clarify which country they belonged to.

With both India and Pakistan agreeing that neither side’s jets had crossed their frontier, the presence of debris from a crashed plane in Indian-administered territory suggests they were likely Indian, say analysts.

The ceasefire coming after that suggests a gain for Pakistan, Asfandyar Mir, a senior fellow at the Stimson Center in Washington, DC, told Al Jazeera. “Especially, the downing of the aircraft confirmed by various independent sources. So, it [Pakistan] may see the ceasefire as being better for consolidating that dividend.”

Muhammad Shoaib, an academic and security analyst at Quaid-i-Azam University in Islamabad, called India’s strikes against Pakistan a strategic miscalculation. “Their reading of Pakistan’s ability to hit back was flawed,” he said.

Ludwig, however, said it would be a mistake to overstate the significance of any Pakistani successes, such as the possible downing of Indian jets. “These are, at best, symbolic victories. They do not represent a clear or unambiguous military gain,” he said.

Further reach across border may be India’s gain

In many ways, analysts say that the more meaty military accomplishment was India’s.

In addition to Kotli and Muzaffarabad in Pakistan-administered Kashmir, Indian missiles on May 7 also targeted four sites in Punjab, Pakistan’s most populous state and the country’s economic nerve-centre.

Over the next two days, India also fired drones that reached deep inside Pakistani territory, including major Pakistani population centres such as Lahore and Karachi.

And on May 10, Indian missiles hit three Pakistani airbases that were deeper in Pakistan’s Punjab than the Indian bases Pakistan hit that day were in Indian territory.

Simply put, India demonstrated greater reach than Pakistan did. It was the first time since the 1971 war between them that India had managed to hit Punjab.

Launching a military response not just across the Line of Control, the two countries’ de-facto border in Kashmir, but deep into Pakistan had been India’s primary goal, said Ramchandran. And India achieved it.

Ludwig, too, said that India’s success in targeting Punjab represented a serious breach of Pakistan’s defensive posture.

Will the ceasefire hold?

Military officials from both countries who spoke on Monday and agreed to hold the ceasefire also agreed to take immediate steps to reduce their troops’ presence along the borders. A second round of talks is expected within 48 hours.

However, later that day, Indian Prime Minister Modi said that the fighting had merely “paused”.

Still, the Stimson Center’s Mir believes the ceasefire could hold.

“Both sides face constraints and opportunities that have emerged during the course of the last week, which, on balance, make a ceasefire a better outcome for them,” he said.

Ladwig echoed that view, saying the truce reflects mutual interest in de-escalation, even if it does not resolve the tensions that led to the crisis.

“India has significantly changed the rules of the game in this episode. The Indian government seems to have completely dispensed with the game that allows Islamabad and Rawalpindi to claim plausible deniability regarding anti-Indian terrorist groups,” he said.

“What the Pakistani government and military do with groups on its soil would seem to be the key factor in determining how robust the ceasefire will be.”

Quaid-i-Azam University’s Shoaib, who is also a research fellow at George Mason University in the US, emphasised the importance of continued dialogue.

He warned that maintaining peace will depend on security dynamics in both Indian-administered Kashmir and Pakistan’s Balochistan province.

Just as India accuses Pakistan of supporting cross-border separatism, Islamabad alleges that New Delhi backs a separatist insurgency in Balochistan, a claim India denies.

“Any subsequent bout of violence has the potential to get bloodier and more widespread,” Shoaib said. “Both sides, going for a war of attrition, could inflict significant damage on urban populations, without gaining anything from the conflict.”