tensions

When India launched Operation Sindoor and Pakistan replied with Operation Bunyan-um-Marsoos, the world braced for escalation. Analysts held their breath. Twitter exploded. The Line of Control – that jagged scar between two unfinished imaginations of nationhood – lit up again.

But if you think what happened earlier this month was merely a military exchange, you’ve missed the real story.

This was a war, yes, but not just of missiles. It was a war of narratives, orchestrated in headlines, hashtags, and nightly newsrooms. The battlefield was the media. The ammunition was discourse. And the casualties were nuance, complexity, and truth.

What we witnessed was the culmination of what scholars call discursive warfare — the deliberate construction of identity, legitimacy, and power through language. In the hands of Indian and Pakistani media, every act of violence was scripted, every image curated, every casualty politicised. This wasn’t coverage. It was choreography.

Scene one: The righteous strike

On May 6, India struck first. Or, as Indian media framed it, India defended first.

Operation Sindoor was announced with theatrical pomp. Twenty-four strikes in twenty-five minutes. Nine “terror hubs” destroyed. Zero civilian casualties. The villains — Jaish-e-Muhammad, Lashkar-e-Taiba, “terror factories” across Bahawalpur and Muzaffarabad in Pakistan – were said to be reduced to dust.

The headlines were triumphalist: “Surgical Strikes 2.0”, “The Roar of Indian Forces Reaches Rawalpindi”, “Justice Delivered”. Government spokespeople called it a “proportionate response” to the Pahalgam massacre that had left 26 Indian tourists dead. Defence Minister Rajnath Singh declared: “They attacked India’s forehead, we wounded their chest”. Cinematic? Absolutely. Deliberate? Even more so.

Indian media constructed a national identity of moral power: a state forced into action, responding not with rage but with restraint, armed not just with BrahMos missiles but with dharma – righteous duty and moral order. The enemy wasn’t Pakistan, the narrative insisted — it was terror. And who could object to that?

This is the genius of framing. Constructivist theory tells us that states act based on identities, not just interests. And identity is forged through language. In India’s case, the media crafted a story where military might was tethered to moral clarity. The strikes weren’t aggression — they were catharsis. They weren’t war — they were therapy.

But here’s the thing: therapy for whom?

Scene two: The sacred defence

Three days later, Pakistan struck back. Operation Bunyan Marsoos — Arabic for “iron wall” — was declared. The name alone tells you everything. This wasn’t just a retaliatory strike; it was a theological assertion, a national sermon. The enemy had dared to trespass. The response would be divine.

Pakistani missiles reportedly rained down on Indian military sites: brigade headquarters, an S-400 system, and military installations in Punjab and Jammu. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif proclaimed that Pakistan had “avenged the 1971 war”, in which it had capitulated and allowed Bangladesh to secede. That’s not battlefield strategy. That’s myth-making.

The media in Pakistan amplified this narrative with patriotic zeal. Indian strikes were framed as war crimes, mosques hit, civilians killed. Photographs of rubble and blood were paired with captions about martyrdom. The response, by contrast, was precise, moral, and inevitable.

Pakistan’s national identity, as constructed in this moment, was one of righteous victimhood: we are peaceful, but provoked; restrained, but resolute. We do not seek war, but we do not fear it either.

The symmetry is uncanny. Both states saw themselves as defenders, never aggressors. Both claimed moral superiority. Both insisted the enemy fired first. Both said they had no choice.

Constructing the enemy and the victim

The symmetry was also apparent in the constructed image of the enemy and the delcared victims.

India portrayed Pakistan as a terror factory: duplicitous, rogue, a nuclear-armed spoiler addicted to jihad. Pakistani identity was reduced to its worst stereotype, deceptive and dangerous. Peace, in this worldview, is impossible because the Other is irrational.

Pakistan, in turn, cast India as a fascist state: led by a majoritarian regime, obsessed with humiliation, eager to erase Muslims from history. Prime Minister Narendra Modi was the aggressor. India was the occupier. Their strikes were framed not as counterterrorism but as religious war.

In each case, the enemy wasn’t just a threat. The enemy was an idea — and an idea cannot be reasoned with.

This is the danger of media-driven identity construction. Once the Other becomes a caricature, dialogue dies. Diplomacy becomes weakness. Compromise becomes betrayal. And war becomes not just possible, but desirable.

The image of the Other also determined who was considered a victim and who was not.

While missiles flew, people died. Civilians in Kashmir, on both sides, were killed. Border villages were shelled. Religious sites damaged. Innocent people displaced. But these stories, the human stories, were buried beneath the rubble of rhetoric.

In both countries, the media didn’t mourn equally. Victims were grieved if they were ours. Theirs? Collateral. Or fabricated. Or forgotten.

This selective mourning is a moral indictment. Because when we only care about our dead, we become numb to justice. And in that numbness, violence becomes easier the next time.

The battle for legitimacy

What was at stake during the India-Pakistan confrontation wasn’t just territory or tactical advantage. It was legitimacy. Both states needed to convince their own citizens, and the world, that they were on the right side of history.

Indian media leaned on the global “war on terror” frame. By targeting Pakistan-based militants, India positioned itself as a partner in global security. Sound familiar? It should. It’s the same playbook used by the United States in Iraq and Israel in Gaza. Language like “surgical”, “precision”, and “pre-emptive” doesn’t just describe, it absolves.

