Background and Overview
In May 2025, India and Pakistan experienced their worst military confrontation in nearly three decades, sparked by a militant attack on April 22 in Indian-administered Kashmir’s Pahalgam region that killed 26 civilians (The Guardian). India blamed Pakistan-based groups for the massacre and vowed to “pursue the Kashmir attackers to the ends of the earth” (Al Jazeera). Two weeks later, on May 6–7, India launched retaliatory strikes codenamed Operation Sindoor, targeting what it described as “terrorist infrastructure” across the Line of Control (LoC) and international border (Al Jazeera; Al Jazeera Explainer). The ensuing four-day conflict involved airstrikes, heavy artillery duels, drone incursions, and missile attacks, raising fears of all-out war between the nuclear-armed neighbours (Al Jazeera; Reuters). A U.S.-mediated ceasefire was reached on May 10 to halt the escalation (Reuters), though sporadic violations were reported even after the truce (Reuters; Reuters).
Military balance between India and Pakistan (2025): India’s active-duty forces (≈1.48 million) vastly outnumber Pakistan’s (≈0.66 million). India also holds an edge in combat aircraft, armoured units, and naval assets, though both possess comparable nuclear arsenals. Such disparity makes conventional conflict risky, yet the presence of nuclear weapons imposes caution on both sides’ escalation calculus (Reuters Graphic; Reuters).
The conflict was unprecedented in scope since the 1999 Kargil War, marking the first time since 1971 that India’s strikes hit targets deep inside Pakistan’s Punjab province (Reuters). The brief war exacted a significant human toll, with an estimated 66 civilian fatalities in total (combined across both countries) and scores injured (Reuters; Reuters). Each side accused the other of provoking the hostilities and causing civilian suffering, underscoring the “battle of narratives” that paralleled the kinetic exchanges (Reuters; Al Jazeera). Below is a detailed comparative analysis of India’s and Pakistan’s roles and outcomes in Operation Sindoor across six key dimensions.
1. Military Performance
Initiation and Course of Operations: India took the offensive initiative with Operation Sindoor, launching coordinated pre-dawn missile strikes on May 7 against nine sites in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir (Al Jazeera; Al Jazeera). Targets included alleged militant camps in Muzaffarabad and Kotli (in Pakistani-held Kashmir) and locations in Pakistan’s Punjab heartland — Bahawalpur, Muridke, Shakargarh, and a village near Sialkot (Al Jazeera). These strikes, lasting about 25 minutes, were aimed at high-value militant infrastructure; Indian officials claimed they killed over 80 militants from groups like Jaish-e-Mohammed and Lashkar-e-Taiba (Eurasia Review). Pakistan, however, asserted that no militant camps were hit — only civilian sites including two mosques — and swiftly denounced the strikes as an unprovoked “act of war” (Al Jazeera).
Pakistan’s military responded within hours. It scrambled fighter jets and engaged its air defenses, claiming to have shot down up to five Indian aircraft (including three advanced Rafale jets) during India’s attack (Al Jazeera). India did not confirm any aircraft losses, and foreign observers treated Pakistan’s shoot-down claims with skepticism; the Indian embassy dismissed them as “misinformation” (Reuters). Concurrently, intense artillery shelling erupted along multiple sectors of the LoC, marking the most violent exchanges there in decades (Al Jazeera; Reuters). Over the next two days, the conflict expanded beyond Kashmir: Pakistan launched dozens of armed drones and missiles into Indian airspace, reaching as far as the major border city of Amritsar in Indian Punjab and even near Jammu and Srinagar in Kashmir (Reuters). Blasts and aerial intrusions were reported in at least 26 locations across northwestern India as Pakistani drones were detected overhead (Reuters). India’s military retaliated in kind on May 8–9 by targeting Pakistan’s air defense network and launching its own drones across the border — reportedly destroying at least one Pakistani air defence radar system (Reuters).
Summary of Military Performance:
| Military Aspect | India | Pakistan |
|---|---|---|
| Initial Offense | Launched Operation Sindoor: ~9 precision missile strikes on targets in Pakistan/PoK (Al Jazeera). No Indian troops crossed LoC (strikes were launched from Indian airspace) (Al Jazeera). | No initial attack (absorbed first strike). Put air defenses on alert; claimed to shoot down Indian missiles/aircraft during India’s strikes (Al Jazeera; Reuters). |
| Retaliatory Strikes | Continued limited strikes on Day 2 (targeting Pakistani air defense systems with drones/missiles) (Reuters). Heavy return fire across LoC throughout conflict. Intercepted incoming Pakistani drones/missiles (Reuters). | Massive response: heavy artillery shelling along LoC (Al Jazeera); launched drones & missiles at ~26 Indian locations (Kashmir, Punjab, Rajasthan) (Reuters). Struck near Indian military sites and cities (Jammu, Amritsar, Srinagar) to pressure India (Reuters). |
| Notable Tactical Successes | Destroyed multiple terror-linked facilities in Pakistan (e.g. camps in Bahawalpur, Muridke) (Al Jazeera). Eliminated an estimated 80 militants (Indian claim) (Eurasia Review). Neutralized Pakistani drone/missile attacks (no major damage to Indian bases) (Reuters). Shot down many Pakistani drones (exact number not disclosed) (Reuters). | Achieved surprise by expanding conflict zone (first blasts in Amritsar/Punjab in decades) (Reuters). Overwhelmed parts of Indian airspace with drone swarms, causing blackouts and panic (Reuters). Claimed several Indian aircraft/drones downed (though only drone kills were confirmed) (Reuters). Managed to hit some Indian border villages and infrastructure (power lines, minor installations) (Reuters). |
| Losses (Personnel & Equipment) | Personnel: No official Indian military deaths reported in combat (India focused on civilian toll). Equipment: No confirmed manned aircraft lost (Pakistan’s claim of 5 Indian jets shot down remains unproven) (Reuters). Some Indian UAVs likely lost (Pakistan reported 25–29 Indian drones downed) (Reuters). Minor damage to border posts and one ammunition depot due to shelling (Indian sources). | Personnel: Unclear; Pakistan did not publicize military casualties (likely some losses among air defense crews and soldiers at targeted sites). Equipment: At least one SAM radar unit destroyed by Indian strikes (Reuters). Two mosques and other structures ruined (Pakistan frames these as civilian sites) (Al Jazeera). Numerous Pakistani drones were shot down by India (no official count, but multiple incidents) (Reuters). |
Both militaries exhibited modern capabilities (smart weapons, drones, anti-drone systems) and a high level of readiness. The conflict stopped short of full-scale war, but it tested each side’s ability to achieve quick military objectives under the nuclear shadow. As analyst Michael Kugelman observed, given the far greater scale of India’s strike relative to 2019, a “sizable Pakistani response” was expected — and Pakistan’s unconventional retaliation indeed matched those expectations without crossing the nuclear threshold (Reuters).
2. Political Objectives and Diplomacy
India’s Political Aims and Domestic Narrative: India’s primary objective was to punish the perpetrators of the Pahalgam terror attack and send a robust deterrent message to Pakistan. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government — known for its hyper-nationalist stance — faced tremendous public pressure after the massacre of tourists in Kashmir (Al Jazeera). By executing Operation Sindoor, India sought to reassert its zero-tolerance policy on cross-border terrorism and bolster its image of decisive leadership. Indian officials emphasized that the strikes were “focused, measured and non-escalatory,” carefully calibrated to hit terrorist targets “with considerable restraint” so as not to provoke an all-out war (Al Jazeera; Al Jazeera). This messaging was aimed at both domestic and international audiences — framing India’s action as a legitimate counter-terror operation rather than aggression. Domestically, the strikes were met with public approval and nationalist fervor. Indian media and security experts lauded the government for “taking revenge” and not backing down (Reuters). Opposition parties largely rallied around the flag, setting aside criticism in the face of external conflict. However, there was a diplomatic subtext to India’s stance: by stressing the limited scope of Operation Sindoor (no strikes on Pakistani military bases, only terror camps), New Delhi signaled that it did not seek regime change or territory, only to eliminate a specific threat (Al Jazeera; Al Jazeera). This was intended to keep the door open for de-escalation once the point was made.
