Filmmaker Mohammed Ali Naqvi bags Emmy nomination for Netflix’s Turning Point: The Bomb and The Cold War

This is his fourth time being nominated for an Emmy.

Images Staff
Updated 03 May, 2025
DAWN


Filmmaker Mohammed Ali Naqvi has earned another Emmy Award nomination, marking his fourth time being nominated. This year, he has been nominated in the category of Outstanding Historical Documentary for Turning Point: The Bomb and The Cold War, a critically acclaimed Netflix series he served as executive producer on.

Naqvi was the first Pakistani to be nominated for a Primetime Emmy in the Exceptional Merit in Documentary Filmmaking category in 2023 for The Accused: Damned or Devoted?, and the first to receive the prestigious Television Academy Honour, which he was awarded in 2008 for his Showtime film Shame.

Turning Point: The Bomb and The Cold War is a nine-part documentary series directed by Brian Knappenberger. Filmed over two years across seven countries, the series explores the roots and aftershocks of the Cold War and their connection to today’s global crises. It features exclusive interviews with world leaders, including Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, former UK prime minister Tony Blair, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, former CIA director Robert Gates, and former US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice.

The show became an instant global success on Netflix, reaching the third position on the Netflix Original Series chart, with more than 621 million minutes streamed in its first few weeks.

In addition to his Emmy recognition, Naqvi is a member of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, chairman of the Pakistan Academy Selection Committee, and co-founder of the Crescent Collective, which launched Pakistan’s official presence at the Cannes Film Festival in partnership with Global Lens Day and the American Pavilion.

He was recently named a 2025 Concordia Fellow by Concordia Studio, the Oscar-winning production company founded by Davis Guggenheim, as part of a global cohort of visionary documentary filmmakers. The fellowship recognises filmmakers pushing boundaries and amplifying underrepresented voices in cinema.

“It’s an incredible honour to be nominated again,” said Naqvi. “To tell stories that travel across borders on the global stage is a privilege I don’t take lightly.”

Farewell, Skype!

Eman Ali bids farewell to Skype, as it failed to compete with Zoom and Discord.

Eman Ali

MAY 5, 2025
DAWN
Aurora Magazine
Promoting excellence in advertising

It’s hard to look at that familiar sky-blue logo without hearing the signature Skype ringtone echo in your mind. For years, Skype was the go-to app for international calls, long-distance relationships, awkward job interviews, and family catch-ups with relatives overseas.

You’d rush home from school, hop on your computer, maybe even connect to the internet the old-fashioned way by hooking your device to an ethernet cable, meaning no one else could use the landline while you were online, and call your friends on Skype. It was every kid’s canon event. With over half a billion users, Skype eventually caught the eye of Microsoft, who purchased the app for $8.5 billion.

But that’s when disaster struck. Microsoft began releasing updates that made Skype worse. Ads and bloatware bogged down the user experience. Then, in 2015, Discord launched, which targeted the gaming market and quickly stole a significant chunk of Skype’s user base.

In response, Microsoft pivoted to a business-first approach for Skype. But that strategy crumbled too when Covid-19 came and Zoom entered the scene in earnest. This could have been Skype’s big moment. The world was at a standstill, people were looking left and right for a way to stay connected, and there were tons of new apps in the market.

But Skype, despite having had a legacy of its own and all the benefits of being a first-mover, was unable to compete. Zoom offered a far more convenient solution. And it was web-based as well. One of Skype’s drawbacks was its app, which got worse with updates.

It’s interesting to look back at 2017 when Skype rolled out its redesign, because that’s when the downfall became apparent. Android users got a month’s head start before the refreshed app landed on iPhones. Instead of fixing Skype’s unreliable notifications and syncing, Microsoft added new, less important features like emojis for video calls and a Snapchat-like ‘Highlight’ option.

However, that new look didn’t sit well with Apple users. Almost immediately after its release on the App Store, Skype’s ratings took a nosedive globally. In the UK, the app’s rating plummeted to a mere one star. Similarly, in the US, the ratings dropped significantly from a respectable 3.5 stars to just 1.5 stars. Clearly, the redesign didn’t resonate with a significant portion of Skype’s user base on iOS.

The business space was taken over by Microsoft Teams, which once again showcases just how redundant and arguably ego-driven the purchase of Skype was. It’s not all bleak, though. Microsoft salvaged the tech. Much of Skype’s voice infrastructure now powers Microsoft Teams, which has taken over the business communication space. So, in a sense, Skype didn’t die; it was absorbed.

But for consumers? There just wasn’t enough investment or innovation to keep it relevant.

So the inevitable happened. The president of collaborative apps and platforms at Microsoft revealed in a Feb. 28 blog post that the company would be retiring the service in order to “streamline our free consumer communications offerings so we can more easily adapt to customer needs.”

If you’re one of the millions of people who spent their childhood on Skype, you have until January 2026 to download your data for the sake of nostalgia before permanent deletion.

What was Skype now lives under the hood of Teams. It slowly faded out into the background of tech history. Despite that, it did come with its own benefits, and they will be missed.

Unfortunately, Microsoft Teams (free) comes with a few downgrades compared to regular Skype. Group video calls are limited to 60 minutes and you also can’t use Teams for pay-as-you-go calling and SMS like you could with Skype Credit.

In all honesty, we can’t say we didn’t see it coming. Hardly anyone used Skype, and with WhatsApp having released its desktop version in March 2021 and Discord increasing in popularity from beyond its initial demographic of hard-core gamers, why would anyone?

Eman Ali is a business graduate from NUST and a part-time writer.

After the stand-off

The costs of this impending conflict are high for the subcontinent but also for those ruling it

Arifa Noor 

Published May 6, 2025 

DAWN

The writer is a journalist.

A WEEK later, the uncertainty continues, even as there are observations galore that temperatures have come down a bit. There have been calls and advice from allies and friends, to both Islamabad and New Delhi, suggesting talking instead of issuing threats and banging war drums. And not all advice can be ignored, as South Asians well know, especially from the Americans, who have a history of hand-holding South Asians through their stand-offs.

This is not all. On the Pakistani side, government officials are no longer publicly providing a countdown of when an attack is suspected, while the info minister is also boasting of victory of the bayania (a word which has made a smooth transition from the PTI-PML-N stage to the international one) in the tensions between the two neighbouring countries.

On the Indian side, too, some events suggest a de-escalation, or is being interpreted as such. The cabinet security committee meeting ended with the prime minister authorising freedom to the military to decide on the response. This was followed by another meeting which announced a caste survey, something the BJP had been resisting and the opposition party, the Congress had been asking for. Why the government would yield on such a key opposition demand, at this time, is intriguing. But this is still not reason enough to crack open the Rooh Afza on our side of the border.


The domestic fallout will prove important in the near future as the crisis plays out.

Those noticing these subtle changes still think New Delhi will respond, even though it is increasingly recognised that the decision will not be an easy one, for there is the ever-present risk of escalation as well as the peril of it ending as it did during Pulwama with the downing of an Indian plane and the capture of a pilot. And while India did spin the release of the pilot as a victory, the incident was an embarrassing one for New Delhi. But despite this, there is domestic pressure to act — and such pressure means not just kinetic action but also action which is perceived as bigger and better than Pulwama.

And this is what Pakistan expects also. Balakot plus.

At the same time, the calculus for Pakistan is no less rigorous. Whatever India does, Pakistan has to respond to it, plus more, whatever that may be. After all, this is the objective the country has set for itself after Balakot, when its plan was to strike near a military target on the other side, illustrating that it had the capacity to cause damage and didn’t. But to its good luck, it downed a plane and captured a pilot.

However, in this war of ‘retaliation’ and more, neither side wants an escalation, which is not just possible but also capable of causing great destruction. Still, the one-upmanship the two sides have prepared their domestic audiences for has bound them in varying degrees.

And this aspect — the domestic fallout — will prove important in the near future as the crisis plays out. After all, one can safely say that compared to 2019, both Islamabad and New Delhi have weaker governments. And in case of a fallout, there will be a price to pay domestically.

It is worth noting that for many analysts, Pulwama provided the then BJP government with an edge in the coming election, as national security became an important issue, even sidelining economic issues. Of course, such ‘success’ creates its own expectations which is at play this time around with the media and public opinion expecting an equally strong response. In addition, even most of the Indian opposition has asked for it, promising to back Narendra Modi. But what if the response doesn’t prove to be enough? That the Indian government is aware of this is also clear from the ‘aggressive’ steps it is taking vis-à-vis the Indus Waters Treaty, for it is something which can successfully be marketed as an act of war. But whether this will prove enough to stave off the opposition’s criticism as the elections in Bihar approach remains to be seen. As it is, a Congress leader has criticised the government by brandishing a toy jet that had lemon and green chilies attached to it, as he commented that the Rafales were in the hangers with lemon and chilies hanging off them, rather than being used.

