Military notes of Indo-Pak conflict — the rundown
The writer is a retired major general and has an interest in International Relations and Political Sociology. He can be reached at tayyarinam@hotmail.com and tweets @20_Inam
During the last two weeks, in this series, we discussed the perceptual aspects of the recent Indo-Pak standoff, India's doctrinal collapse, the redefined deterrence and the 'Exterior' and 'Interior Maneuvers' by both sides, before and during the hostilities. We continue the debate…
This was the first time that India under its supposed 'new normal' used 'cruise' missiles, both the BrahMos version (PJ-10 co-developed with Russia) as well as the European SCALP-EG targeting Pakistan proper. Pakistan also retaliated for the first time, employing its conventionally armed short-range Fatah-I and Fatah-II series of 'ballistic' missiles and other types. This was also the first time that RPVs (drones) were used with the intent of causing damage to the other side, in addition to reconnaissance and intelligence-collection roles. This was also the first time that strategic instability in South Asia was linked internationally to the unresolved Jammu and Kashmir dispute and not terrorism per se.
Let us quickly recapture the timelines from April 22 to May 22, 2025. In run up to the crisis, on April 22, five militants killed 26 civilian tourists in Pahalgam, Jammu & Kashmir, including one Nepali national, leading to Indian finger pointing towards Pakistan-based Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) and Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) groups. On April 23, India suspended the Indus Waters Treaty, closed Attari–Wagah border crossing, expelled Pakistan's military diplomats, reduced Pakistan's diplomatic staff and cancelled SAARC visas for Pakistani nationals. From April 23–30 border skirmishes took place.
On April 24, Pakistan condemned the Pahalgam attack and termed India's response as 'unilateral'; and retaliated by cancelling Indian visas, evacuating Indian nationals, closing its airspace to Indian aircraft, halting all trade and warning India against diverting Indus water, calling it an act of war. On April 25, India initiated ceasefire violations across the LoC. National Security Committee (NSC) met in Pakistan on April 26. Iran stepped forward with an offer to mediate. And on April 30, India banned its airspace to Pakistan, and IAF intruded into Pakistani airspace.
Escalation and military preparations took place during May 1–6. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, after some initial ambivalence, 'expected' to speak with both foreign ministers on May 1. On May 3, Pakistan successfully test-fired its short-range Abdali ballistic missile. India escalated by cutting off all mail and trade links with Pakistan, banning Pakistani vessels from its ports and warned Pakistani ships against entering the Indian waters. On May 4, India stopped downflow from Baglihar dam on River Chenab. On May 6, Pakistan shot down 29 Indian drones near the LoC and in Punjab. And Iran's FM visited Pakistan proposing mediation.
In the military operations (May 7–10), India launched 'Operation Sindoor', on May 7, conducting missile strikes on nine sites in Pakistan (Bahawalpur, Muridke, Gulpur, Bhimber, Chak Amru, Bagh, Kotli, Sialkot and Muzaffarabad). On May 10, IAF attacked eight major Pakistani air bases, including Nur Khan base in Rawalpindi. Pakistan, early on May 10, retaliated with Operation 'Bunyan-un-Marsoos', launching missile and drone combo on 26 military targets across India, and in the Indian-occupied Kashmir. It also launched another wave of swarm drones, loitering munitions and Fatah missiles targeting 26 locations along India's western border.
On the same day (May 10), the Saudi FM called for de-escalation, Secretary of State Rubio spoke with both PMs and NSAs, urging restraint. Pakistan's DGMO reached out to the Indian side for direct military-level communications. President Trump mediated the ceasefire and announced it on X. On May 11, Pakistan claimed victory against India. Both sides subsequently conducted propaganda offensive through aggressive diplomacy by sending delegations to global capitals.
In between the above compressed timeline, a lot went through. The Indian attacks, as per information available through open sources, were 'supposedly calibrated' during May 8 and early on May 9, whereas the wider attacks during May 9-10, still 'presumably' calibrated, were dangerously escalatory, as these were aimed at Pakistan's SEAD (suppression of enemy air defences) systems, after IAF having lost aircraft on May 7.
It was sometimes on the morning of May 9 (the US time and evening in India/Pakistan), that the US received unspecified, new but 'alarming intelligence' about dangerous escalation between both sides, as reported by CNN and corroborated by The New York Times. The US worries emerged before the dramatic escalation during the night of May 9-10, but no source has actually 'identified' those worries.
The 'speculation' is that Washington observing Pakistan's launch of short-range Fatah-I and -II ballistic missiles and others for the first time during May 9-10 night got aggressively involved. Islamabad's stockpile of tactical nuclear arsenal and Indian thinking of continuing a conventional war of punitive retribution provided a background to it. Some analysts also attribute it to Pakistan's deft diplomacy, signalling to and drawing on the US interlocution, spurred by 'readiness changes in Pakistan's stockpiles', besides the announced meeting of Pakistan's National Command Authority, that oversees the non-conventional means of war i.e. the nuclear weapons.
The DG ISPR had, on May 9, declined calls for de-escalation due to the planned riposte under Pakistan's 'quid-pro-quo plus' strategy, to equalise losses caused by the Indian attacks. India later struck Nur Khan airbase around 2:30 am on May 10. This attack was meant to 'strike where it would hurt', to quote the Indian Director-General Air Operations, Air Marshal Bharti. However, that was an escalatory message.