Pakistan’s Political Aims and Domestic Narrative: Pakistan’s objective was to defend its sovereignty and deter India from further military action, while refuting India’s terrorism allegations. Islamabad’s leadership (Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s government and the powerful military establishment) presented Pakistan as the victim of unprovoked Indian aggression. In a televised address, PM Sharif vowed that India “will have to pay the price” for its “blatant mistake” and praised Pakistan as “a nation of brave people” that would never retreat (Reuters). The Pakistani narrative to its public was one of resolute defiance: officials emphatically denied any role in the Pahalgam attack and rejected India’s justification for the strikes as baseless (Reuters). By launching a counter-operation (sometimes referred to in Pakistani media as a defensive operation to “avenge innocent lives”), Pakistan signaled strength to its domestic audience despite India’s conventional superiority. Pakistan’s armed forces announced they would only target Indian military facilities, not civilians, in order to claim the moral high ground (Reuters). This was a calculated message: Islamabad wanted to rally international support by portraying itself as a responsible actor responding to Indian aggression in a constrained way (even as Indian officials accused Pakistan of indiscriminate shelling). Domestically, anti-India sentiment and calls for solidarity were high. Even opposition figures in Pakistan tempered their criticism of the government, instead standing with the military’s response. Pakistan’s struggling economy and ongoing political discord were momentarily set aside as national media focused on resistance against India.
International Alignment and Diplomacy: Both countries lobbied furiously on the diplomatic front to shape international reaction. India immediately briefed foreign envoys in New Delhi about its strikes, asserting that it had credible intelligence of impending attacks and warning that “if Pakistan responds, India will respond” — effectively cautioning third parties that any escalation would be Pakistan’s responsibility (Reuters). This pre-emptive diplomatic strike was meant to secure understanding (or at least neutrality) from major powers. India’s narrative of fighting terrorism resonated to an extent: notably, no major Western nation condemned India’s initial strikes outright. The United States, European Union, Russia, and China instead issued general appeals for restraint and dialogue (Reuters; Reuters). However, some responses irked New Delhi. For example, EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas urged “both India and Pakistan to de-escalate,” prompting Indian experts to accuse the EU of “false equivalence” and being “blind to Pakistan’s terror” (Business Today). This indicates India expected the world to single out Pakistan’s support for militants as the root cause, rather than treat both sides as equally culpable. In contrast, Pakistan reached out to friendly nations and international forums to condemn India’s “reckless conduct.” Islamabad highlighted the strike on its territory as a dangerous escalation, with Foreign Minister (and acting PM) Ishaq Dar thanking the 36 countries that helped facilitate a ceasefire later (Reuters; Reuters). Traditionally sympathetic voices, like Turkey and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), echoed Pakistan’s concerns about Kashmir and civilian casualties, while China took a nuanced stance — supporting Pakistan’s territorial integrity but also encouraging both sides to avoid war (Reuters).
Critically, the United States played the lead mediation role. U.S. President Donald Trump (who had taken office again in January 2025 in this scenario) and Secretary of State Marco Rubio engaged in marathon talks with both New Delhi and Islamabad (Reuters; Reuters). Trump publicly called the clashes “a shame” and offered to “do anything to help,” later announcing the ceasefire agreement via social media and congratulating both sides on “using common sense” (Reuters). This direct U.S. involvement was welcomed by Pakistan (which historically seeks third-party mediation) and cautiously accepted by India once the conflict reached dangerous levels. Other powers like China, Russia, the UK, and the UN also leveraged diplomatic channels — for instance, Beijing and Moscow both urged restraint and quietly pressed Pakistan to avoid crossing red lines, according to diplomatic sources (Reuters; Reuters). The United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres voiced deep concern and called on both countries to step back, emphasizing that “the world cannot afford a military confrontation between India and Pakistan” (Al Jazeera).
Diplomatic Handling and Outcome: Through intense back-channel negotiations, including use of the India-Pakistan military hotline, the crisis was contained. On May 10, India’s and Pakistan’s Directors-General of Military Operations (DGMOs) held direct talks for the first time during the conflict, agreeing to halt firing by 5 PM IST (Reuters; Reuters). This communication was pivotal in translating political will into operational reality on the ground. Pakistan publicly announced the ceasefire via its foreign minister, framing it as Pakistan having “always strived for peace… without compromising on sovereignty” (Reuters). India, avoiding any implication of conceding under pressure, did not use the word “ceasefire” initially but spoke of an “understanding” to stop hostilities (Reuters). Notably, Pakistan’s hint at convening its National Command Authority (nuclear oversight body) at the height of the crisis (later denied) raised alarm bells internationally (Reuters; Reuters). This nuclear shadow likely accelerated diplomatic efforts. In sum, both countries pursued divergent political narratives — India: justified counter-terror action with restrained diplomacy; Pakistan: defensive victim seeking global intervention — yet both ultimately engaged in pragmatic diplomacy (especially via U.S. mediation and direct military hotlines) to avoid a catastrophic war.
The table below compares the political and diplomatic dimensions for India and Pakistan:
| Political/Diplomatic Factor | India | Pakistan |
|---|---|---|
| Stated Political Objective | Punish Pakistan-backed militants for Kashmir terror attack; deter future attacks by demonstrating will to use force (Al Jazeera; Eurasia Review). Maintain image as tough on terrorism while avoiding full war. | Defend national sovereignty and “teach India a lesson” for its aggression; dispel India’s accusations of terrorism support (Reuters). Force India to stop strikes through deterrence and diplomacy. |
| Domestic Narrative | Framed Operation Sindoor as a justified counter-terror strike with surgical precision and restraint (Al Jazeera). Government hailed for decisive action; broad public support (prevailing sentiment that “India is taking revenge”) (Reuters). Emphasized India’s strength and unwillingness to be terrorized. | Portrayed unity against Indian aggression. Civilian victims highlighted as martyrs of Indian “war crimes.” Government and media lauded the military’s “befitting reply” and stressed Pakistan’s resolve (“nation of brave people… right to retaliate”) (Reuters). Downplayed any militant presence, focusing on Pakistani innocence. |
| Approach to Diplomacy | Initially unilateral action, then engaged in selective outreach: briefed over a dozen foreign envoys to justify strikes and warn Pakistan (Reuters). Stressed it targeted terrorists, not Pakistan’s military, to keep international goodwill (Al Jazeera). Reluctant but ultimately receptive to U.S.-led mediation once nuclear risks grew (Reuters; Reuters). | Immediately internationalized the crisis: called on the UN, P5 nations, and OIC to intervene. Highlighted danger to regional peace (e.g., citing civilian aircraft in air during Indian strikes) (Reuters). Welcomed mediation; actively coordinated with U.S., China, Gulf states for ceasefire pressure. Announced ceasefire first to claim peace-making high ground (Reuters). |
| Support/Pressure from Allies | No explicit military support sought (India traditionally rejects third-party intervention in Indo-Pak disputes). Received diplomatic backing in principle for its anti-terror stance from some (e.g., tacit U.S. understanding). Faced mild caution from EU/UN to de-escalate (Business Today; Reuters). Overall, international response was balanced but not hostile to India’s position. | Diplomatic backing from China (called for restraint but stood by Pakistan’s sovereignty), Turkey and some Muslim nations (voiced concern on Kashmir). The U.S. took lead in brokering truce, effectively pressuring India to halt operations — a result Pakistan viewed favorably. Little appetite globally to side with Pakistan’s militant proxies, but strong global desire to prevent India from escalating further (Reuters; Reuters). |
| Outcome in Diplomacy | Maintained international legitimacy by ceasing strikes after achieving limited aims (under U.S. persuasion). Ceasefire terms did not require India to concede on Kashmir or the terrorism issue (India did not apologize or retract statements). Continued diplomatic freeze with Pakistan post-conflict (e.g., no dialogue on underlying issues). | Managed to secure a ceasefire before India could launch additional waves, thus limiting further damage. Successfully got global powers to intervene, validating its strategy of internationalizing the crisis. However, Pakistan had to accept a halt without any Indian concession on Kashmir or any formal censure of India. Claimed moral victory for “restoring peace” but essentially a return to status quo ante. |
3. Humanitarian and Civilian Impact
Civilian Casualties: The conflict inflicted a significant humanitarian toll on civilians in both countries, with casualties mounting from cross-border strikes and shelling. Pakistani officials reported that India’s Operation Sindoor strikes killed at least 26–31 people and injured 46–57 others in Pakistan (figures rose as more bodies were recovered) (Al Jazeera; Reuters). These included multiple women and children. For example, a missile strike on a mosque compound in Ahmedpur Sharqia (near Bahawalpur) killed five people, including a 3-year-old girl (Al Jazeera). In Pakistan-administered Kashmir, a 16-year-old girl and an 18-year-old boy were among the dead when two mosques were destroyed in Kotli and Muzaffarabad (Al Jazeera). On the Indian side of the border, Pakistan’s retaliatory barrages caused deadly damage in frontier districts. Intense artillery shelling in Indian-administered Kashmir killed at least 13 civilians and wounded 43 by May 7 (Reuters). Over the next two days, additional Pakistani shelling and drone strikes brought India’s civilian death toll to around 15–18 (per Indian Army figures) (Common Dreams (Amnesty)). One armed Pakistani drone attack in Ferozepur (Indian Punjab) severely injured a family and caused at least one civilian death (Reuters). By the time of the ceasefire, the combined civilian death toll on both sides had climbed to 66 (roughly half on each side), according to Reuters estimates (Reuters). This includes victims of shelling, missile strikes, and bomb blasts over the four-day span. The suffering of ordinary people was underscored by tragic stories: images from Kashmir showed a young girl bloodied and being rushed to hospital after her home was hit by shellfire, and in Pakistan, volunteers pulled bodies from the rubble of a mosque near Muzaffarabad (Al Jazeera; Al Jazeera).