The situation in Pakistan is no different. Pulwama ended better for Pakistan than it did for India. Indeed, few remember the public mood once Balakot had been struck. There were considerable questions about how and why enemy planes had been able to enter Pakistan. It was seen as particularly provocative because it revived memories of the Osama bin Laden raid. The resentment mitigated only when the Indian plane was downed, turning the public mood to one of jubilation, so much so that few asked if the strike by Pakistan would have proved enough domestically had the planes not engaged with each other and ended in the capture of Abhinandan.

Six years later, the government is less popular and less secure. The lack of popularity also plagues the establishment. All this will add to the sense of pressure; the government can’t afford to come across as weaker in its military prowess in comparison to a rival government. Indeed, its response, when it comes, will be compared to the previous government and judged accordingly. And if the response appears to be lukewarm, it will have domestic repercussions.

Neither will it be the first time. Conflict and war have always had an impact on domestic politics in Pakistan, shaping the latter in ways that have left a long-lasting impact. And where the wars next doors in Afghanistan have helped military dictators by extending their longevity, those with India have claimed a scalp or two. It was the 1965 war which catapulted Zulfikar Ali Bhutto to a leadership position as he criticised Ayub Khan’s handling of it. And more recently, Kargil eventually set off a series of events which ended with a military coup and later the removal of Musharraf. The costs of this impending conflict are high for the subcontinent but also for those ruling it.

Published in Dawn, May 6th, 2025

Perilous hour

Maleeha Lodhi 

Published May 5, 2025 

DAWN

The writer is a former ambassador to the US, UK and UN.

THE latest crisis in India-Pakistan relations is the fifth in the past 25 years.

Each crisis has been more complex and involved dangerous ramifications, which made it hard even when tensions eased to put ties back on track and return to any ‘normalcy’. Protracted periods of diplomatic disengagement followed these crises. The bilateral impasse only deepened as, when suspended, formal dialogue was difficult to resume. Little wonder that a once promising peace process advanced through what was called the ‘composite dialogue’ was never revived since it was halted over 12 years ago.

The ongoing crisis has already plunged relations between the nuclear neighbours into a vortex of dangerous confrontation. Tit-for-tat diplomatic measures by both sides, initiated by India, have gone much further than actions taken in past crises. India’s suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty weaponises water and has far-reaching im­­plications even if its immediate impact is limited. Exchange of small-arms fire continues along the Line of Control. The Indian Navy has been cond­u­cting long-range missile drills in the Arabian Sea, obliging Pakistan to intensify its naval activities.

Pakistani officials claim to have credible intelligence that India is preparing to launch a military strike. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s statements about inflicting harsh punishment on the attackers and their backers has reinforced the possibility of kinetic action. He has given the army “operational freedom” to decide “the mode, targets and timing” of India’s response to the Pahalgam terrorist attack. War hysteria has also taken hold in India.

The danger of an impending military confrontation has evoked growing international concern and prompted calls for restraint. The UN secretary general, China, the US, Saudi Arabia and Iran, among others, have urged de-escalation. Historically, the US has had leverage with both countries — and still does — to play a role in defusing crises. It did so from the 1999 Kargil conflict to the last crisis in 2019. This time, contrary to speculation that Washington is too preoccupied elsewhere with other conflicts, it has engaged swiftly with both Islamabad and New Delhi to urge restraint and ask them to re-establish direct communication channels and work together to maintain peace and security.


Can a full-blown crisis between India and Pakistan be averted?

Secretary of State Marco Rubio conveyed this message in phone calls to Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Indian Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar. The same message was delivered by former national security adviser Mike Waltz to army chief Gen Asim Munir and Indian National Security Adviser Ajit Doval, days before Waltz was removed from that post. Calls were also made to DG ISI Gen Asim Malik by CIA director John Ratcliff and director of national intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. Malik was recently appointed national security adviser, sparking speculation this was in preparation for talks later with Doval.

Whether US intervention will dissuade India from embarking on a military course remains to be seen. Indian media reports suggest the Modi government is examining several options that can inflict pain on Pakistan but stop short of triggering a broader conflict, especially as it cannot be sure of how Islamabad will react. For its part, Pakistan has said any kinetic action by India will be met by a “strong and decisive response”. This would heighten the risk of an uncontrolled escalatory cycle with uncertain consequences and outcome. The room for miscalculation and inadvertent escalation by either side will be high in the absence of any communication between them. Messaging through an intermediary — the US — might be helpful but will not eliminate that risk.

The past is not a perfect guide, as no two situations are ever the same, but it may be instructive to recall what happened the last time around. The February 2019 crisis erupted after a terrorist attack in occupied Kashmir’s Pulwama district, in which 40 Indian security personnel were killed. Blaming Pakistan for the attack, Indian officials warned of a strong response. Twelve days later, Indian Mirage jets crossed the Line of Control to carry out a bombing raid in Balakot, claiming this destroyed ‘terrorist training camps’ and killed militants. Pakistan was to later show that the site of the bombing was a forested area and there were no casualties or damage. Pakistan retaliated by launching Operation Swift Retort entailing air strikes on a military target in Jammu. That too caused little if any damage.

However, in an aerial combat an Indian Mig-21 was shot down by Pakistan and its pilot captured. His release became the key point in defusing the crisis when tensions were escalating to a dangerous level. The climax came when Pakistan determined India was about to attack having deployed and pointed nine missiles at Pakistan. This was conveyed by Pakistan’s foreign secretary to key foreign envoys including the US along with the warning that Pakistan will be compelled to retaliate. “For every Indian missile readied, three Pakistani missiles would be ready in response,” according to a former official. India therefore had to be stopped. The US was engaged at the working level with both sides, but this led to more senior-level involvement. Washington had in any case started pressing for restraint after the Indian strike in Balakot. Former secretary of state Mike Pompeo claims in his memoir Never Give An Inch that nuclear escalation became a real possibility as each side thought the other was about to deploy nuclear weapons.

Hectic shuttle diplomacy by the US and Pakistan’s effort to de-escalate the situation led to the government’s decision to release the pilot. His release provided an off-ramp from the crisis and helped to defuse it. In his book Anger Management, Ajay Basaria, former Indian high commissioner to Pakistan, claims India’s coercive diplomacy produced this outcome. In a campaign speech later, Modi suggested a ‘qatal ki raat’ (night of murder) was in the offing if the pilot hadn’t been freed. Refuting Basaria’s version, Islamabad attributed the pilot’s release to Pakistan’s “responsible behaviour” in de-escalating the situation while demonstrating its capacity to respond to any security threat.

A combination of fortuitous factors, active third-party intervention and a concrete ‘peace gesture’ in the midst of escalating tensions helped to end that crisis. Luck also played a part, as many experts have pointed out. The question is whether there are any favourable factors in play today that can halt the ongoing escalation and avert a head-on clash.


Published in Dawn, May 5th, 2025

On the brink again?

Abbas Nasir 

Published May 4, 2025

The writer is a former editor of Dawn.


SOUTH Asia is on tenterhooks this weekend, as many informed experts are saying that the window of opportunity for India to embark on some ‘kinetic action’ against Pakistan, which it blames without evidence for the Pahalgam incident, is fast closing because the significant global support New Delhi was hoping for is missing.

While the hysteria that the governing Hindu nationalist BJP-dominated media has whipped up makes it impossible to rule out such an eventuality, it is also becoming clear that the international community, most notably the US, is telling India to desist from any action that could ignite a conflict in the region.

Later in the year, India is heading to state elections in key states such as Bihar and, after jumping the gun and blaming Pakistan, as has been its wont, it would be hard-pressed to explain to its Hindu nationalist support base why it failed to take action. In such a scenario, it is not clear what face-saving would suffice for the governing party’s support base.

India’s hard-line prime minister has left it to his military leaders to decide on the target and timing of any action to be taken against Pakistan as he, like his Pakistani counterpart, seems not to buy the argument attributed to French prime minister Georges Clemenceau that “war is too serious a matter to be entrusted to military men”.


The world is not prepared to react as it used to in the past to charges of Pakistani complicity.