The Indian attacks also targeted Rafiqui, Rahim Yar Khan and Sukkur bases during the first wave of strikes, followed by the IAF strikes at Sargodha, Bholari and Jacobabad airbases and some military infrastructure at Murid, Chunian, Arifwala and Pasrur. This was India 'knocking on the nuclear door', and it presumably provided more muscle and lethality to Pakistan's riposte, that was dubbed equally if alarmingly escalatory by Washington.
In de-escalation, the predominant view is that the Saudis, the Americans, the Turks and the Qataris rushed to quell India 'not because Pakistan asked, but because Delhi could not stabilize the board…Pakistan had not flinched; it had not folded. It escalated, absorbed and redrew the board'.
More on ceasefire exclusively later. Continues…
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Recorder
39 minutes ago
- Business Recorder
Pakistan condemns India's rejection of Indus Waters Treaty, warns of dangerous precedent
Pakistan's Foreign Office issued a strongly worded statement today condemning Indian Home Minister Amit Shah's declaration that New Delhi would 'never restore' the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), calling it a blatant violation of international law and a threat to regional stability. The rebuke comes amid escalating tensions between the two nuclear-armed neighbors over water-sharing rights, a long-standing flashpoint in their fraught relationship. India says it will never restore Indus water treaty with Pakistan In its official response, the Foreign Office spokesperson emphasized the treaty's legal sanctity, stating, 'The Indus Waters Treaty is not a political arrangement, but an international treaty with no provision for unilateral action.' The statement accused India of 'brazen disregard' for its obligations under the 1960 World Bank-brokered agreement, which governs the sharing of the Indus River system's waters between the two countries. 'India's illegal announcement to hold the Treaty in abeyance constitutes a clear violation of international law, the provisions of the Treaty itself, and the fundamental principles governing inter-state relations,' the spokesperson asserted. The statement further warned that such conduct 'sets a reckless and dangerous precedent' and undermines global trust in treaty-based diplomacy. The Foreign Office also condemned what it termed the 'weaponization of water for political ends,' a pointed reference to Shah's remarks, which were made ahead of elections in India's Bihar state, where water-sharing disputes have long been a contentious issue. 'This irresponsible behavior contradicts established norms of responsible state behavior,' the spokesperson added, demanding that India 'immediately rescind its unilateral and unlawful stance.' Pakistan reaffirmed its commitment to the treaty and vowed to 'take all necessary measures' to safeguard its water rights, hinting at potential diplomatic or legal recourse. The Indus Waters Treaty, signed in 1960, has survived multiple wars and crises but has faced mounting strain in recent years.
Express Tribune
4 hours ago
- Express Tribune
India rules out restoring Indus Waters Treaty, vows to divert water from Pakistan
Listen to article India will never restore the Indus Waters Treaty with Islamabad, and the water flowing to Pakistan will be diverted for internal use, Home Minister Amit Shah said in an interview with Times of India on Saturday. India put into "abeyance" its participation in the 1960 treaty, which governs the usage of the Indus river system, after 26 civilians in Indian Ilegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir were killed in what Delhi described as an act of terror. The treaty had guaranteed water access for 80% of Pakistan's farms through three rivers originating in India. Pakistan has denied involvement in the incident, but the accord remains dormant despite a ceasefire agreed upon by the two nuclear-armed neighbours last month following their worst fighting in decades. "No, it will never be restored," Shah told the daily. "We will take water that was flowing to Pakistan to Rajasthan by constructing a canal. Pakistan will be starved of water that it has been getting unjustifiably," Shah said, referring to the northwestern Indian state. Last month, Reuters reported that India plans to dramatically increase the water it draws from a major river that feeds Pakistani farms downstream, as part of retaliatory action. Pakistan's foreign ministry did not immediately respond to Reuters' request for comments. But it has said in the past that the treaty has no provision for one side to unilaterally pull back and that any blocking of river water flowing to Pakistan will be considered "an act of war". Islamabad is also exploring a legal challenge to India's decision to hold the treaty in abeyance under international law.
Express Tribune
4 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Indian media claims about ceasefire request rejected
Listen to article Pakistan has categorically denied Indian media reports claiming it requested a ceasefire following recent hostilities with India. In a statement issued Friday, the Foreign Office spokesperson dismissed the reports as 'entirely baseless,' asserting that Pakistan responded to Indian aggression in line with its right to self-defence. Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, Senator Mohammad Ishaq Dar, had in multiple media appearances stated that Pakistan's military response was a direct reaction to Indian provocations. The Foreign Office clarified that at no point did Pakistan initiate or request a ceasefire. The spokesperson detailed that the ceasefire was arranged through third-party diplomatic channels, specifically involving the United States and Saudi Arabia. Read: Rubio praises Pakistan's regional peace efforts in call with PM According to the statement, on May 10 2025 at approximately 8:15 am, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio called Senator Dar to convey that India was ready to ceasefire if Pakistan agreed. Dar confirmed Pakistan's agreement, following which Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal also contacted him around 9:00 am with a similar message and received the same confirmation. The Foreign Office labelled the Indian media reports as a 'distortion of facts' and reiterated that Pakistan agreed to a ceasefire only after India's willingness was conveyed via diplomatic channels. Islamabad reaffirmed that its position was based on sovereignty and self-defence, and external facilitation helped bring about the cessation of hostilities. Read more: Trump claims credit for India-Pakistan ceasefire despite Modi's denial India and its Prime Minister Narendra Modi, on the other hand, have consistently contradicted Washington and Islamabad by claiming that the May ceasefire between India and Pakistan resulted from direct communication between the two countries' militaries, not third-party mediation. The White House has not yet responded to India's latest remarks.