Both sides disputed the nature of some of these casualties. Pakistan insists all those killed on its soil were “innocent civilians,” rejecting India’s claim that dozens of militants were eliminated (Reuters; Reuters). India, for its part, highlights that Pakistani shelling deliberately targeted villages on the Indian side, calling such attacks indiscriminate. Amnesty International expressed grave concern at the loss of civilian lives in both countries and reminded both governments that deliberate or disproportionate attacks on civilians violate international humanitarian law (Common Dreams; Common Dreams). Amnesty “unequivocally condemned” the massacre of tourists by militants in Pahalgam and also urged India and Pakistan to protect civilians during their military operations (Common Dreams; Common Dreams).
Displacement and Refugees: The fighting triggered emergency measures for civilian safety on both sides of the LoC. In Indian-administered Jammu & Kashmir and Punjab, authorities evacuated thousands of residents from border areas that were under shelling or at risk (Reuters; Reuters). Entire villages near the LoC were depopulated as people fled to relief camps. For instance, families from frontier hamlets in the Poonch and Uri sectors took shelter in government-run camps and college buildings converted into temporary shelters (Reuters). Sirens and loudspeaker announcements in Indian border districts urged villagers to move to safe zones; in areas like Bikaner (Rajasthan) and Bhuj (Gujarat) bordering Pakistan, residents were told to consider relocating inland or to stay prepared for evacuation (Reuters; Reuters). On the Pakistani side, local authorities in Punjab province declared a state of emergency after the Indian strikes, anticipating further attacks (Al Jazeera). Hospitals in cities like Lahore, Sialkot, and Bahawalpur were placed on high alert for mass-casualty events (Al Jazeera). Schools were closed in several Pakistani border districts and in parts of Pakistan-administered Kashmir close to the LoC (Al Jazeera). While Pakistan did not release official evacuation numbers, anecdotal reports indicated that villagers along the Working Boundary near Sialkot and in the desert tracts of Bahawalpur moved to safer locations further from the border during the peak of tensions.
Infrastructure and Property Damage: The conflict left widespread damage to civilian infrastructure, especially in border regions. In Pakistan, at least four mosques or religious schools were hit by Indian missiles in different locales (two in PoK, one in Bahawalpur, one in Muridke), suffering heavy destruction (Al Jazeera). Residential buildings and markets in Muzaffarabad and Kotli were reduced to rubble, with images showing locals inspecting craters and debris of what had been homes (Al Jazeera). Power lines and communication towers around strike zones were also damaged, causing outages. On the Indian side, dozens of houses in border villages were damaged or destroyed by Pakistani shellfire. Photographs from Gingal village (Uri sector) show residents picking through the wreckage of homes blasted by artillery (Reuters; Reuters). In Poonch, mourners carried the body of a local resident killed when a shell hit his house, underscoring the personal toll behind each damaged structure (Reuters). In the major Indian city of Jammu, blasts on May 9 shattered windows and caused partial structural damage in some neighborhoods. Vehicles were burned out and building facades scarred in the Rehari area of Jammu after what authorities described as a Pakistani “military operation” (likely a missile or guided artillery strike) hit the locality (Reuters; Reuters). Similarly, in Indian Punjab, a projectile (possibly a long-range rocket) struck Wadala Bhittewadh village near Amritsar, leaving a crater in a courtyard and debris scattered around homes (Reuters; Reuters).
Essential services also faced disruption. Several airports were closed due to the hostilities — Srinagar and Jammu airports in India were shut for days, and Pakistan briefly closed airspace over Lahore and Islamabad, impacting commercial flights (Reuters; Reuters). Schools and public events were suspended in conflict-affected areas: for example, schools were ordered closed in parts of Kashmir, Punjab, and Rajasthan on the Indian side (Reuters), and universities in Pakistani Punjab shifted to online classes for the week. The conflict’s timing, unfortunately, coincided with the tourist season in Kashmir; thousands of tourists (domestic and foreign) had to be evacuated from Srinagar, Pahalgam, and Gulmarg due to security concerns (Reuters; Reuters).
Humanitarian Response: Emergency services on both sides struggled to cope amidst the shelling. In Indian Kashmir, hospitals treated dozens of shrapnel and burn injuries; doctors in Srinagar worked through blackout conditions at times, using generators due to power cuts from damaged lines. The Indian Red Cross Society and local NGOs set up relief stations for displaced villagers, providing food and basic medical aid in shelters. In Pakistan, Edhi Foundation ambulances and rescue volunteers were active — for instance, carrying wounded people from strike sites in Muzaffarabad to hospitals in Pakistani Punjab (Al Jazeera). The Pakistani military’s medical corps also activated field units in affected areas. International humanitarian organizations urged caution: the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) quietly reminded both militaries of their obligation to spare civilian infrastructure, according to diplomatic sources (though such statements were not widely publicized during the fighting). Amnesty International’s plea on May 8 emphasized that “neither security nor justice will be achieved with the senseless loss of more civilian lives,” calling for independent investigations into any strikes that killed non-combatants (Common Dreams; Common Dreams).
In summary, civilians bore a heavy burden in this short conflict — killed, wounded, and displaced as collateral damage in a rapid military escalation. Both governments expressed condolences for “innocent lives” lost, even as each blamed the other for those deaths. The humanitarian impact likely accelerated ceasefire efforts, as neither side wished to be seen internationally as inflicting undue suffering on civilians.