In Narendra Modi’s case, at least, it looks like an attempt by the Indian PM to shield himself from any adverse fallout from any such possible adventurism. Or perhaps he could cite the counsel of his military leaders for not plunging the region into a spiralling conflict, the course of which cannot be predicted or controlled.

Why is the aggressive Indian leader — who scrapped occupied Kashmir’s special autonomous status, did not seem to care about the consequences and triggered new tensions between his country and Pakistan — now trying to insulate himself from the repercussions?

There could be a number of factors. Despite the size of the growing Indian market and economy, he must also realise that growth and investment are risk-averse. A rapid climb up the escalation ladder in any conflict in a nuclear-armed region could prove to be the kiss of death for his economy.

Secondly, India’s policy, reportedly developed by National Security Adviser Ajit Doval and endorsed by the Modi government, to assassinate/ seek to eliminate supposed threats to national security abroad from Canada to the US to other Western countries to Pakistan has raised more than one brow, with Canada going public with its evidence where a Sikh citizen was killed and the US filing murder-for-hire and money-laundering charges against an Indian government employee.

While neither has affected its economy nor scared away foreign investors and business interests, the incidents have eroded India’s credibility in the West. So the world is not prepared to react as it used to in the past to charges of Pakistani complicity or instigation in terror attacks on Indian soil or in occupied Kashmir.

This is not to say that India does not remain a strategic ally of the US, especially with respect to containing China. China seems mindful of the Indian hostility towards its presence in Pakistan. Security sources claim Pakistan has shared evidence of some role attributable to India in attacks against Chinese nationals working on CPEC projects in Pakistan.

One is not sure if China found what was shared with it verifiable and credible, but something must explain the change in language Beijing has started using of late. From the foreign minister to state-sponsored think tanks down to social media handles representing official positions, the Chinese seem to have moved from their unequivocal ‘business first’ stance.

Both Pakistan and China have often acknowledged their ‘time-tested’ friendship as being manifest in close Pakistan military-PLA relations but even so, in the past, Beijing has not hesitated to tell Pakistan to step back, as it did during the Kargil confrontation. In the wake of the Pahalgam incident, China has gone on record as saying it would stand by Pakistan’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

I doubt this level of Chinese support is carte blanche for wild adventurism by Pakistan. But it surely does mirror China’s concerns regarding an outbreak of hostilities between the two nuclear-armed South Asian neighbours, as Beijing may not itself remain immune from devastation in the worst-case scenario.

One strategic blunder committed by India, in blaming Pakistan within hours of the Pahalgam massacre and then being unable to share verifiable evidence with Western powers, also seems to have undermined its case and may explain the lack of endorsement of its stance by the West unlike in the past.

It is also true that while the Israeli military campaign continues against the mostly unarmed Palestinians in Gaza, the Ukraine-Russian war shows few signs of ending soon and the US-Israel duo tries to defang Iran’s nuclear capability, Washington and its (somewhat estranged) European allies are not interested in another distraction which has the potential to turn into a nuclear war.

The US secretary of state and vice president have both underlined the need for India not to do something rash and for the two countries to calm things down. The EU and major Gulf leaders have also made similar calls, with Saudi Arabia and Iran even offering to mediate.

Against this backdrop, the naming of the ISI chief Lt-Gen Asim Malik as the prime minister’s national security adviser brings hope, however faint, of a backchannel. This hope is based on the excellent rapport established between Ajit Doval and his Pakistan counterpart, retired Lt-Gen Nasser Khan Janjua, from 2015 to 2018, when the two smokers developed bonhomie during cigarette breaks as they engaged in backchannel talks in Southeast Asia.

One can only hope that having ignored Clemenceau once, South Asian leaders will do so again and prove him wrong, because he said: “It is easier to make war than to make peace.”


abbas.nasir@hotmail.com

Published in Dawn, May 4th, 2025

The Pakistani military has brought down five Indian jets in retaliation for late-night strikes




Sanaullah Khan | Dawn.com | AFP | Reuters | Nadir Guramani | Imran Gabol Published May 6, 2025 

DAWN

The Pakistani military has brought down five Indian jets in retaliation for late-night strikes launched by its neighbouring country at six sites, including in Punjab’s Sialkot and Bahawalpur, as well as Azad Jammu and Kashmir.

The military confrontation between Pakistan and India began a little after 1am on Wednesday with the Indian air strikes when the neighbouring country launched what it termed “Operation Sindoor”. Soon after reports emerged, the Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) confirmed the strikes, saying that India had carried out the attacks from within its airspace. The military spokesperson provided an updated damage assessment of the scenario at around 4am, reporting the death of eight civilians.

Information Minister Attaullah Tarar confirmed the downing of two Indian jets around 2:45am after Pakistan launched its swift response, while the confirmation for the third plane, a Rafale aircraft, came an hour later. Confirmation of the fourth and fifth Indian jets being taken down came after 5am by Tarar and Defence Minister Khawaja Asif.

Security personnel cordon off a street as local residents evacuate their homes near the site of a strike in Muzaffarabad, AJK, May 7. — AFP

Talking to the media around 7am at the information ministry, Tarar asserted that India had waved a white flag at the Line of Control and “accepted defeat”. The minister said this as footage of a white flag played in the background.

“They have been forced to wave a white flag,” Tarar said. PTV News also shared footage of a white flag hoisted seemingly on top of a structure.

Tarar further said that “several” posts of the Indian army across the border had been destroyed by the armed forces.

He recalled that Pakistan had called for a probe into the Pahalgam attack but India “conducted this attack and then fled from it”. “It is a cause of shame for them that they targeted innocent labourers and citizens,” he added.

According to the minister, Pakistan did not target any civilians in India in its retaliatory actions.

Key highlights:India launches late-night strikes at sites of Kotli, Bahawalpur, Muridke, Bagh and Muzaffarabad

Eight Pakistanis slain, 35 injured, mosques targeted

Five Indian jets downed in military retaliation

Indian brigade headquarters, Indian checkpost along LoC destroyed

Flights on ground put on hold while all inbound, outbound flights diverted to Karachi

National Security Committee meeting summoned at 10am

Trump terms India’s actions a “shame”

In an interview to Bloomberg TV, Defence Minister Asif said that Pakistan has shot down five Indian planes and multiple unmanned aerial vehicles, with checkposts destroyed along the Line of Control.

Similarly, appearing on Geo News at 5:09am, Information Minister Attaullah Tarar also said that Pakistan had downed five Indian jets.

“[We shot jets down] in Akhnoor, Ambala, Barnala and in Jammu. We also shot down quadcopters and a big drone,” he stated. “It is an ongoing situation, we need to see what India does.”

The military, Reuters reported, said the five Indian fighter jets included three Rafale planes and one each of Russian planes, a Su-30 and MiG-29.

A spokesman for the military told Reuters Indian planes were only targeted after they attacked Pakistan.

There was no word from India on the downing of the jets, which would be the most serious loss for the Indian military in decades and risked further escalation.

The Rafale fighter is a new addition to India’s military, part of a plan to modernise its military, reduce dependence on Russian-origin equipment, and boost domestic weapons production to supply forces deployed along two contentious borders with Pakistan and China.

Before the clash, the Indian Air Force operated 36 Rafale fighters, while the navy’s aircraft fleet mainly comprises Russian MiG-29 jets.

India signed a deal with France’s Dassault Aviation on Monday to buy another 26 Rafale fighter aircraft worth 630 billion rupees ($7.4bn) for its navy in late April.

Tarar earlier said that Pakistan’s military response was ongoing but did not share operational details. “We shot down two Indian planes and we are responding to Indian aggression right now as we speak,” he told British broadcaster Sky News.

“Indian media, in a state of frenzy, is continuously running fabricated stories about losses of Pakistani Air Force and false claims of damaged aircraft,” PTV had said, stating, “No Pakistan Air Force aircraft has sustained any damage.”

The prime minister has summoned a meeting of the National Security Committee at 10am.

In the wake of the attack, Punjab has shut all educational institutions across the province today, and all exams scheduled for today have been postponed, according to a notification from the Punjab Higher Education Department.

“However, examinations scheduled by [or] on behalf of International Examining bodies shall not be affected by this postponement,” the notification said.

The strikes come as tensions have been escalating intensely between the two countries in the wake of a militant attack in occupied Kashmir’s Pahalgam.

The April 22 attack in Pahalgam killed 26 people, mostly tourists, in one of the deadliest assaults since 2000. India, without investigation or evidence, implied “cross-border linkages” of the att­a­­­c­kers. Pakistan has firmly rejected the claim and called for a neutral probe.

