Crime Today News
By Annunthra Rangan
Just days after a fragile ceasefire took effect on May 10, India and Pakistan have plunged into a fresh diplomatic standoff—this time, over who won the battle and what it means. Both governments have begun advancing sharply divergent narratives, each claiming strategic superiority in the wake of the most serious military escalation between the nuclear rivals in recent years.
The crisis peaked on May 7 when India launched what it described as “surgical” missile strikes on terrorist infrastructure, not only in Pakistan-administered Kashmir, but also deep inside Pakistan’s Punjab province. India’s Operation Sindoor reportedly targeted multiple military sites, including three airbases—one in Rawalpindi, home to the Pakistani Army’s headquarters.
In retaliation, Pakistan launched a series of drone and missile attacks, hitting at least four Indian military installations near the Line of Control and in Indian-administered Kashmir. Both sides accused the other of provoking hostilities and later released competing video footage and satellite imagery to support their claims of military success.
Amid rising global concern over the possibility of war between two nuclear states, US President Donald Trump declared that Washington had brokered the ceasefire. Pakistan welcomed the claim; India, however, maintained that the cessation of hostilities resulted from bilateral talks alone.
Military officials from both countries held direct talks on May 13 to reaffirm the ceasefire, but analysts argue that neither side emerged with a clear advantage. Strategic gains were marginal and offset by costly infrastructure damage and the spectre of uncontrollable escalation.
For India, a key goal appears to have been shifting global focus back to the unresolved issue of Pakistan-based militant groups. The May 5 terror attack in Pahalgam, which killed 25 tourists and a local Kashmiri resident, provided an inflection point. Indian officials used the attack to reinforce long-standing accusations that Pakistan shelters and supports anti-India extremist networks. These claims have compounded Islamabad’s reputational challenges, already strained under the weight of historical allegations of cross-border militancy.
Pakistan, meanwhile, sought to reframe the ceasefire as a sign of deterrence success. Independent verification of the downing of an Indian aircraft has been touted domestically as proof of effective retaliation. Yet this narrative, too, is undermined by broader strategic realities—including economic instability and growing internal unrest in Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.
The international community has been quick to engage. Russian President Vladimir Putin condemned the Pahalgam attack in a call with Prime Minister Narendra Modi, urging accountability. Pakistan’s Defence Minister Khawaja Asif, meanwhile, proposed an international investigative commission—comprising Russia, China, or Western powers—to probe the attack’s origins and verify India’s allegations. Asif also questioned India’s refusal to share evidence and suggested its military response was premature.
China, in contrast, offered no public condolences and has amplified Islamabad’s narrative on social media and academic platforms. Chinese journalist Shen Shiwei falsely claimed that multiple Indian jets were shot down, while coordinated posts on Weibo parroted Pakistani disinformation and cast doubt on India’s strategic intent. Some even called for Chinese military support to Pakistan.
Indian sources countered by claiming successful strikes on HQ-9 air defense systems supplied to Pakistan by China and dismissed reports of heavy Indian casualties as fabricated. Nonetheless, Chinese state media has gone on the defensive, publishing videos extolling the effectiveness of its weapons systems amid criticism over their performance.
While the barrage of conflicting accounts clouds the strategic picture, one point is clear: the cost of escalation is rising. The destruction of a health and education complex in Muridke, near Lahore, illustrated the risks of targeting dual-use infrastructure and further alarmed international observers.
The episode has also highlighted a key US strategic failure: decades of unsuccessful attempts to dissuade Pakistan from using militant proxies as tools of statecraft. While Washington has cycled through a variety of strategies—economic incentives, military aid, and conditional diplomacy—it has failed to compel systemic change in Pakistan’s approach. Despite some internal moves to curb anti-India groups, the continued operations of entities like Jaish-e-Mohammed point to institutional inaction or complicity.
For India, the shift away from strategic restraint—seen in the 2016 surgical strikes and now reinforced in Operation Sindoor—marks a new doctrine of deterrence. This assertiveness, while popular domestically, has raised international concerns about a hair-trigger escalation model in South Asia.
Still, there are signs of de-escalation. Pakistan’s economic vulnerabilities, coupled with growing pressure from international stakeholders, have created incentives for restraint. India, pursuing global ambitions and regional leadership, also stands to benefit from a stabilized neighbourhood.
Statements from both capitals signal a tentative diplomatic thaw. India’s defence minister recently endorsed dialogue-based conflict resolution, while Pakistan’s foreign minister confirmed that national security advisers are once again in contact. Whether this leads to lasting peace remains uncertain—but the stakes for both nations, and the world, are higher than ever.
—The writer is a Senior Research Officer at Chennai Centre for China Studies. Her research interests constitute China-WANA (West Asia and North Africa) relations and human rights
This article first appeared on India Legal
📰 Crime Today News is proudly sponsored by DRYFRUIT & CO – A Brand by eFabby Global LLC
Design & Developed by Yes Mom Hosting