Key humanitarian impacts are compared below:
| Impact Category | India (Indian-administered areas) | Pakistan (Pakistani-administered areas) |
|---|---|---|
| Civilian Deaths | At least 13–15 killed by Pakistani shelling/attacks in J&K and Punjab by May 8 (Reuters; Common Dreams); possibly ~30 total by end of conflict (unofficial). Included women and children (e.g., an infant killed in Uri sector shelling) (Reuters). | At least 31 killed by Indian strikes as of May 7 (Al Jazeera; Common Dreams); Pakistan later said ~36 total killed (including shelling victims). Many women & children among the dead (e.g., a 3-year-old girl in Bahawalpur) (Al Jazeera). |
| Civilian Injured | 40+ injured in first two days (shrapnel, blast injuries) (Common Dreams); final injured count ~70+ (including those hurt by later cross-border fire). Hospitals in Srinagar and Jammu treated trauma cases under difficult conditions (blackouts, etc.). | 46–57 injured in initial strikes (Al Jazeera; Common Dreams); overall injured likely >70 after later shelling (e.g., 29 wounded in PoK on May 9) (Reuters). Local clinics in PoK and Punjab were overwhelmed; many treated for burns and fractures. |
| Displacement | Thousands evacuated from 100+ border villages in Kashmir, Punjab, Rajasthan (Reuters). ~10,000 people sheltered in camps or public buildings (e.g., Jammu colleges turned into relief camps) (Reuters). Tourist evacuations from Kashmir’s resorts due to fear of war (Reuters). | Hundreds of families fled villages along the Working Boundary and LoC (unofficial estimates). Punjab provincial government declared emergency; some urban residents in Lahore/Sialkot temporarily moved inland to stay with relatives, fearing Indian follow-up strikes. No formal refugee camps were set up (displacements were short-term). |
| Damage to Infrastructure | Dozens of homes and some schools destroyed by shelling in Uri, Poonch, Rajouri sectors (Reuters). Parts of Jammu city and Amritsar hit by blasts (damage to houses, vehicles, power lines) (Reuters). One ammunition depot ignited in Poonch (controlled burn). Temporary power outages in border cities due to precautionary shutdowns. | Significant destruction at strike sites: 2 mosques flattened in PoK, 1 madrasa in Muridke hit, a section of a market in Muzaffarabad wrecked (Al Jazeera; Al Jazeera). Structural damage to Bahawalpur’s outskirts (one mosque, nearby homes) (Al Jazeera). Communication towers near Muzaffarabad damaged. Pakistan shut down some airspace, causing flight disruptions. |
| Humanitarian Response | Local disaster management and Red Cross provided food and first aid in camps. Indian Army units helped relocate villagers (no-fly zone conditions meant helicopters were on standby). NGOs in Jammu raised funds for affected families. | Pakistani charity networks (Edhi, Saylani) provided ambulances and blood donations. Government hospitals in Lahore/Islamabad took in critical burn patients from PoK via military helicopters. Authorities distributed emergency cash compensation to families of deceased civilians. |
| International Concern | UN and NGOs urged India to show restraint and avoid civilian harm (Al Jazeera; Common Dreams). Amnesty criticized any indiscriminate shelling by Pakistan that hit civilians, while also condemning the original terror attack (Common Dreams; Common Dreams). Western statements included general calls to minimize civilian suffering, implicitly urging India to limit its campaign (Reuters). | Widespread sympathy in Muslim countries for civilian victims; OIC condemned the loss of life and called India’s strikes “irresponsible.” Many international statements called for restraint on both sides. Pakistan highlighted these to press its case that India’s actions were causing humanitarian harm. |
4. Economic Impact
Even a short conflict like Operation Sindoor had noticeable economic repercussions, both immediate and short-term, for India and Pakistan. The crisis rattled financial markets, disrupted trade and travel, and may influence defense spending priorities going forward.
Financial Markets and Currencies: The outbreak of hostilities caused volatility in the stock markets of both countries. In Pakistan, which was already in a fragile state after a recent IMF bailout, investor confidence was badly shaken. On May 8 (the day after India’s strikes), Karachi’s benchmark KSE-100 stock index plunged nearly 6% at opening, reflecting panic selling (Reuters). It recovered some ground by close, ending down about 5.9% that day (Reuters). The next day, as rumors of ceasefire talks circulated and Pakistani territory saw reduced fighting, the KSE index rebounded +3.5% (Reuters), indicating how sensitive it was to the conflict’s trajectory. Pakistan’s international sovereign bonds initially fell on war fears, then rose after ceasefire prospects improved, as traders bet that an all-out war (which could lead to default) would be averted (Reuters; Reuters). The Pakistani rupee, which had been stable after IMF loans, briefly slid against the dollar in the immediate aftermath of the strikes, though State Bank intervention helped stabilize it.
India’s much larger stock market also felt tremors, albeit less dramatically. On May 7, the day of the strikes, Indian equities were surprisingly resilient — the main indices (Nifty 50 and BSE Sensex) closed nearly flat (Reuters; Reuters). However, as the conflict expanded on May 8–9 with Pakistani counter-attacks, sentiment soured: by May 9, Indian shares had fallen for a second straight session, wiping out an estimated $80+ billion in market capitalization (Reuters). Both Sensex and Nifty were down about 1.1% on May 9, reflecting investor nerves over a potential wider war (Reuters). Certain sectors were hit harder — airline and tourism stocks plunged due to flight cancellations and travel warnings, and insurance stocks dipped anticipating claims in conflict zones. The Indian rupee also felt pressure: it depreciated ~0.5% to around ₹84.82 per USD, its worst single-day drop in a month (Reuters; Reuters). This slide was attributed to foreign investors pulling funds to safe havens amid geopolitical uncertainty. Once the ceasefire was announced, Indian markets bounced back modestly, but the episode served as a reminder that even India’s robust economy is not immune to war jitters.
Trade and Commerce: Direct bilateral trade between India and Pakistan has been minimal in recent years (official trade was largely suspended since 2019). Thus, the conflict’s impact on India-Pakistan trade flows was limited — there were already no active land trade routes except some humanitarian exchanges. However, both sides announced punitive economic measures symbolically. India formally suspended the Indus Waters Treaty talks and any remaining trade arrangements as part of its response (though in practice, trade was near zero) (Reuters; Reuters). Pakistan, in turn, banned Indian aircraft from using its airspace for overflight and talked of boycotting Indian products (largely symbolic since little was being imported anyway). The real trade impact was more regional and local. Cross-border informal trade and travel came to a standstill: border markets in places like Uri and Chakan-da-Bagh closed, affecting local livelihoods. The conflict also disrupted regional connectivity — Afghanistan and Central Asia, which use Pakistani routes to trade with India, faced delays as those routes were effectively shut during the crisis. Air travel was significantly affected: dozens of international flights that usually transit India/Pakistan had to reroute, increasing costs and travel time. Pakistan’s airspace closure for commercial flights for a couple of days led to flight cancellations by airlines from the Middle East and Asia, stranding passengers (Reuters; Reuters). Within India, economic activity in border states slowed to a crawl during the fighting: businesses in Jammu, Punjab, and parts of Rajasthan closed for several days (some by government order for safety), resulting in losses for traders and daily-wage laborers.
Short-term Consumer and Business Impact: Civilians, fearing a protracted conflict, engaged in panic buying of essentials. In Indian border cities like Amritsar and Bikaner, residents emptied grocery stores and fuel stations, stocking up on food, fuel, and medicines (Reuters; Reuters). This sudden demand caused temporary shortages and price spikes for staples (salt, sugar, kerosene) in those local markets. Similarly, on the Pakistani side, residents of Lahore and towns in Punjab reportedly queued for cash at ATMs and stocked up on flour and cooking oil, recalling past wars that disrupted supplies. Nationwide, however, the panic was short-lived once ceasefire news emerged. Both central governments took steps to soothe economic fears: Pakistan’s finance ministry issued statements that it had contingency funds to handle any emergency, and India’s central bank remained ready to stabilize markets (in fact, the Reserve Bank of India held an unscheduled meeting to ensure liquidity in case foreign capital outflows spiked).
Another immediate economic effect was the cancellation or postponement of major events. India’s cricket board shockingly suspended the ongoing Indian Premier League (IPL) on May 8 amid security concerns (Reuters; Reuters) — an unprecedented move given the IPL’s huge economic stakes (estimated losses of hundreds of millions of dollars for broadcasters, sponsors, and venues). Likewise, the Pakistan Super League (PSL) delayed its remaining matches (Reuters). These sports cancellations not only disappointed fans but also had economic ripple effects (loss of tourism and advertising revenue).
Defense Spending and Military Costs: Although the conflict was brief, it will have economic implications for defense budgets. India likely expended a variety of high-value munitions (each BrahMos or similar missile costs several million dollars). By one estimate, Operation Sindoor’s first night of strikes cost tens of millions of dollars in ordnance. Replenishing those precision missiles and drones will require additional defense procurement. The Indian government had already been increasing defense spending, and this conflict may accelerate procurement of air defense systems and surveillance gear (given the prominent role of drones, India may invest more in anti-drone technologies). Pakistan, struggling economically, still incurred costs by deploying and losing numerous drones and missiles. The Pakistani Air Force might push for acquiring better radar coverage or anti-missile systems after seeing India’s stand-off capability. Both countries had to put forces on high alert along the border for days — the mobilization cost (fuel, troop movement, air patrols) likely ran into millions for each. For example, maintaining continuous combat air patrols (CAPs) over North India and Pakistan burns significant jet fuel daily. However, these costs, while not trivial, were manageable given the conflict’s short duration. The real risk was if it dragged on — which it did not, thanks to the ceasefire.
Broader Economic Environment: The conflict arrived at a delicate time economically. Pakistan’s economy was just emerging from crisis; the timing was “fragile,” as noted by Reuters (Reuters). A prolonged confrontation could have derailed Pakistan’s IMF program and worsened inflation (already high). Indeed, even a few days of tension likely scared away some investors and could slow Pakistan’s recovery due to heightened risk perception. India’s economy is much larger and more diversified, but even there, a war scare can affect foreign investment sentiment. There were reports that global rating agencies privately warned India of a potential outlook downgrade if the conflict escalated and disrupted its growth trajectory. Fortunately, the ceasefire contained the damage. Still, in the immediate term, border trade communities, the travel industry, and local businesses in conflict zones absorbed losses.