Last week, Pakistan reinforced its forces as it expected an incursion and India’s premier granted “operational freedom” to his military. The military had warned of a “swift” response to any misadventure by New Delhi, while diplomatic channels had remained engaged to prevent escalation.

ISPR damage assessment: 4am

In a short press briefing, DG Chaudhry provided the stats from the damage assessment: “A total of 24 impacts have been reported by India, with different weapons, in six localities. In these six localities, eight Pakistanis have been slain, 35 have been injured and two are missing, based on our damage assessment.”

“In [Bahwalpur’s] Ahmedpur East, Subhan mosque was targeted,” he added. “Here, there were four strikes and five innocent Pakistanis were slain, including a three-year-old girl. Thirty-one civilians have been injured, including 25 men and six women.”

He said one mosque was destroyed, while four quarters in which people were living were also destroyed.

“In Muzaffarabad, Bilal mosque was targeted. There were seven impacts, in which one girl has been injured and a mosque was destroyed,” the DG ISPR said.

“In Kotli, Abbat Mosque was targeted. There were five impacts and two people died, including a 16-year-old girl and an 18-year-old boy. A woman and her daughter are both injured,” DG Chaudhry added.

“In Muridke, Umalkura Mosque was targeted and there were four strikes. One man has been slain, while another is injured. Two people are missing,” he said. “A mosque has been destroyed and potters have sustained economic damages,” DG Chaudhry added.

“In Sialkot district, in the village of Kotki Lohara, there were two strikes,” he added. “One missile misfired, while one fell in an open field. There was no damage.”

“Near Shakargarh, there were two strikes with no damage. There was minor damage to a dispensary,” he added.

The DG ISPR said that the “unprovoked, cowardly attack” will be met with a befitting response. “We are giving it and will continue to give it,” he said.

A statement by state broadcaster PTV News, quoting security sources, said: “Pakistani forces are giving a befitting reply to Indian aggression. According to initial reports, the Pakistan Air Force has shot down two enemy aircraft. All Pakistani Air Force aircraft are safe. Pakistan armed forces are giving a befitting reply to the enemy’s aggression.”

PTV reported that Pakistan had also destroyed an Indian brigade headquarters in a retaliatory strike. It did not specify the location of the retaliatory strike.

A post from the broadcaster said that India is being given a “befitting response” at multiple locations.

PTV additionally reported that an Indian checkpost in the Dudhnial sector along the Line of Control was destroyed in a missile strike.

“Pak forces are responding to the naked aggression of the enemy,” the broadcaster said, citing security sources.

Appearing on British broadcaster Sky News around 2:45am, Tarar said Pakistan’s response is ongoing, but did not share operational details.

When asked about the potential for escalation, Tarar said it “is an evolving situation”.

He reiterated that Pakistan was expecting an attack by India and said that “they would be the aggressor”.

“We offered an investigation into the whole Pahalgam episode, we wanted a fair and transparent investigation. But … India, without evidence, has targeted civilians, women and children. India had no right to do that,” he added.

“As the minister for information, I have occupied a seat of responsibility,” Tarar said. “I have taken an oath and I will give you verified information.”

When asked why India blamed Pakistan for the Pahalgam attack, Tarar replied: “This area (Pahalgam) is a good 200km from the LoC. The FIR was filed in 10 minutes, but police arrived after one and a half hours.”

Tarar accused India of “running away” from an investigation into the Pahalgam attack and accused India’s governing party of “wanting a reason to attack Pakistan”.

“We have a high morale and we will respond to Indian aggression,” he said.

“India has no evidence whatsoever to link Pakistan to this incident,” he stressed. “India has attacked civilians … without any justifiable cause and because we have the right to self-defence, we will defend our country, we will respond.”

Questioned about terrorists found hiding in Pakistan in the past, including Al-Qaeda mastermind Osama bin Laden, Tarar rejected the allegations and reiterated that Pakistan was facing terrorist attacks “every second week”.

“If you’re talking about the history — the Soviet invasion, the cold war — then that’s a different story,” he said.

Tarar also maintained that the US had thanked Pakistan for its efforts in the war against terrorism and “for the good fight we are fighting”.

“India will now face Pakistan’s very fierce response, because we are never the aggressors,” he said.

Referring to Pahalgam, Tarar said India “is questioning its own government”.

“They have no evidence, they have no facts and they ran away from the investigation which Pakistan had offered,” the minister added. They attacked our civilians, they attacked our mosque today, they attacked five localities. Pakistan will now respond and will respond very, very effectively.

“Our desire for peace should not be mistaken for weakness,” he said.

When asked about India’s strikes, Tarar said that no terrorist infrastructure was hit.

“When I took foreign and local journalists to a village near the LoC … tomorrow morning, I was planning to take them to Bahawalpur and Muridke to show them where the strikes have occurred, to show that the local population is living there.

“We totally deny India’s allegations regarding terrorists,” Tarar maintained. “We have complete evidence that women and children have been targeted, there are civilian casualties in this and we will bring the evidence to foreign and local media. There are no terrorist camps.”

Questioned about the possibility of de-escalation, Tarar said that the situation is ongoing, adding, “let’s see how it turns out”.

Speaking to ARY News at 1:06am about the initial details of the attack, DG Chaudhry said: “All of our air force jets are airborne. This cowardly and shameful attack was carried out from within India’s airspace. They were never allowed to come and intrude into the space of Pakistan.”

He noted: “Let me say it unequivocally: Pakistan will respond to this at a time and place of its own choosing. This heinous provocation will not go unanswered.”

“This temporary happiness that India has achieved with this cowardly attack will be replaced with enduring grief.”






Defence Minister Khawaja Asif told ARY News that civilian areas were attacked.

“The attacks were carried out on civilian areas,” Asif said, adding that the “cowards” attacked from their own airspace. “They never left their house. Let them come out, we will respond fittingly.”

When asked about Pakistan’s decisions, Asif replied that Pakistan will retaliate.

“We will give a far greater response than their own strike,” the minister said. “Not only did they attack civilians but they did it from their own airspace.”

On Geo News, Asif clarified that the strikes were launched from within India’s airspace.

“Women and children have been martyred in civilian areas. India is claiming it was targeting terrorist camps,” he said. “There is no such thing, international media can visit the targets so that India’s lies are exposed. We are offering international media to come wherever attacks have happened.”

The defence minister further said: “They don’t have the courage to attack us in our airspace, and they are firing on women and children. Mosques have been destroyed.”

He vowed that “we will give a befitting response,” he said. “They will immediately receive their due.”

Multiple loud explosions were heard in Azad Jammu and Kashmir close to the mountains around the city of Muzaffarabad after midnight, multiple Reuters witnesses said.

After the explosions, the city’s power was blacked out, the witnesses said.






Confirming the development, the Indian government said: “A little while ago, the Indian armed forces launched Operation Sindoor” and hit infrastructure in Pakistan and AJK from which it alleged “terrorist attacks against India have been planned and directed”.

“Our actions have been focused, measured and non-escalatory in nature. No Pakistani military facilities have been targeted. India has demonstrated considerable restraint in selection of targets and method of execution,” it said in the statement.
‘Cowardly attack’

Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif condemned the “cowardly attack”, stating that Pakistan “reserves the right to respond forcefully to this warlike act imposed by India”.

“The deceitful enemy has carried out a cowardly attack on five locations in Pakistan,” the PM wrote. “Pakistan fully reserves the right to respond forcefully to this warlike act imposed by India, and a robust response is being given.

“The entire nation stands with the Pakistan Armed Forces, and the morale and spirit of the entire Pakistani nation are high. The Pakistani nation and the Pakistan Armed Forces know well how to deal with the enemy,” he added.

“We will never allow the enemy to succeed in its nefarious objectives.”






In another post on X at 4am, the PM wrote, “The treacherous enemy has launched a cowardly attack on five locations within Pakistan. This heinous act of aggression will not go unpunished.

“Pakistan reserves the absolute right to respond decisively to this unprovoked Indian attack — a resolute response is already underway,” he wrote, adding that the entire nation stands united behind its armed forces, and morale and resolve “remain unshaken”.

“Our thoughts and prayers are with the brave officers and soldiers of Pakistan,” the PM added. “The people of Pakistan and its forces are fully prepared to confront and defeat any threat with our strength and determination. The enemy will never be allowed to achieve its malicious aims.”







