Asia

The military confrontation India and Pakistan has ended. At least for now, there is no noticeable escalation, exchanges of fire, or use of artillery on the line of contact. The day before, President Donald Trump announced that India and Pakistan, with the mediation of the United States, had agreed to an immediate and complete ceasefire. “After a long night of negotiations, mediated by the United States, I am pleased to announce that India and Pakistan have agreed to a complete and immediate ceasefire,” Donald Trump said. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio had recently called both Pakistani and Indian officials, offering to mediate the talks. Pakistani Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar said the British Foreign Secretary played a key role in reaching the ceasefire agreement. Secretary Rubio thanked the two prime ministers, Narendra Modi and Shahbaz Sharif, for their “statesmanship in choosing the path of peace.” According to the Indian Foreign Ministry, Pakistan’s chief of military operations called his Indian counterpart, and both sides agreed to cease air, land, and sea strikes.

However, it appears that the parties did not plan for a large-scale armed conflict. Donald Trump’s statements look more like an attempt to portray himself as a peacemaker. And Pakistan’s statements about the role of the British show London’s obvious support for Islamabad. Both India and Pakistan are huge countries. However, the balance of power in the region has been established and will be entrenched for many years to come. And within this balance, India is the largest, richest, and most powerful regional hegemon in South Asia. India is six times larger, its population is approaching 1.5 billion people (first place in the world), while Pakistan’s population is about 250 million (fifth place). India is significantly richer: by GDP – about ten times (over 17 trillion dollars, or 8.5% of world GDP versus 1.67 trillion, or 0.8% of world GDP for Pakistan); by GDP per capita – almost twice (12 thousand dollars versus 7 thousand for Pakistan).

India is among the top five world leaders in military spending, with more than 86 billion dollars in 2024, while for Pakistan, this figure is about 10 billion dollars. Moreover, India is only increasing its military spending, while for Pakistan, it fell by 5% in 2024. India and Pakistan have fought three times: in 1947-1948, 1965, and 1971. All these conflicts ended in victories for Delhi. India tested a nuclear weapon in 1974, an operation called “Smiling Buddha”. Pakistan received nuclear weapons in 1998. India, under Narendra Modi rule, given its increased potential, strives to play a global role and claims the role of a great power. Pakistan is a power on a completely different scale.

However, nuclear weapons have not stopped the conflict between the two neighboring countries. But it is precisely they that have so far prevented a major war from breaking out in the region. Thus, it is possible to predict with a high degree of probability the results of any large-scale conflict between the two countries. At the same time, if the presence of nuclear weapons and different levels of economic development and military potential reduce the possibility of a large-scale conflict, tension on the border is quite possible and even inevitable.

One of the signs of the likelihood of a protracted confrontation is the extremely militant mood in the societies of both countries. “Justice strikes,” declared an editorial in one of India’s leading English-language newspapers, praising the “sharp” and “resolute” response to the killing of 26 Hindus. On May 10, the conflict between the two nuclear powers reached a new level when the Pakistani government announced a major military operation against India. Explosions were heard in northern India on the evening of May 9. India then launched missile strikes on three Pakistani air bases near Rawalpindi – Nur Khan, Murid and Shorkot. As the conflict escalated along the Line of Contact in Jammu and Kashmir and on the Indo-Pakistan international border, Pakistan’s armed forces made heavy use of some 300-400 drones, manufactured and supplied by Turkey. Of the nearly 400 drones sent by Pakistan, “Indian armed forces shot down a few of these drones through kinetic and non-kinetic means,” the government said. Initial evidence from the drone debris indicates that they were from Turkey’s Asisguard Songar. Turkey did not@ condemn the terror attack on civilians in Jammu and Kashmir or offer condolences to the families of Hindu tourists killed by the terrorists, and has fully supported Pakistan.

The growing alliance between Turkey and Pakistan could become a major factor in the regional balance. Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif expressed gratitude to Turkey for its “unwavering support” for Kashmir. Immediately after the Pahalgam attack, Turkey reportedly sent a huge amount of military equipment to Pakistan to help Islamabad stockpile against any Indian action. Six Turkish warplanes were reported to have arrived in Pakistan, allegedly carrying Turkish-made weapons and military equipment – ​​reports that were denied by Ankara. Turkey could not deny the presence of its C-130 warplane, as it was detected by global air surveillance systems, but denied that any weapons had been sent.

On May 7, India launched a military operation called Operation Sindoor against, as Delhi said, “terrorist infrastructure” in Pakistan in response to the attack. Pakistan responded by striking targets in India and claims to have shot down several Indian fighter jets. On April 22, Lashkar-e-Taiba terrorists killed 26 Hindu tourists in the town of Pahalgam, in the Indian-administered region of Jammu and Kashmir. India called its military operation Operation Sindoor, a word referring to the red powder that married Hindu women traditionally apply to their faces. The name refers to the women who were left widowed after the Pahalgam attack.

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

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

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

What happened?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What has Pakistan claimed?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What has been India’s response?

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

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

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

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

What else do we know?

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

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

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

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

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

Will both sides ever agree on what happened?