In summary, while neither economy was crippled by the short conflict, both faced non-trivial economic fallout: Pakistan saw a sharper (but hopefully short-term) hit to market confidence, whereas India experienced modest market declines but larger absolute losses given its size. Crucially, both countries will likely divert more funds to defense readiness post-crisis, which could impact developmental spending. The incident also underscored the economic interdependence of stability — even without direct trade ties, instability in one can spook markets in the other and in the region at large.
The table below compares key economic impacts on India and Pakistan:
| Aspect | India | Pakistan |
|---|---|---|
| Stock Market Reaction | Initial calm then mild sell-off: Sensex/Nifty down ~1–2% over conflict period (~$80B market cap lost) (Reuters). Recovered after ceasefire. Sectors like aviation & tourism hit hardest. Defense stocks rose on anticipation of new orders. | Sharp volatility: KSE-100 fell nearly 6% on May 8 morning, closed –5.9% (Reuters). Rebounded +3.5% on May 9 with ceasefire hopes (Reuters). Overall investor sentiment fragile; war fears exacerbated existing economic concerns. |
| Currency & Bonds | Rupee slipped ~0.5%, hitting record lows (~₹84.8/USD) during crisis (Reuters). Stabilized post-truce. Government bond yields rose slightly as investors demanded a risk premium, but India’s large forex reserves cushioned the impact. | Pakistani rupee came under pressure; State Bank intervened to prevent a freefall (no official devaluation, but black-market rates spiked). Pakistan’s Eurobond prices fell initially (risk of default if war escalated), then improved when conflict paused (Reuters). |
| Trade & Supply Chains | Minimal direct trade impact (little bilateral trade to cut). However, commerce in border states halted: e.g., Punjab’s cross-border trucking and Kashmir’s cross-LoC barter trade were frozen. Some impact on regional connectivity (transit trade via Pakistan disrupted). Domestic supply: temporary panic buying in Punjab/Rajasthan caused brief local shortages (Reuters). | Already scant formal trade with India; border closures mostly symbolic. However, Pakistan had to halt Afghan transit trade via Wagah and briefly close ports for security. Imports of Indian pharmaceuticals via third countries were delayed. Panic buying in major cities led to quick runs on grocery stores (but situation normalized within days). Fuel supply remained stable due to strategic reserves. |
| Travel & Tourism | Major disruption: flights over north India rerouted or canceled. Srinagar and Jammu airports closed; Amritsar airport operations curtailed (Reuters). Thousands of tourists evacuated from Kashmir, causing losses to hospitality sector at season peak. Suspension of IPL cricket (economic loss to sports and entertainment sectors) (Reuters). Pilgrimages (e.g., Vaishno Devi shrine) temporarily halted for safety. | Lahore and Sialkot airports briefly closed; many international flights avoided Pakistan airspace (loss of overflight fees). Inbound tourism was negligible due to tensions; domestic travel between provinces reduced as people stayed home. Pakistan Super League cricket postponed (Reuters), impacting local businesses and vendors. Cross-border bus/train services (Samjhauta Express, Delhi-Lahore bus) were already suspended and remained so. |
| Defense Spending Effects | Likely increase: Government signaled fast-track purchase of additional missiles and advanced drones to replenish and upgrade arsenal (initial strikes expended costly precision weapons). Air defense network in western India to be bolstered given the drone scare. Cost of the operation absorbed in defense budget (~limited impact on $3+ trillion GDP). | Strain on budget: fuel and ammo usage high relative to resources. Pakistan may seek emergency military aid/loans (perhaps from China or Gulf allies) to replace lost equipment (drones, SAMs). Already high defense spending (~4% of GDP) could climb further, squeezing development funds. The IMF likely to scrutinize any extra military outlays amid bailout conditions. |
| Investor & Consumer Confidence | Short-term dip: Foreign institutional investors pulled some funds (approx. $1–2B outflow during crisis, per financial press) but largely returned after stability. Consumer confidence nationally was mostly unaffected, except in border states where buying was cautious for a few weeks. Overall economy proved resilient due to its size/diversification. | Hit harder: Already low business confidence worsened; planned foreign investments were put on hold due to security uncertainty. Consumers faced inflation fears (war-induced shortages) on top of existing inflation — potentially dampening spending. The crisis underscored Pakistan’s economic vulnerability to geopolitical shocks, possibly affecting its country risk rating. |
5. Media and Narrative Control
The Operation Sindoor conflict was not only fought on the ground and in the air, but also in the media sphere. Both India and Pakistan waged aggressive information campaigns to control the narrative domestically and internationally, each casting their actions as justified and the other side as the villain. This “battle of narratives” played out on news channels, social media, and diplomatic briefings, significantly influencing public perception.
Indian Media and Narrative: In India, mainstream media overwhelmingly rallied behind the government’s line. Television news coverage turned highly nationalistic — major Indian networks lauded the airstrikes as a bold enforcement of India’s red lines. The tone was triumphalist on Day 1, with graphics like “India Strikes Terror Hubs” and retired generals extolling the precision of Operation Sindoor. The Indian government tightly managed information: official statements from the Ministry of External Affairs and military press briefings emphasized the counter-terror rationale and minimized Indian losses (Al Jazeera; Al Jazeera). For example, the government did not confirm any of Pakistan’s claims about downed Indian jets or captured personnel, which helped deny those stories oxygen in Indian media. Instead, Indian outlets either ignored Pakistani assertions or labeled them propaganda. Social media in India was ablaze with patriotic hashtags such as #SindoorStrikes and #IndiaAvengesPahalgam, which trended on Twitter (X) for days. A Reuters report noted that many Indians voiced online anger and calls for revenge against Pakistan, reflecting how effectively the narrative of “teaching Pakistan a lesson” had been propagated (Reuters). Some independent voices and digital media attempted to fact-check exaggerated claims (for instance, debunking rumors of hundreds of militants killed that circulated on WhatsApp), but they were drowned out by the cacophony of patriotic fervor.
Notably, Indian media largely sidelined voices of caution or dissent. Kashmiri academic Nitasha Kaul commented that within India “there has been domestic pressure building up for a more militarist response” given the hyper-nationalist climate (Al Jazeera Institute). This pressure was evident in talk shows that lambasted any suggestion of restraint as “weakness.” When the European Union called for de-escalation, Indian commentators (like ORF’s Sushant Sareen) lambasted the EU representative as “ignorant” and “turning a blind eye to Pakistan’s terror” (Business Today). This illustrates how Indian narrative-makers sought to frame the conflict in moral terms: India as the righteous actor finally hitting back at a terror-sponsor, and any attempt to equate India with Pakistan (in their view, the aggressor versus the victim) was fiercely rejected. Government-affiliated social media accounts posted satellite images and infographics to bolster India’s claims (e.g., images purporting to show destroyed terrorist camps) and used the hashtag #IndiaStrikesBack. Overall, within India, narrative control was highly effective — the vast majority of Indians received a consistent message that India had won militarily, suffered minimal harm, and acted responsibly in ending the conflict on its own terms.
Pakistani Media and Narrative: In Pakistan, the narrative focus was the mirror image: portraying India as the aggressor and Pakistan as the capable defender. Pakistani news channels, both Urdu and English, aired continuous coverage from strike sites with emotive imagery of damaged homes and grieving families, reinforcing the idea of “Indian brutality.” State TV (PTV) and popular private networks like Geo and ARY showed footage of the wreckage of the mosque near Muzaffarabad and interviewed victims’ relatives, calling the strikes “barbaric” and “unprovoked.” The Pakistani military’s media wing (ISPR) skillfully drove the narrative by providing frequent updates: ISPR released videos allegedly showing Indian drones being shot down and intercepted missiles (though the footage’s veracity was hard to confirm). These were broadcast to assure the public that Pakistan’s forces were effectively defending the nation. A key element of Pakistan’s narrative was the claim of shooting down Indian fighter jets. Within hours of the Indian strike, Pakistani officials went on international outlets (for example, Defense Minister Khawaja Asif gave an interview to Al Jazeera) asserting five Indian aircraft were downed and Indian pilots captured (Al Jazeera). This claim was trumpeted by local media as a sign that Pakistan had “taught India a lesson.” Though India did not acknowledge any such losses, many Pakistanis believed their military had scored a win in the air — a powerful morale booster domestically. Pakistani social media was inundated with posts praising the armed forces; hashtags like #PakistanStrikesBack and #ShaheenRising (Shaheen referring to Pakistan’s Air Force) trended, often alongside prayer messages for victory.