A statement from the presidency said President Asif Ali Zardari strongly condemned India’s cross-border aggression against Pakistan that targeted the civilian population.

“Pakistan will give a befitting reply to Indian aggression. Indian provocation will be countered with full force and unwavering resolve to protect Pakistan’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

“Targeting civilian areas, unprovoked Indian attack is a clear violation of international law, UN Charter and Pakistan’s sovereignty. The entire Pakistani nation is united behind its brave armed forces.

“India’s cowardly actions expose the true face of a fascist regime. The Indian government is ready to put regional peace and security at stake to advance its political agenda,” the president said.

He said Pakistan’s armed forces were fully prepared and capable of defending every inch of the motherland.







In a post on X, Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar strongly condemned the attacks, accusing India of “jeopardising regional peace”.

“Pakistan strongly condemns India’s aggression, which is [a] flagrant violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty, the UN Charter and international law,” he wrote. “Pakistan reserves the right to respond as per Article 51 of the UN Charter. We will protect our sovereignty & territorial integrity by all means.”







“Pakistan must launch an immediate strong counter strike against India. We have to teach India and fascist Modi a lesson India will never forget. It is imperative that PM Imran Khan is released from Adiala because he is the single person who can unify the country,” demanded Leader of the Opposition in the National Assembly Omar Ayub.







The Foreign Office said that in an unprovoked and blatant act of war, the Indian Air Force, while remaining within Indian airspace, violated Pakistan’s sovereignty using standoff weapons, targeting the civilian population across international border in Muridke and Bahawalpur, and across Line of Control in Kotli and Muzaffarabad, Azad Jammu and Kashmir.

“India’s act of aggression has resulted in martyrdom of civilians, including women and children. This act of aggression has also caused grave threat to commercial air traffic.

“We strongly condemn India’s cowardly action, which is a flagrant violation of the UN Charter, international law, and established norms of inter-state relations.

In the wake of Pahalgam attack, the Indian leadership has once again used the bogey of terrorism to advance its sham narrative of victimhood, jeopardising regional peace and security. India’s reckless action has brought the two nuclear-armed states closer to a major conflict.“

The FO said the situation continues to evolve and Pakistan reserves the right to respond appropriately at a time and place of its choosing, in accordance with the Article-51 of the UN Charter, and as enshrined in international law.

“The government, armed forces and people of Pakistan stand united in the face of Indian aggression. They will always act with iron resolve to protect and preserve the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Pakistan.”

“We the people of Pakistan stand together as a nation against this ugly, senseless, foolish Indian aggression. We are shoulder to shoulder with our fighting forces and will defend our homeland against this cowardly Indian attack,” said former president Arif Alvi.







Former FM and PPP Chairman Bilawal Bhutto-Zardari said: “I strongly condemn India’s cowardly attack on Pakistani territory and civilian targets. Such acts of aggression will not go unanswered. Pakistan’s brave armed forces, including our valiant Air Force, are responding with resolve. Any misadventure will be met with full force. Pakistan stands united.”







He said India’s “cowardly and unprovoked attacks on civilian targets” were acts of war. “The targeting of innocent women and children is not strength, it is savagery. Pakistan’s armed forces, backed by an unbreakable nation, are responding with full force. Every aggression will be crushed. We will not tolerate violations of our sovereignty. Pakistan is united, defiant, and ready.”







When asked by reporters at the White House about the strikes, US President Donald Trump called India’s actions a “shame”.

“It’s a shame we just heard about it … I guess people knew something was going to happen, based on a little bit of the past. They’ve been fighting for a long time,” he said. “They’ve been fighting for many decades … I just hope it ends very quickly.”







Meanwhile, the White House said Rubio has spoken with his counterparts from India and Pakistan, encouraging both sides to engage in discussions to settle the escalating military confrontation.

“He is encouraging India and Pakistan to re-open a channel between their leadership to defuse the situation and prevent further escalation,” said US National Security Council spokesman Brian Hughes in a statement.

Indian National Security Adviser Ajit Doval briefed US Secretary of State Marco Rubio shortly after New Delhi’s strikes, the Indian embassy in Washington said.

Rubio later posted on X that he was “monitoring the situation between India and Pakistan closely”. He echoed Trump’s comments earlier today that this hopefully ends quickly and will continue to engage both Indian and Pakistani leadership towards a peaceful resolution,“ he said.







United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres was very concerned about Indian military operations in Pakistan and AJK, his spokesperson said, while calling for maximum military restraint from both the countries.

“The world cannot afford a military confrontation between India and Pakistan.”

United Arab Emirates Foreign Minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed called on India and Pakistan to exercise restraint, de-escalate tensions and avoid further escalation that threatens regional and international peace, the Emirati state news agency WAM reported early on Wednesday.

The minister stressed the importance of heeding the voices calling for dialogue and mutual understanding to prevent military escalation, strengthen stability in South Asia, and avoid further regional tensions, WAM added.

According to the Foreign Office, Turkish FM Hakan Fidan called Dar to express Turkiye’s solidarity with Pakistan “against India’s unprovoked aggression violating Pakistan’s sovereignty and killing innocent civilians”.

“He (Fidan) expressed concern over the deteriorating regional security situation. Both leaders agreed to remain in close coordination on the evolving situation,” the FO wrote in a post on X.







The FO said that on Dar’s direction, Pakistan’s permanent representative to the United Nations in New York has informed the UN Security Council of India’s open aggression and threats to international peace and security.

Michael Kugelman, an expert on Washington’s relations with South Asian nations, noted: “India’s strike on Pakistan is of much greater scale than the one in 2019.

“Pakistan’s response, which according to many reports included downing several Indian jets, has also exceeded the scale of 2019. They’re already higher up the escalatory ladder than any time in [the] 2019 crisis,” he added.




Pakistan airspace closed as of now following Indian strikes: sources

Meanwhile, sources in the Civil Aviation Authority said Pakistan’s airspace was to be completely closed and the Islamabad International Airport was closed for flights, with all flights diverted to Karachi airport.

The sources said the airspace was initially closed for 48 hours and all flights were cancelled, with passengers advised to return home.

“Major change in air routes in the region. All foreign flights rerouted to Pakistani airspace. Foreign flights leave Pakistani airspace and head towards the Arabian Sea. Flights withdrawn from Pak-India airspace, new route to the Arabian Sea adopted. International flights away from Pakistani airspace,” the sources said.

British news outlet The Guardian quoted Pakistan International Airlines as saying that all domestic and international flights on the ground have been put on hold while all inbound and outbound flights are being diverted to Karachi.

“Authorities have advised passengers not to come to the airport and to return home,” it reported.

The Flight Radar 24 online tracker showed that international flights to Karachi were still scheduled.

Meanwhile, the British Foreign Office issued a travel advisory advising against all but essential travel to Pakistan.

Qatar Airways temporarily suspended flights to Pakistan.

Ready at any time: Khawaja Asif

Earlier, Asif said that a clash with India “can happen anytime” amid the ongoing tensions between the two countries in the wake of a militant attack in occupied Kashmir.

Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif visited the headquarters of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) earlier in the day, where he was briefed on the country’s preparation for a “conventional threat”. Asif was also part of the visit.

Speaking in an interview on Geo News show ‘Aaj Shahzeb Khanzada Kay Sath’ on the briefings in the ISI HQ, the defence minister reiterated that he had already said before that a clash with India was imminent.

“That is still imminent today and can happen anytime,” he said, adding that a confrontation could be “one of the choice” India could want to adopt but “we have developed a countermeasure for every choice, whether that is a surgical strike or ground attack or air attack or naval engagement.

“We are ready for them everywhere at all times.”

He said the “crux” of today’s briefing was that “every kind of incursion or attack is being expected from them.”

Asif added that the briefing also delved into Pakistan’s strategy for responding to any situation.

Questioned about the chance of an ambush on a large scale, the minister said such actions were always taken on a small scale and added that he did not see any possibility of a big ambush or movement since it was detected immediately.

“We are continuously monitoring them,” he said, referring to Indian activities on the border. “Everything is in our watch. It is not the matter that they’re doing something hidden, which will cause an ambush.”

Asif said Pakistan’s preparation was complete and the government would not sit idly by. “A befitting response will be given to them at every level the moment they make a move.”

Meanwhile, the United States on Tuesday again called for calm between India and Pakistan, after Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi warned of stopping water from flowing across borders.

“We continue to urge Pakistan and India to work towards a responsible resolution that maintains long-term peace and regional stability in South Asia,” State Department spokeswoman Tammy Bruce told reporters.