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

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

“India has said that “losses” are inevitable, and that is probably as near as they will get to admitting a specific aircraft loss for a while.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Internationalising Kashmir: Pakistan’s gain

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Highlighting ‘terrorism’: India’s gain

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

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

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

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

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

Planes down may be Pakistan’s gain

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Further reach across border may be India’s gain

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Will the ceasefire hold?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

At midnight on 6th April 2025, Indian forces launched attacks on multiple locations in Pakistan, including Shakargarh, Sialkot, Muridke, Bahawalpur, Kotli, and the Muzaffarabad area of Punjab and the Pakistani part of Kashmir, using standoff precision-guided munitions. The attacks occurred in the Muslims’ religious places, hydropower infrastructure, and commercial air routes, violating international law and human norms alike, and so far 26 civilian deaths have been reported. India has also challenged Pakistan’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and violated the international border in the darkness of night. India and Pakistan are the archrival two nuclear weapons states of the South Asia region. However, India’s attack indicates the aggressive posture of Indian Prime Minister Modi’s regime to target the unarmed civilian and innocent children. This is not merely a border skirmish; it is a calculated escalation with far-reaching strategic consequences for the entire South Asian region. Various media reports highlighted that in retaliation and for the defense of the state, Pakistani armed forces also hit all of the Indian fighter jets and drones from their own territory with PL-15.

The tension between India and Pakistan escalated when, on April 22, 2025, terror shattered the peace of Baisaran Valley near Pahalgam, a scenic hill station in Indian-administered Kashmir (IOJK) known as “Mini Switzerland.” Armed gunmen opened fire on civilians, resulting in 26 casualties. Instead of allowing a transparent investigation to determine the perpetrators, India hastily blamed Pakistan, offering no concrete evidence to back its claim. It was India’s security failure; before putting the finger on Pakistan, India needs to have a neutral investigation of the incident and should provide evidence of linkages of the Pakistani state to these attacks. However, India’s recent attack on Pakistan’s territory and targeting civilian population indicates that the Pahalgam attack was an orchestrated provocation. India, under the leadership of Narendra Modi, launched this attack not in defense but for political theater—under the cover of night, on civilian infrastructure, without evidence or provocation. This isn’t an act of strength—it’s a display of desperation. And if this escalates, it won’t just make headlines; it will be etched in history as the moment ego led us to the brink of nuclear catastrophe.

Pakistan has concluded the meeting of the National Security Committee under the leadership of Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, and it has been decided that in consonance with Article 51 of the UN Charter, Pakistan reserves the right to respond, in self-defense, at a time, place, and manner of its choosing to avenge the loss of innocent Pakistani lives and blatant violation of its sovereignty. The Armed Forces of Pakistan have duly been authorized to undertake corresponding actions in this regard. India’s missile strikes inside Pakistan were reckless, unprovoked, and a clear violation of international law. India’s recent attacks have put the peace and stability of the entire South Asian region in serious jeopardy. At the moment the strikes occurred, 57 international commercial flights, including those operated by major Gulf and European airlines, were either within or approaching Pakistani airspace. This reckless action posed a direct danger to civilian air traffic, placing thousands of innocent lives at risk. It goes beyond a hostile move against Pakistan; it represents a clear threat to global peace and security. By heightening tensions in a nuclear-armed region, India has shown a disturbing disregard for international laws, aviation safety, and the value of human life.

By targeting civilian airspace and deliberately provoking conflict, India has revealed itself as a reckless and irresponsible actor on the global stage. Its actions undermine regional stability and pose a serious threat to international peace. The international community must look beyond India’s carefully crafted narratives and recognize the true source of aggression. This is a defining moment for global powers to uphold justice, demand accountability, and prevent further escalation. Without decisive diplomatic intervention, India’s adventurism could plunge South Asia and potentially the wider world into a dangerous and prolonged conflict. Several nations have already voiced serious concerns; Azerbaijan condemned the military strikes on Pakistan and urged restraint and dialogue; Turkey, through Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan, expressed strong solidarity with Pakistan against India’s unprovoked aggression; and China described India’s military action as “regrettable,” calling for de-escalation and expressing concern over the unfolding situation.

To prevent the escalation between the two nuclear states, India and Pakistan, the international community must play a role to bring them to the negotiation table. Both states need an immediate ceasefire to avoid civilian deaths and triggering nuclear risks; they must also halt the cross-border military activities and refrain from provocative statements. There is also an immediate need to establish a neutral and impartial investigation mechanism under the supervision of the United Nations to determine the perpetrators of the Pahalgam attack. There must be restoration of military-to-military and diplomatic communication channels for conflict management. Moreover, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) and the UN Secretary-General must actively intervene by appointing a special envoy to mediate between the two sides. Key international actors such as China, Turkey, the United States, the EU, and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) should support de-escalation through diplomatic engagement and pressure for dialogue. Track two diplomacy is vital in the time of crisis and addresses the root cause of the internationally recognized disputed territory of Kashmir in accordance with the UNSC resolutions and wishes of Kashmiri people by granting them the right of self-determination.