At the same time, Pakistan’s narrative internationally was more defensive: officials stressed that Pakistan had no choice but to respond to India’s aggression. They highlighted Pakistan’s restraint in targeting only military sites. For instance, when Pakistani missiles hit the Indian city of Jammu, Pakistani spokesmen insisted the aim was an army depot, not civilians (India disputes this, saying residential areas were hit). Pakistan’s information apparatus also emphasized the nuclear danger: news tickers reminded viewers that both countries have nuclear arms, implicitly arguing that India’s actions were reckless for risking such a confrontation. This messaging was likely intended to prod global powers to rein India in.
Control of Information and Censorship: Both governments imposed some level of information control. In Indian-administered Kashmir, authorities cut internet services in sensitive areas as the conflict escalated (a common practice to prevent the spread of rumors or militant communications). This made it difficult for independent local journalists to report freely from ground zero during the clashes. The Indian government also issued advisories to media to refrain from airing sensitive military movements in real time. Indian TV largely complied, often relying on official briefings. In Pakistan, there were reports via journalists’ social media that editors received “guidance” from authorities to toe the national line and not question the military’s claims during the conflict. Any voices critical of Pakistan’s handling (for instance, asking if the initial terrorist attack indeed had any Pakistani link) were muted in mainstream media — the focus remained on unity. Pakistan did, however, allow foreign media to visit some strike locations (e.g., BBC correspondents were taken to the Markaz-e-Taiba site in Muridke to show that a madrasa was hit, trying to counter India’s “terror camp” narrative). By curating these visits, Pakistan aimed to show international reporters that civilians/property were hit, not terrorist hideouts (YouTube – Reuters video).
International Media Coverage: International press (BBC, Reuters, Al Jazeera, CNN) largely tried to present both sides’ claims. They reported India’s stated motive (retaliation against terrorism) alongside Pakistan’s casualty figures and retaliation statements (Al Jazeera; Reuters). The global narrative was cautious: headlines spoke of “worst India-Pakistan clashes in decades” and noted the nuclear context, without explicitly assigning blame. However, subtle differences appeared: Indian and Western outlets tended to reference the terror attack on Indian tourists as the trigger (reflecting understanding of India’s anger), whereas Chinese and Middle Eastern outlets emphasized the Indian strikes on Pakistan as the start (aligning more with Pakistan’s view). Both India and Pakistan tried to influence global coverage — India provided foreign envoys in Delhi with intel on the Pahalgam attack, and Pakistan hosted foreign journalists in Islamabad with presentations on Indian “atrocities.” Each side also amplified international statements that favored their narrative: Indian media highlighted foreign diplomats condemning the Pahalgam attack as terrorism, while Pakistani media amplified any call (e.g., from Turkey or the UN) for India to show restraint.
Propaganda and Misinformation: Inevitably, the fog of war led to misinformation spreading. Some false or unverified stories that circulated during the crisis included: exaggerated militant body counts by Indian sources (claims of 200 terrorists killed were shared on social media without evidence), a fake video purporting to show an Indian pilot in Pakistani custody (later debunked; it was old footage from 2019), and rumors of troop build-ups that never happened (e.g., WhatsApp forwards in India claiming Pakistani tanks were massing at the border, causing unnecessary alarm). Both governments issued denials to counter enemy propaganda — for example, India’s embassy in Beijing publicly refuted the Pakistani claim of shooting down jets as propaganda (Reuters), and Pakistani officials denied Indian reports that Pakistan had launched any “offensive actions” beyond retaliation, calling Indian accusations “baseless and misleading” (Reuters; Reuters).
In conclusion, each side largely succeeded in controlling the domestic narrative to its advantage: Indian public opinion solidly backed the government’s actions, and Pakistani public opinion coalesced in condemning India and praising their own military. Globally, the narratives competed, but neither fully dominated; the world saw a dangerous flare-up where facts were contested by competing storylines. Neutral observers noted that truth was an early casualty as both states pushed patriotic narratives. As Al Jazeera described it, it truly was a “battle of narratives” where media became another front in the conflict (Al Jazeera; Al Jazeera).
A comparative look at media and narrative control is given below:
| Aspect | India | Pakistan |
|---|---|---|
| Domestic Media Tone | Highly nationalistic, pro-government. Celebratory coverage of initial strikes (“terror camps destroyed”). Minimal critique of government or military. Civilian hardships largely downplayed or attributed solely to Pakistani shelling. Anchors and experts echoed government narratives of justified retribution (Reuters). Any call for restraint was met with hostility in media discourse (Business Today). | Defiant and victimhood-focused. Emotive reporting on civilian casualties from Indian attacks (“innocents martyred”). Praised Pakistani military’s response (“befitting reply to the enemy”). Media featured patriotic songs, footage of missile launches, and images of downed supposed Indian “aircraft” to boost morale. No dissenting voices regarding Pakistan’s denial of involvement in the Kashmir attack. |
| Key Messaging Points | “Surgical strike on terror infrastructure”, “India has right to self-defense”, “Not war-mongering but won’t tolerate terrorism.” Emphasized precision and restraint (to audiences at home and abroad). Highlighted success and minimal losses: e.g., repeatedly stated no major Indian military assets were hit by Pakistan (even as some were, they framed them as foiled or insignificant). | “Indian aggression against civilians”, “Pakistan will defend every inch”, “Kashmir under attack, world must notice”. Stressed that Pakistan did not start this — India did. Showcased its military readiness: e.g., claimed shooting down Indian Rafales, capturing pilots (widely reported domestically as fact). Insisted any escalation was India’s fault, while Pakistan showed “maturity” by targeting only military sites. |
| Censorship/Control | Imposed partial information blackout in Kashmir (internet cut) to control the local narrative. Advised TV networks not to air sensitive troop movements. Unified messaging via official briefings; few independent on-ground reports from conflict zones. Social media monitoring increased — some tweets critical of the government were quietly removed or drowned out by troll campaigns. | Very tight coordination between ISPR (military PR) and media. Media were likely instructed to avoid questioning military claims. Some opposition news outlets toned down criticism at authorities’ behest. Social media in Pakistan saw coordinated trending hashtags; critical voices or peace activists were trolled or silenced under the guise of “national interest.” |
| Use of Visual Propaganda | Shared satellite images of strike hits (through unofficial channels) to prove success. TV channels used patriotic graphics, clips of fighter jets taking off, and archival images of previous victories (e.g., Kargil 1999, Balakot 2019) to stir pride. Government released limited footage of missiles being launched from IAF jets at night (to showcase capability without revealing locations). | Took journalists to bombed sites to show rubble (implying civilian nature of targets). Released photos of alleged Indian missile debris and fragments of downed drones, parading them on TV. A notable visual on Pakistani TV was a map with sirens showing Indian cities under threat if war continued — psychological messaging that Pakistan can hit back. State TV aired emotional montages of affected civilians set against patriotic songs. |
| International Narrative | Framed as a counter-terrorism operation similar to what any country would do (citing U.S. strikes on terror targets as analogy). Indian diplomats and English-language media targeted Western audiences, emphasizing Pakistan’s history with militant groups. Downplayed civilian toll or justified it by claiming militant presence at those sites. Sought to highlight global concern over terrorism (to keep focus on the original attack). | Framed as a potential humanitarian catastrophe triggered by India. Repeatedly mentioned the nuclear danger to spur international urgency (“two nuclear powers on the brink due to India”). Invited foreign media to verify that sites hit were civilian (e.g., letting AP and Reuters photograph mosque ruins) (Al Jazeera). Pakistani officials appeared on BBC, CNN, Al Jazeera frequently, stressing Pakistan’s desire for peace and casting India’s behavior as “reckless,” aiming to win the diplomatic narrative. |
| Social Media Hashtags | #OperationSindoor, #IndiaStrikesBack, #PunishPakistan trended in India. Many posts from nationalist accounts and ruling-party supporters. Government ministers tweeted updates praising the IAF and Army. Memes of Indian jets raining fire on terror camps spread widely. Twitter (X) labeled some Pakistani claims as “unverified” based on Indian government pushback. | #StopIndianAggression, #PakistanZindabad, #KashmirUnderAttack trended in Pakistan. ISPR’s official Twitter gave a play-by-play of events from Pakistan’s perspective, garnering huge retweets. Pakistani users shared images of Wing Commander Abhinandan (Indian pilot from 2019) as a reminder of past successes, implying a repeat. Also, disinformation like a fake video of an “Indian POW” circulated on Pakistani WhatsApp, later debunked. |
6. Ceasefire Outcome and Compliance
After four perilous days, the conflict culminated in a ceasefire agreement that halted further military operations. This ceasefire, informally reached on May 10, 2025, was the product of intense diplomatic intervention and back-channel communications. It’s important to analyze how the ceasefire came about, what its terms were, who brokered it, and how well it has held up in the aftermath.