She did not comment on Modi’s latest comments but said that the US was “aware of various reports” on the situation and was “engaged”. “We remain in touch with the governments of both countries at multiple levels,” she said.

Pakistan has also taken the matter to the United Nations Security Council, which was briefed on the country’s stance on the Pahalgam attack and India’s “unsubstantiated” allegations.

In the latest moves by the two nuclear-armed nations, the Civil Defence in Rawalpindi has activated its 14 posts in the garrison city while all states in India were set to conduct mock drills for “effective civil defence”.

PM Shehbaz briefed on country’s preparations during visit to ISI HQ

PM Shehbaz’s visit to the ISI HQ in Islamabad entailed a detailed briefing on the prevailing security environment, “with a particular focus on preparedness for [a] conventional threat in the light of India’s increasingly aggressive and provocative posture along Pakistan’s eastern border”, a statement from the PM Office (PMO) said.


Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, Deputy PM Ishaq Dar, Defence Minister Khawaja Asif and the services chiefs pose for a group photo at the ISI headquarters in Islamabad on May 6, 2025. — X/PTVNewsOfficial

“The leadership was apprised of regional security developments and the evolving threat matrix, including conventional military options, hybrid warfare tactics and terrorist proxies,” it added.

The premier was accompanied by Deputy PM Ishaq Dar, Asif and the services chiefs, the PMO said.

The services chiefs — Chief of Army Staff General Asim Munir, Chief of Naval Staff Admiral Naveed Ashraf and Air Chief Marshal Zaheer Ahmad Babar — were part of the visiting team, according to a group photo released on the occasion.

The picture also showed ISI Director General Lt Gen Muhammad Asim Malik — who was recently appointed as the country’s national security adviser — and the military’s media spokesperson, Lt Gen Ahmed Sharif Chaudhry, present there.


PM Shehbaz and the accompanying dignitaries “underscored the imperative of heightened national vigilance, seamless inter-agency coordination, and reinforced operational readiness to deter and decisively respond to any violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty and territorial integrity”, the PMO said.

Commending the ISI’s “professionalism and strategic acumen”, the prime minister lauded its “critical role in safeguarding national interests and enabling informed national security decision-making under complex and dynamic conditions”.

“Pakistan Army is one of the most professional and disciplined force in the world,” the premier was quoted as saying. He reaffirmed that the entire nation was standing with “our brave armed forces”.

“The leadership reaffirmed Pakistan’s unambiguous resolve to defend the homeland against all threats — conventional or otherwise,” the statement read.

The leaders reiterated that with the nation’s full support, the armed forces, supported by all other elements of national power and state institutions, remained “fully prepared to uphold Pakistan’s security, prestige, and honour under all circumstances”.

PM Shehbaz also visited the newly established National Intelligence Fusion and Threat Assessment Centre (Niftac) and formally inaugurated its state-of-the-art headquarters, “which will serve as the central node for coordinating Pakistan’s national counterterrorism strategy”, the PMO said.

“Niftac, a federal institution, integrates over 50 relevant federal and provincial departments and agencies into a unified intelligence and threat management architecture supported by a centralised national database.”

The statement added that at the subnational level, Niftac is linked to six Provincial Intelligence Fusion and Threat Assessment Centres (Piftacs), including those in AJK and Gilgit-Baltistan, ensuring seamless coordination from the federation to the provinces.

Commending the efforts of all stakeholders involved in operationalising this vital capability, the prime minister described Niftac as a quintessential national platform for collaborative threat assessment and response. He underscored that “dismantling the nexus between terrorism, illicit networks, and external sponsorship requires robust and efficient institutional mechanisms.”

PM Shehbaz said Niftac would play a pivotal role in uprooting terrorism and its support structures from the country.
Modi vows to stop waters key to Pakistan

Meanwhile, Modi said that water from India that once flowed across borders would be stopped.

Modi did not mention Pakistan specifically, but his speech comes after New Delhi suspended its part of the 65-year-old Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), which governs water critical for consumption and agriculture.

“India’s water used to go outside, now it will flow for India”, Modi said in a speech in New Delhi. “India’s water will be stopped for India’s interests, and it will be utilised for India.”

Pakistan has warned that tampering with its rivers would be considered “an act of war”.

However, experts also pointed out that India’s existing dams do not have the capacity to block or divert water and can only regulate the timing of when they release flows.

Islamabad accused India of altering the flow of the Chenab River, one of three rivers placed under Pakistan’s control according to the IWT.

“We have witnessed changes in the river (Chenab) which are not natural at all,” Punjab Irrigation Minister Kazim Pirzada told AFP.

“The majority impact will be felt in areas which have fewer alternate water routes,” Pirzada warned.

“One day the river had normal inflow and the next day it was greatly reduced,” Pirzada added.

In AJK, large quantities of water from India were reportedly released on April 26, according to the Jinnah Institute.

“This is being done so that we don’t get to utilise the water,” Pirzada added.
Afghan FM hails Pakistan’s steps to ease trade, travel amid tensions with India

On Tuesday, the FO Dar held a telephonic conversation with Afghan Acting FM Amir Khan Muttaqi who “appreciated Pakistan’s proactive steps to ease trade and facilitate travel”, amid rising tensions with India.

It added that Muttaqi extended an invitation to Dar to visit Afghanistan again. “He conveyed prayers and best wishes for the government and people of Pakistan,” the FO said.

Dar also briefed his Afghan counterpart on recent provocation and “illegal and unilateral measures” by India against Pakistan, reiterating Pakistan’s commitment to peace and safeguarding its sovereignty.

Both leaders expressed satisfaction with the pace of progress made by the two sides in bilateral relations since the deputy PM’s visit to Afghanistan on April 19, with a focus on trade, connectivity, economic cooperation, people-to-people contacts and reactivating political consultative mechanisms.

The two sides also agreed on the importance of maintaining high-level contacts for fostering long-term cooperation to promote peace and security in the region and beyond, the statement concluded.

Header image: The wreckage of a mosque is seen after Indian strikes in Muzaffarabad, AJK on May 7, 2025. — AFP

Additional reporting by Abdullah Momand.

CAN INDIA STILL GO TO WAR WITH PAKISTAN?

Why do India and Pakistan keep returning to this state of brinkmanship? Can India actually conduct a military strike against a nuclear Pakistan?

Ejaz Haider 

Published May 4, 2025

DAWN

PROLOGUE

India has become infuriatingly formulaic when it comes to Pakistan. Here’s how the script goes. There’s an attack in Occupied Jammu and Kashmir. India blames Pakistan.

The Indian media — mainstream and social — start beating war drums. Retired Indian military officers and other analysts are invited by the Studio Corps who declare, wage and win a war against Pakistan. The hysteria has reached fever-pitch since the arrival on the scene of a Hindutva-driven Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) under Narendra Modi, and of social media platforms.

In bashing Pakistan, some even calling for its dismemberment, there’s no real difference between the right and the left in India or the many shades in between. Once again, after the April 22 Pahalgam attack, we are at that stage; once again there’s talk in India of punishing Pakistan. Even the negligible few who caution against rashness nonetheless muse about how to punish Pakistan without starting an Armageddon. There are almost no voices challenging India’s occupation of Kashmir.

Others dish out operational recipes about strikes that range from “limited” to a full-blown war, from keeping the conflict controlled through dominating escalation to fantastic scenarios of a “final solution”, with nary a thought to the genocidal underpinnings of that term. On such occasions, irony goes to die in India.

It should be obvious, given the obvious, that there should be a serious discussion on these goings-on, because the irresponsibility and false bravado that inheres in this balderdash impacts not just the citizens of Pakistan and India but, by geographic default, other countries that make up the defunct grouping called Saarc.

This article is therefore structured to (a) discuss what war means, whether full-scale or limited and (b) why do Pakistan and India keep getting into these cycles. The “b” also necessarily brings us to India’s denial to the Kashmiris of their right to self-determination.

To clarify, this is not an attempt to predict what India would or could do if it chose to launch a limited strike. Or what platforms it might use for that or how it could choose the nodal points for any strikes. The argument is that limited cannot assuredly remain limited. Which doesn’t mean that India cannot miscalculate. Wars have often started because of miscalculations.

As tensions between India and Pakistan mounted in the wake of the April 22 Pahalgam attack in Occupied Jammu and Kashmir, war drums were once again beaten with great ferocity in India. Why do India and Pakistan keep returning to this state of brinkmanship? Can India actually conduct a military strike against a nuclear Pakistan? And what is the risk of its miscalculation?