Last but not least, both states need to realize that war is not the only solution, but it is a diplomatic failure to de-escalate the tension in the South Asian region. In a nuclearized region of South Asia, its consequences would be catastrophic not only for India and Pakistan but also for regional and global security. The world cannot afford another conflict zone. The international community must rise to the occasion, play an impartial mediating role, and help both nations choose peace over provocation and dialogue over destruction.

On May 12, two days after the announcement of a ceasefire between India and Pakistan, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi finally addressed the nation. He stated that the Indian army had only “paused” military action and Operation Sindoor, launched in the aftermath of the April 22 massacre in Pahalgam to target “terrorist hideouts”, had not ended.

“Now, Operation Sindoor is India’s policy against terrorism. Operation Sindoor has carved out a new benchmark in our fight against terrorism and has set up a new parameter and new normal,” he said.

Modi’s speech was clearly not meant to reassure the Indian people that the government can guarantee their safety or security and is seeking peace and stability. Instead, it was meant to warn that the country is now in a permanent warlike situation.

This new state of affairs has been called not to secure the national interest but to satisfy Modi’s nationalist support base, which was bewildered and disappointed with the announcement of the ceasefire by United States President Donald Trump. The detrimental impact that this new militarised normal will have on Indian democracy is clearly a price worth paying, according to the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).

The truth is, the political establishment unwittingly put itself in a difficult position when it decided to capitalise politically on the aftermath of the Pahalgam attack in India-administered Kashmir and whip up war fervour.

While victims of the attack like Himanshi Narwal, who survived but lost her husband, navy officer Vinay Narwal, called for peace and warned against the targeting of Muslims and Kashmiris, the BJP called for revenge and embraced anti-Muslim rhetoric.

As a ruling party, it did not feel the need to take responsibility for failing to prevent the attack or explain the carelessness in securing tourist destinations. It immediately converted this act of killing into an act of war against India.

Actions followed the hate rhetoric swiftly. Muslims and Kashmiris were attacked in several parts of India, and arrests were made of those criticising the Indian government. In Kashmir, nine houses were blasted immediately as punishment of those who had any link with “terrorists”, and thousands were detained or arrested. People with Pakistani passports were deported, and families were broken.

Then, Operation Sindoor was announced. The Indian army’s targeting of Pakistani sites was accompanied by frenzied calls from the mainstream media for the complete obliteration of Pakistan. Major TV platforms – entirely falsely – declared the Karachi port had been destroyed and the Indian army had breached the border.

The war cries and fake news emerging from the TV studios and the frantic messaging from the IT cells of the BJP led its supporters to believe that a decisive battle against Pakistan had been launched and its fall was imminent.

In parallel, critical voices were swiftly silenced. The Indian government requested the blocking of 8,000 accounts from the social media platform X, including those of BBC Urdu, Outlook India, Maktoob Media, veteran journalist Anuradha Bhasin and political content creator Arpit Sharma.

Just when war fever had gripped the BJP’s support base, the sudden announcement of a ceasefire by the US caught them by surprise. The truce was seen as a retreat and an admission of weakness.

Some of the BJP’s online supporters turned on the foreign secretary, Vikram Misri, who had declared the ceasefire as the representative of the government of India. He was viciously attacked, and his timeline was flooded with abusive and violent messages, calling him a traitor and coward. His daughter also faced abuse.

The trolling was so severe that Misri had to lock his social media accounts. Interestingly, but unsurprisingly, we did not hear about the blocking of any social media accounts trolling him or any action by the police against them. There was no action to protect Narwal either after she faced abuse and humiliation by the same crowd for daring to call for peace.

Meanwhile, the Association for Protection of Civil Rights, which focuses on rights violations in marginalised communities, has released a report saying 184 hate crimes against Muslims – including murder, assault, vandalism, hate speech, threats, intimidation and harassment – have been reported from different parts of India since April 22.

On Saturday, Misri claimed that India was a democracy that allowed criticism of the government. But the experience of critics raising questions about the objective and efficacy of Operation Sindoor has been bitter.

Criticism of government requires parliamentary deliberation. But the government has been ignoring calls by opposition parties to convene the parliament, which means stalling democratic dialogue.

Now that the prime minister has announced the operation has not ended, total loyalty from the Indian people will be demanded. Opposition parties would feel compelled to suspend all questions to the government. Muslims would feel a burden to prove their allegiance to the nation. The government will happily blame a dire economic situation that is of its doing on the war. There will be freedom of speech, but only for those who speak in favour of the BJP.

Democracy in India thus remains in suspended animation as the country now faces a permanent enemy and a permanent war.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

Can skateboarding change lives? One organisation believes it can. Bangladesh Street Kids Aid supports children living on the streets by providing essentials, education, and skateboarding lessons. With over 3 million street children in Bangladesh – many facing poverty, addiction, or exploitation – this initiative offers a lifeline, especially for young girls.

Now You Know speaks with founder Susie Halsell to learn what inspired her to start this initiative and how it’s making a difference, especially in the lives of vulnerable young girls.