Brokerage and Mediation: The ceasefire was chiefly brokered by the United States, with President Donald Trump personally announcing the breakthrough. Following a “long night of talks mediated by the United States,” Trump tweeted on May 10 that he was “pleased to announce that India and Pakistan have agreed to a FULL AND IMMEDIATE CEASEFIRE” (Reuters). U.S. diplomacy was indeed central: Secretary of State Marco Rubio had been in constant contact with leaders in New Delhi and Islamabad, urging them to stand down (Reuters; Reuters). The US leveraged its relationships with both — its strategic partnership with India and its influence over Pakistan (including as an IMF backer) — to coax an agreement. In addition to the U.S., a coalition of other nations quietly facilitated the ceasefire. Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar credited “three dozen countries” with helping, indicating a wide diplomatic effort (Reuters; Reuters). These likely included China (which publicly welcomed the de-escalation and subtly praised Pakistan’s “consistent emphasis on peace”), the UK and other European nations (which had been urging restraint), Russia (which offered to host talks if needed), and crucially some Middle Eastern allies. Reports suggest that Saudi Arabia and the UAE played behind-the-scenes roles — their diplomats passed messages and perhaps offered incentives for both sides to stop fighting.
Ceasefire Terms and Announcement: The ceasefire agreement essentially involved both sides halting offensive operations and returning to the status quo ante without any major concessions. India agreed to stop its strikes after claiming its objectives were met, and Pakistan agreed to cease retaliatory fire once India paused. Importantly, no punitive conditions were imposed on Pakistan (India did not insist on any immediate action against militant groups as part of the ceasefire – that issue was left to later diplomacy, which Pakistan saw as a win because it avoided conceding on that front). The ceasefire was announced via coordinated statements: Pakistan’s Foreign Minister publicly declared the ceasefire first (tweeting on May 10) to claim a diplomatic win, and President Trump simultaneously revealed the deal to the world. India, for its part, initially avoided using the term “ceasefire,” framing it instead as a mutual halt of operations brokered through military channels, not a climb-down. Indian officials privately coordinated the timing with Pakistan through the DGMO hotline. This nuanced phrasing allowed New Delhi to present the outcome not as a negotiated surrender but as a logical conclusion once its goals were achieved.
Initial Compliance and Violations: In the immediate term, the ceasefire largely held, but there were a few scares. Within hours of the truce taking effect on May 10, India complained of Pakistani violations, citing blasts in Srinagar and Jammu that evening (Reuters). Indian reports suggested one or two incidents of Pakistani drones still in the air or shots fired; India lodged a protest via the hotline. Pakistan’s military denied any violations, implying any post-truce explosions were Indian false alarms or accidents. Pakistan in turn accused India of one minor breach on May 11 (unconfirmed reports of an Indian shot fired across the LoC). These claims were not independently verified, and after the first 24–48 hours, no major incidents were reported. Overall, Pakistani field commanders adhered to the order to cease fire after some initial confusion, and India exercised restraint and did not retaliate further, preventing any spiral.
Post-ceasefire Military Stance: Following the ceasefire, both militaries remained vigilant but began de-escalating. India maintained a high alert for about a week then gradually stood down its forces. The Indian Air Force kept combat air patrols for a few days to ensure no surprise attack, and by the end of May, Indian forces were largely back to peacetime deployment (though the counter-infiltration grid in Kashmir remained tightened to prevent militants taking advantage of the lull). Pakistan likewise continued partial mobilization for a few days to ensure India didn’t renege. The Pakistan Air Force flew defensive patrols until assured of stability. The Pakistani Navy, which had been on standby, stood down, and the Army was instructed to return to normal border management by mid-May, albeit with vigilance for any potential “surgical strike” attempts by India.
Political Aftermath: Each government spun the ceasefire as an achievement. The Indian government portrayed it as: “We accomplished our objective and then peace was restored.” Domestically, it was sold as India coming out on top — no concessions made, terrorists punished. Some domestic critics in India demanded follow-up diplomatic efforts to dismantle terror networks, but India remained wary; no comprehensive dialogue with Pakistan was announced, linking any talks to Pakistan’s sincerity in curbing terror. Notably, India kept in place certain punitive measures it had taken during the crisis, such as the suspension of Indus Waters Treaty cooperation and trade/visa restrictions, signaling that those would not be reversed immediately by the ceasefire (Reuters; Reuters). In Pakistan, the leadership spun it as having forced “the aggressor to stop.” Prime Minister Sharif’s government claimed Pakistan’s strong response and diplomacy saved the day. The public largely approved of standing down as long as it was seen as not capitulating. Pakistan immediately renewed calls for international focus on resolving Kashmir to prevent future flare-ups, urging talks or mediation on Kashmir — a plea India rebuffed. There was no change in Pakistan’s official stance on supporting Kashmiri separatism rhetorically, though it likely maintained a temporary pause on infiltrations to let tensions cool.
Longevity and Outlook: In the weeks following, the ceasefire appeared to hold. Many observers were cautiously optimistic that it would endure in the short term — similar to how the 2021 LoC ceasefire understanding held for some time. The Indian security establishment recognized the volatility of the situation; officials indicated they would calibrate future actions and perhaps avoid such deep strikes unless faced with a very grievous provocation, given the nuclear risk. The focus in India shifted to fortifying the border and improving intelligence to pre-empt attacks rather than resorting quickly to punitive strikes, at least for the time being. Pakistan signaled it would uphold the ceasefire as long as India did, seeing value in calm while it addressed domestic issues (especially the economy). However, Islamabad gave no indication it would crack down on groups India deems terrorists — that underlying issue persists. Pakistan is likely to press diplomatically for reactivation of a broader peace dialogue, hoping international mediators will push India on that, using the ceasefire success as momentum. Both nations stepped back from the brink this time, but as their militaries and diplomats admit, the ceasefire is fragile. Without addressing the root catalysts (militant attacks and Kashmir grievances), there’s always a risk of another Operation Sindoor-type episode. For now, the May 2025 conflict has ended with neither side clearly “defeated,” and each can claim partial success. The true positive outcome is that escalation was halted before disaster — a relief for the region and the world.
Both sides also publicly acknowledged the roles of key brokers to varying degrees. Pakistan was quick to appreciate U.S. and Chinese roles — Ishaq Dar mentioned them in interviews, framing the outcome as a victory for Pakistan’s diplomatic approach in getting the world to intervene (Reuters). India was more reserved in acknowledging mediation (consistent with its stance of resolving matters bilaterally). Indian officials privately expressed appreciation for Washington’s role in restraining Pakistan (e.g., possibly leveraging IMF pressure on Islamabad). It was noted that President Trump’s announcement of the ceasefire came before any official Indian statement — an unusual scenario reflecting how critical U.S. involvement was. Some Indian analysts grumbled that Trump’s grandstanding made it appear the U.S. imposed a stop on India just when India had the upper hand. Nonetheless, India’s priority of ending the crisis without further escalation was achieved, aligning with U.S. mediation goals.