CLAUSEWITZ’S ‘ZWECK UND ZIEL’

The Prussian soldier and war theoretician Carl von Clausewitz understood that war’s political objective was not just its highest level but the most important. The primitive violence of people, managing that violence and harnessing it to an aim must be subordinate to the political objective of war. But all the three levels have to be taken together, since that is what constitutes the triple nature of war as well as its grammar.

He used the terms Zweck und Ziel, the first referring to “purpose”, the second to “aim”. The Zweck denotes the political objective for which a war is being fought; the Ziel relates to the actual conduct and aim of battles, of which many may be fought to achieve the political end. The Ziel, in the Clausewitzian framework, must add up to the Zweck and be subordinate to it.

Clausewitz was, of course, writing before the advent of nuclear weapons and within his own geopolitical context. But what is clear is the connection between fighting and a political objective. Obvious also is the fact that victory will be determined not on the basis of winning a battle or battles but achieving the objective for which the battles are being fought. To put it another way, “there is no necessary correspondence between victory in battle and success in achieving the objective.”

Take the example of India’s chest-beating. Let’s assume that India decides to punish Pakistan and, in fact, does manage to do that. We are not concerned about what such punishment might look like but we can argue, given the nuclear overhang, that it would be limited by the very nature of India’s compulsion to keep the conflict controlled. Let’s also assume that, at that point, Pakistan determines that it cannot retaliate. Would that “battle” constitute victory for India? Yes, if it achieves the political objective; no, if it doesn’t.

It is logical at this point to ask what would be India’s political objective (it’s not domestic). What is the Zweck for India’s Ziel, assuming that getting into a fight for the heck of it means nothing. Even when it might satiate some base instincts or win elections, it can’t be policy, much less an objective in a Clausewitzian sense. That objective would be to establish deterrence against Pakistan — to ensure that Pakistan does not (or cannot) do anything that India considers to be inimical to its interests and security.

If India manages to punish Pakistan but fails to deter it from undertaking actions in the future that it considers damaging to its interests and security, then, in our hypothetical scenario, India has failed to achieve its political objective.

After all, India is not planning a limited nuclear strike. It only wants a limited conventional strike or maybe a few simultaneous limited strikes and it plans, presumably, to control escalation to avoid Pakistan going to a nuclear level.

It amuses me that so many former Indian generals (even diplomats) should wittingly or unwittingly ignore this central tenet of any armed violence. Remember what American diplomat Henry Kissinger said about Vietnam? “We would not have recognised victory if it were staring us in the face, because we did not know what our objectives were.”

A good example of the terrible difficulty in achieving the political objective through battles is the headache Israel has faced (and continues to) vis-a-vis Hezbollah in Lebanon. Without going into the details of that trajectory, Israel finally tried to resolve it through the Dahiya doctrine — the strategy to bomb and destroy civilian infrastructure and kill civilians — with limited effect. And this in a scenario where Israel has complete air supremacy, something that just does not exist for India against Pakistan.

In fact, if statements by the current Indian air chief are anything to go by, as also informed analyses in the Indian media itself, “the IAF is struggling to maintain its operational edge, making it imperative to fast-track acquisitions and plug the equipment shortfall.”

LET’S BRING IN THE NUKES NOW

Nuclear weapons further complicate India’s calculus. This is not because Pakistan is likely to use that capability first and early in a conflict, but because the capability exists and the aggressor has to factor it in. A further complication is that Pakistan manages risk through deliberate ambiguity — what and where exactly are the red lines? In other words, the aggressor must push the conflict envelope at every stage at great escalation risk.

To simplify this, nuclear weapons are capable of immense destruction. Far from their actual use, their very presence (the threat) ensures, as British academic Philip Windsor noted, that “survival, instead of being a condition for the articulation of value, [becomes] itself the ultimate value.”

Even so, just as India has been trying to evolve a doctrine of proactive operations since the Twin Peaks crisis (2001-02), there was much talk during the Cold War of how to avoid the nuclear big bang and still be able to fight wars. This brought in the idea of ‘limited war’, a conflict which could be controlled in ways that would prevent escalation to an all-out nuclear war.

In other words, how to avoid a strategic nuclear exchange while resorting to what can be described as Louis XIV’s ultima ratio regum [final argument of kings]. Much thinking was invested in (a) creating a distinction between an all-out and a limited war and (b) how such a war could be won while avoiding the risks of escalation.

In essence, limited war became two different wars. Wars fought on the periphery — not direct confrontations between the two superpowers but mainly in the Global South — through proxies (that actually happened) and wars conjured up in tabletop crisis games that theorised about limited nuclear employment, much short of strategic exchanges that would surely evaporate millions of people on all sides.

Indians protesting against Pakistan at the Wagah border on April 24, 2025 in wake of the Pahalgam attack: in bashing Pakistan, there’s no real difference between the right and the left in India | AFP

The first destabilised the periphery but held the quiet at the centre (the centre being Central Europe) and gave us the term “stability-instability paradox.” The second was defenestrated after US Defence Secretary Casper Weinberger arranged a top-secret war game codenamed Proud Prophet, to test the hypotheses about limited nuclear exchanges.

The game, led by Thomas Schelling, put paid to the idea that limited would remain limited. Standard crisis actions led to a major nuclear war that killed half a billion people and left about the same number exposed to radiation. The documents about the game were declassified in 2016.

LIMITED WARS AND ESCALATION DOMINANCE

But let no one be disheartened by these statistics. After all, India is not planning a limited nuclear strike.

It only wants a limited conventional strike or maybe a few simultaneous limited strikes and it plans, presumably, to control escalation to avoid Pakistan going to a nuclear level.

Even Western strategists, including some smart American and British Indians, are arguing that this can be done — that India can punish Pakistan, that it can control escalation and that it can dominate escalation. Bingo! Problem solved!

Except, this is sheer poppycock! There’s no periphery where the US and the USSR played on conventional terms through proxies. The only periphery, metaphorically speaking, is the sub-conventional domain, where the two sides can employ covert means. India is already heavily involved in that domain, perpetrating and perpetuating violence against Pakistan. In fact, its current National Security Adviser (NSA) Ajit Doval is reported to have bragged about it in private.

In other words, India wants to conduct an overt, limited military operation to punish Pakistan and has convinced itself that it can choreograph the escalation levels. There are certain assumptions behind this. I wrote about this ‘theory’, if it can be called that, in these pages after the 2019 crisis in the article ‘Lessons from the Brink.’ Let me roughly reproduce what I wrote then in italics here.

There is a band in which India can use and exploit a limited conventional military option given its conventional superiority; if it does so in response to an attack it can pin on Pakistan, it has enough diplomatic weight to have the world opinion on its side for such a strike; Pakistan, having suffered a setback, will be hard-pressed to retaliate because it will have to climb up the escalation ladder, a costly proposition both for reasons of the earlier military setback as well as international diplomatic pressure; given India’s upper hand, both militarily and diplomatically, Pakistan will choose to not escalate; if, however, Pakistan did choose to escalate, India will still enjoy escalation dominance because of its superior capabilities and international diplomatic support; India, given its diplomatic and military heft, will be able to raise the costs for Pakistan in an escalation spiral.

Result: Pakistan will weigh the consequences as a rational-choice actor and prefer to climb down.

The basic premise in all this cannot be missed: the first-round result. Every subsequent assumption flows from what India could achieve militarily in the opening hand. However, if the presumably weaker side denies the stronger side success in the opening round, draws its own blood successfully while showing restraint, it can raise the costs for the stronger actor by upending the latter’s assumptions based on the success of the opening round.

In 2019, after an attack on a soldiers’ convoy in Pulwama in India-Occupied Jammu and Kashmir, the starting premise went awry.

Also, these assumptions rest on yet another assumption: that the force asymmetry is such that India has a heavy advantage in the conventional realm, if not to a level where it could coerce Pakistan outright, then at least to the point where it can confidently launch such an attack and also blunt a Pakistani riposte if Pakistan chooses to retaliate. That assumption, swallowed hook, line and sinker even by many bright Western analysts (they still exist!) might just be flawed.

Within the concept of limited, we can assume the mechanisms of control to consist of limitation of means, the theatre of operations (nodal point(s) chosen for the strike) and time. Absent any one of these and limited doesn’t remain limited, much less planned and controlled. As noted above, Clausewitz’s argument was that the objective of war should be clearly defined and that objective must determine the means to that end.

In a more or less symmetric contest under the nuclear overhang, limited cannot remain limited if the two sides continue to draw blood and, in doing so, keep climbing higher up on the escalation ladder, neither prepared to climb down for reasons not just of prestige but also to establish deterrence — unless, of course, external actors can get involved, what former National Security Adviser Dr Moeed Yusuf calls “the brokered bargaining framework.” In such a scenario, the very attempt by both sides to dominate the escalation ladder would mean planned escalation by one party is dead.

American military strategist Bernard Brodie understood this clearly. In a nuclear overhang, limited war inverses the Clausewitzian ends-means relationship. Means become paramount, not because the objective is not defined “but because it is the avoidance of certain means [nuclear weapons] that determines the end.” This would also mean avoiding certain targets, which implies some form of restraint.

But exercising restraint — a resolve that can continue to loosen as more blood is shed — also indicates that it is better to find a settlement ex ante [before the conflict begins] than go through the cost during and after a conflict.

In any case, as should be evident, all of this reflects the need to prevent escalation, because it cannot remain planned and matters can get out of hand rapidly. That brings us to the question of why Pakistan and India keep getting into these cycles.

KASHMIR AND THE SUBCONTINENT’S TRAP

German theologian and anti-Nazi dissident Dietrich Bonhoeffer once said, “If you board the wrong train, it is no use running along the corridor in the opposite direction.” This sums up aptly India’s Kashmir problem.

Kashmiris don’t want to stay in India; Pakistan won’t let go of the dispute since it’s alive on the United Nations agenda and remains unresolved. India’s policy is to suppress the Kashmiris on the one hand and blame Pakistan for its woes in Kashmir on the other.

Traditionally, New Delhi has adopted two strategies. During periods of normalisation, it has talked about talks with Pakistan, rather than any substantive, result-oriented dialogue (the mid-noughties saw an opportunity but that was lost). Simultaneously, within, it has alternated between opening a track with Srinagar while using force to keep the Kashmiris suppressed.

That has not worked because there is a wide chasm between how the Indian state looks at the definition of what a “political solution” means and through what processes it can be arrived at, and how the Kashmiris perceive it.

On the Kashmiri side too, the pro-India parties, National Conference (NC) and Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), while not asking for breaking away from India, look at a political solution in terms of greater autonomy and, since 2019, the revival of Article 370 in its original, not hollowed-out form. The Hurriyat factions and the Kashmiri youth have their own definition of a political solution and that doesn’t fit in with the NC and PDP view. A fair referendum today would see Kashmiris opting out of India.

India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi addressing a gathering on April 24, 2025: since coming into power, Modi has steadily moved India towards a two-pronged policy that seeks to isolate Pakistan and attempts to give Pakistan a ‘decisive blow’ | AFP

Since the coming into power of Narendra Modi, India’s policy of a “political solution” has changed. Modi has steadily moved toward a two-pronged policy that (a) seeks to isolate Pakistan and (b) attempts to give Pakistan a ‘decisive blow.’ The two prongs are supposed to work in tandem.

As Indian NSA Ajit Doval said at a talk in 2010 when he was a private citizen, Kashmiris have to be assimilated and he believes that doing so requires that Pakistan’s mindset be changed. Put another way, India has decided that Kashmir is its Pakistan problem, pushing Kashmir and Kashmiris out of the picture altogether.

This is precisely what the right wing in Zionist Israel has tried to do with the Palestinians. In fact, it is instructive to see how much has India picked up from the Israeli playbook.

Pakistan’s own Kashmir policy has been flawed at multiple levels and has harmed the Kashmiri cause immensely. It has helped India to (a) position the issue as an India-Pakistan dispute rather than an issue of Kashmiris’ right to self-determination and (b) present it as a problem of ‘terrorism’ and the struggle as religion-oriented rather than one for freedom from India’s oppressive and illegal occupation of Kashmir.

The two — resistance, armed or unarmed, and terrorism — are qualitatively different, as United Nations General Assembly resolutions 2625 and 3246 testify through their language, affirming the legitimacy of resistance by oppressed and occupied peoples in pursuit of the right to self-determination.

By making Kashmir an India-Pakistan problem and by terming Kashmiris’ armed resistance as ‘terrorism’ sponsored by Pakistan, India has sought to and has been successful in (a) removing the real issue from the international agenda (the right to self-determination) and (b) making space for the self-defence argument every time there’s an armed attack in Occupied Jammu and Kashmir.

Since 2016, it has also entrapped itself in its own muscular rhetoric of taking the war into Pakistan. The right-wing Indian government’s belligerent statements create the domestic demand, especially in the Hindutva constituency, for action on the ground to match the rhetoric.

This is also borne out by the obsequiousness with which Mr Modi dealt with China after Chinese troops killed 20 Indian soldiers, including the commanding officer of the unit, and captured seven officers who were later returned. Modi would not even concede that the Chinese had pushed back Indian troops. He was roundly criticised for not stating the real situation on the ground. On the plus side, his restraint kept the sentiments at a manageable level, a prerequisite for a diplomatic solution.

EPILOGUE

India-Pakistan relations are normally discussed with reference to various disputes. But the issue is structural. Disputes are markers and, as in the case of Kashmir, can cause wars. In terms of Pakistan’s threat perception from India, two issues are important.

In the immediate wake of Partition, the two states went to war over Kashmir after the Poonch and Gilgit-Baltistan uprisings by the locals against Dogra rule. In July-August 1951, there was another scare with mutual allegations of troop deployments close to the border. The issue of sharing rivers’ waters was also hanging fire.

As Gen Ayub Khan wrote in his book Friends Not Masters, this was a crucial issue and, given that India had earlier threatened to block Pakistan’s share of the rivers waters and released the flow only under strict conditions, he had to move fast and decisively. That was the basis of the Indus Waters Treaty.






Ayub Khan understood that Pakistan’s “aim should be to build up a military deterrent force with adequate offensive and defensive power.” He argued that this was important because “India’s aim is to expand, dominate and spread her influence.” He was right.

The issue is not just India’s military strength but the natural inclination of India as a state to increase its influence within and outside the region. The important point in this is not so much a fear that India could conquer and hold Pakistani territory — though at the tactical level that cannot be dismissed (Siachen being an example) — but that India should not be allowed to get into a position where it can use a mix of non-kinetic and kinetic means to coerce Pakistan into accepting its terms.

That is a structural problem when a state is in the vicinity of a much bigger neighbour that aims to project power. There is empirical evidence that India has reached a state of peace with only those neighbours that have accepted New Delhi’s terms for peace and its hegemonic presence.

It is, therefore, important to view and analyse Pakistan’s responses in terms of the peculiarities of the make-up and structure of South Asian state-to-state relations, and how India and Pakistan have positioned themselves within it.

Put another way, the argument here is not just about the real or perceived Indian threat to Pakistan. Threat levels can fluctuate and whether they are/were real or perceived, can be, and is, debated. The point is both broader and — as noted — structural, and relates to Pakistan’s drive to avoid being dictated to by India.

This is not to say that the two sides cannot find a modus vivendi. They can. But that requires engagement and an understanding on India’s side that Pakistan is not what Egypt or Jordan are to Israel. I didn’t say Canada to the US because the situation there is fast changing and actually proves the structural-realist argument that relative power is the most important determinant of interstate behaviour.

The 19th century Austrian empire’s diplomat and statesman Klemens von Metternich (1773-1859) understood the nature of power. It was precisely this understanding which led him to infuse the power of reason into the diplomatic arrangement known as the ‘Concert of Europe’, to avoid war among Europe’s powers. The system, while cognisant of the interests of the states, sought to temper power through shared values.

German statesman Otto von Bismarck (1815-1898) thought it unwise to subordinate power to a higher principle. Nonetheless, he too understood clearly the limits of power and, after the wars of unification, set down to ensure that Germany did not get involved in a European war, especially in the Balkans. We know how that changed with the last German emperor Wilhelm II’s Icarian overreach for dominance.

The current government in India is embarked on a policy of unilateralism and non-engagement with Pakistan. The policy is underpinned by a high dose of hubris, which is often openly on display. It is ironic, as its own script shows, that it just cannot wish Pakistan away.

There’s no substitute to positive engagement. But if the two sides are to engage meaningfully, India will have to change that mindset. Unfortunately, it does not appear that that is likely to happen anytime soon.

The writer is a journalist interested in security and foreign policies. X: @ejazhaider

Published in Dawn, EOS, May 4th, 2025