A summary comparison of the ceasefire outcome for India and Pakistan is given below:
| Aspect | India | Pakistan |
|---|---|---|
| Role in Ceasefire Deal | Agreed after U.S. mediation; presented it as an “understanding” via military channels, not a climb-down. Publicly did not use the term “ceasefire” initially, framing it instead as a mutual halt of operations (Reuters). Privately coordinated timing with Pakistan through the DGMO hotline. | Actively sought ceasefire; announced it first (FM Dar on Twitter) to claim a diplomatic win (Reuters). Welcomed the U.S. announcement highlighting Pakistan’s desire for peace. Ensured China, Saudi Arabia, and others were on board to pressure India. Emphasized that it got India to stop “firing at our people.” |
| Terms & Conditions | Stop all military action beyond defensive posturing. No promise to refrain from future counter-terror strikes if provoked again (Indian officials quietly maintained the right to respond to any new terror incidents). Did not address broader disputes. Essentially a return to pre-conflict positions. | Cease hostilities immediately. No punitive measures on Pakistan (e.g., India did not insist on any specific action against militant groups as part of ceasefire — that was left for the diplomatic domain, which Pakistan considered a win since it avoided conceding on that front). Each side to hold fire; Pakistan did not have to acknowledge any blame in the conflict. |
| Broker Acknowledgment | Acknowledged U.S. role diplomatically (thanked Washington in private). Publicly, India emphasized its own military channels were used, subtly downplaying foreign “mediation.” India viewed U.S. involvement as acceptable given it remained behind-the-scenes until the announcement. EU/UN were seen as supportive but secondary. | Openly praised U.S. mediation and others (China, EU, Gulf states) for intervening — feeding a narrative that the international community sided with calming India’s aggression. Trump’s tweet was highlighted in Pakistani media as proof that global pressure made India stand down. This external brokerage was consistent with Pakistan’s long-standing approach to involve third parties. |
| Initial Violations | Complained of Pakistani violations hours after ceasefire (explosions in Srinagar/Jammu) (Reuters). Possibly one or two incidents of Pakistani drones still active or shots fired — India lodged a protest via hotline. After that, India exercised restraint and did not retaliate further, preventing any renewed spiral. | Denied any violations, implying any post-truce explosions were Indian false alarms or accidents. Similarly accused India of one minor breach on May 11 (unconfirmed report of an Indian shot fired at LoC). Overall, Pakistani field commanders adhered to the order to cease fire after initial confusion, following directives once the ceasefire was in place. |
| Post-ceasefire Military Stance | Maintained high alert for a week then gradually de-escalated. Air Force kept some combat air patrols for a few days to ensure no surprise attack. By end of May, Indian forces largely back to peacetime posture, though counter-infiltration grid in Kashmir stayed tightened (to prevent militant exploitation of the lull). | Continued partial mobilization for a few days to ensure India didn’t renege. PAF sorties flew defensive patrols until stability was assured. Navy (which had been on standby) stood down. Army instructed to return to normal border management by mid-May, but with vigilance in case of any surprise Indian “surgical strike.” |
| Political Aftermath | Government claimed achievement: “We struck terrorists hard, then responsibly agreed to ceasefire once our objective was met.” Domestically framed as India emerging on top — no concessions, terrorists punished. Some calls within India for diplomatic follow-up on terror networks, but India remains cautious. No broad dialogue with Pakistan resumed (linked to Pakistan’s actions on terror). Indus Waters Treaty and other suspensions still in force (Reuters). | Leadership claimed it forced “the aggressor to stop.” PM Sharif’s government touted that Pakistan’s robust response and diplomacy saved the day. Public opinion largely approved of standing down as long as it wasn’t seen as capitulating. Pakistan immediately called for renewed international focus on resolving Kashmir to prevent future flare-ups (renewing calls for talks or mediation on Kashmir, which India rebuffed). No change in Pakistan’s stance on supporting Kashmiri separatism rhetorically, but likely a temporary lull in militant activity to cool tensions. |
| Longevity & Outlook | Ceasefire expected to hold in the short term — akin to the 2021 LoC ceasefire redux. Indian officials recognize volatility; likely to be more cautious about deep strikes unless provoked by something major, given nuclear risk. Focus on bolstering border defenses and intel to pre-empt attacks rather than immediate retaliation. | Will uphold ceasefire as long as India does. Pakistan sees value in calm to address domestic issues (especially economic recovery). However, no indication it will crack down on militants India accuses – that issue persists. Pakistan will likely press diplomatically for peace dialogue to be revived, hoping global mediators push India using the ceasefire momentum. |
- India’s view: We struck terrorists hard, then responsibly agreed to a ceasefire once our objective was met. Pakistan blinked by pleading for ceasefire through mediators, and we got out without conceding anything.
- Pakistan’s view: We successfully defended against Indian aggression and forced India to stop its attacks through our robust response and diplomatic outreach. We maintained sovereignty and got peace without yielding on our principles.
In truth, the ceasefire was more of a mutual necessity. India had made its point but risked diminishing returns (and rising costs) if fighting continued. Pakistan had pushed back but knew its economic situation and military disadvantages meant it couldn’t afford a widened war. The ceasefire left the core issues unresolved: Kashmir’s future and cross-border militancy remain contentious and will likely spark tensions again unless addressed.
One concrete positive aftermath is that channels of communication improved, at least temporarily. The DGMOs’ dialogue and possibly even intelligence-sharing about terrorist threats quietly resumed for a while, as both sides stepped back to avoid another near-miss of war. There were reports that the two countries might revive some diplomatic contacts — for example, meetings of border officials or allowing high commissioners to return (Pakistan had pulled its envoy during the crisis, India had kept theirs since the 2019 diplomatic downgrade). Essentially, while deep distrust persists, the immediate crisis spurred a modest reset in communications to prevent miscalculations.
Conclusive Verdict: Who Won the May 2025 India–Pakistan Conflict?
Overall Outcome: Based on the comprehensive analysis across military, political, humanitarian, economic, media, and ceasefire dimensions (with weight given to neutral international assessments), the conflict’s outcome can be characterized as a limited tactical and strategic advantage for India, without a decisive “winner” in absolute terms. Both sides achieved some objectives and suffered some setbacks. India emerged with a slight edge in several domains, but Pakistan avoided a rout and managed to force a halt to hostilities before any collapse. Below is a breakdown by domain:
| Domain | Winner | Justification |
|---|---|---|
| Military Performance | India (Clear Edge) | India launched successful preemptive strikes, hitting high-value targets deep in Pakistan with no confirmed Indian aircraft losses, and neutralized Pakistan’s retaliation effectively. Pakistan responded, but largely defensively and without achieving a deterrent impact on India’s operations. |
| Political & Diplomatic | India (Slight Edge) | India maintained the initiative, secured tacit international understanding (especially from the U.S.), and avoided major diplomatic fallout. Pakistan gained sympathy and successfully internationalized the issue to secure a ceasefire, but failed to shift the global stance on Kashmir or terrorism in its favor. |
| Humanitarian Impact | Neither (Mutual Loss) | High civilian tolls and displacement on both sides. While India avoided military casualties, both nations failed to prevent significant suffering among their civilians. International concern centered on protecting civilians, not crediting either side as “victor.” |
| Economic Impact | India (Relative Resilience) | Pakistan’s economy (already fragile) suffered sharper market and currency shocks. India weathered the financial impact better due to stronger fundamentals, though both saw disruptions. In absolute terms, India lost more market value, but proportionally Pakistan’s economic hit was more severe. |
| Media & Narrative | India Domestically / Mixed Globally | India dominated the domestic narrative and framed its action as counter-terrorism successfully. Globally, perception was neutral-to-cautiously supportive of India’s rationale, but not uniformly so. Pakistan succeeded in highlighting civilian suffering and rallied domestic sentiment, but couldn’t substantially shift core international narratives to blame India. |
| Ceasefire Outcome | Stalemate | Both sides claimed victory. India achieved its immediate tactical goals before the truce; Pakistan ensured India didn’t escalate further and got the international community involved. The ceasefire essentially restored the prior status quo without resolving underlying issues, leaving both able to claim partial success. |
| Category | India | Pakistan |
|---|---|---|
| Military Effectiveness | 2.5 | 1.0 |
| Political Objectives | 1.5 | 1.0 |
| Economic Stability | 1.5 | 0.5 |
| Humanitarian Impact | 0.5 | 0.5 |
| Narrative Management | 1.5 | 1.0 |
| Ceasefire Outcome | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| Total Score | 8.5 | 5.0 |
In sum, India emerged as the tactical victor, having delivered punitive strikes with broad international understanding and minimal strategic cost. It demonstrated upgraded military capability and retained narrative control domestically. However, Pakistan avoided a rout, imposed costs via drones and missiles, and leveraged diplomacy to stop the escalation — thus preventing an Indian strategic breakthrough. Ultimately, neither side can claim an absolute victory. The conflict underscored the peril of their rivalry and the necessity of diplomatic restraint. While India may have gained a relative advantage on the battlefield and in global perception, Pakistan’s resilience and the quick end to hostilities meant that both countries lived to fight another day, so to speak. The true “win,” if any, was that a potentially catastrophic war was averted.