Meanwhile, Pakistan’s media leaned on the moral weight of sovereignty. India’s strikes were framed as an assault not just on land, but on izzat, honour. By invoking sacred spaces, by publicising civilian casualties, Pakistan constructed India not as a counterterrorist actor but as a bully and a blasphemer.

This discursive tug-of-war extended even to facts. When India claimed to have killed 80 militants, Pakistan called it fiction. When Pakistan claimed to have shot down Indian jets, India called it propaganda. Each accused the other of misinformation. Each media ecosystem became a hall of mirrors, reflecting only what it wanted to see.

Ceasefire, silence and a call to listen differently

The guns fell silent on May 13, thanks to a US-brokered ceasefire. Both governments claimed victory. Media outlets moved on. Cricket resumed. Hashtags faded.

But what lingers is the story each side now tells about itself: We were right. They were wrong. We showed strength. They backed down.

This is the story that will shape textbooks, elections, military budgets. It will inform the next standoff, the next skirmish, the next war.

And until the story changes, nothing will. And it can change.

Narratives constructed on competing truths, forged in newsrooms and battlefields, performed in rallies and funerals, are not eternal.

Just as they were constructed, they can be deconstructed. And that can happen only if we start listening not to the loudest voice, but to the one we’ve learned to ignore.

So the next time war drums beat, ask not just who fired first, but who spoke last. And ask what story that speech was trying to tell.

Because in South Asia, the most dangerous weapon isn’t nuclear.

It’s narrative.

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

Srinagar, Indian-administered Kashmir – Javaid Iqbal opens a photo on his mobile phone. It shows a little girl sporting a pink woollen beanie, a grey trinket slung loosely around her neck – her face beaming in a wide smile.

Five-year-old Maryam, his daughter, who happily posed for the photo only last month. Today, she is no more.

Maryam was killed on the morning of May 7 when an explosive landed on their home in Sukha Katha, a cluster of some 200 homes in Poonch district of Indian-administered Kashmir, some 20km (12 miles) from the Line of Control (LoC), India’s de facto border with Pakistan in the disputed Himalayan region.

“Oh, Maryam,” Iqbal, 36, cries out, clutching the phone to his chest. “This is a loss I cannot live with.”

Maryam was among at least 21 civilians – 15 of them in Poonch – killed in cross-border shelling in Indian-administered Kashmir in early May as the South Asian nuclear powers and historical enemies engaged in their most intense military confrontation in decades. For four days, they exchanged missiles and drones, and stood on the precipice of their fifth war before they announced a ceasefire on May 10.

That truce has since held, even though tensions remain high and both nations have launched diplomatic outreach initiatives to try and convince the rest of the world about their narrative in a conflict that dates back to 1947, when the British left the subcontinent, cleaving it into India and Pakistan.

But for families of those who lost relatives in the cross-border firing, the tenuous peace along the LoC at the moment means little.

“My heart bleeds when I think of how you [Maryam] died in my arms,” wails Iqbal.

‘The earth rattled beneath us’

For decades, residents along the LoC have found themselves caught in the line of fire between India and Pakistan, who have fought three of their four previous wars over Kashmir. Both control parts of the region, with two tiny slivers also administered by China. But India claims all of Kashmir, while Pakistan also claims all of the region except the parts governed by China, its ally.

In 2003, India and Pakistan agreed to a ceasefire along the LoC that – despite frequent border skirmishes and killings of civilians on both sides – broadly held, and was renewed in 2021.

But on April 22, gunmen killed 25 tourists and a Kashmiri pony rider in Pahalgam, a scenic resort in Indian-administered Kashmir, starting the latest chapter in the India-Pakistan conflict over the region.

New Delhi accused Pakistan of backing the gunmen, a charge that Islamabad denied. Since the beginning of an armed rebellion against India’s rule in Indian-administered Kashmir in 1989, New Delhi has accused Islamabad of training and financially supporting the rebels. Islamabad says it only provides diplomatic and moral support to the separatist movement.

On May 7, the Indian military responded to the Pahalgam killings by launching missiles at multiple cities in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir. India claimed it struck “terror camps” and killed about 100 “terrorists”. Pakistan said more than 50 people were killed – but most were civilians, with a military personnel also killed.

Pakistan responded with heavy cross-border firing. Iqbal says he was jolted awake at about 2am on May 7 by the sounds of artillery shells landing “one after the other, their thuds rattling the earth beneath us”.

“I made frantic calls to everyone, like police, officials in administration I knew, and on toll-free emergency numbers like 108, pleading with them to rescue me and my family,” he told Al Jazeera. “But no one came.”

He says he huddled his family – his wife, three children and three children of his brother who were with them at the time – in an outhouse abutting their main house, hoping that cinder blocks on top of the structure would make it more resilient to any Pakistani shells.

The explosions kept getting closer.

Shortly after sunrise, he says, a shell whizzed across the mountains, a trail of smoke streaming behind it, and landed with an explosion close to their shelter. Its splinters hurtled in every direction, blasting through the walls behind which Iqbal and his family had sought refuge.

As he squinted through the smoky haze, his eyes rested on Maryam, whose little body was perforated with hot metal shards as she lay listless amid the debris, which was soaked with her blood.

“I called a friend for help. He alerted the administration, who sent an ambulance, which tried to come near our house, but the continuous shelling forced it to return,” he said, adding that the ambulance attempted to come closer five times but could not.

By the time the shelling subsided and they could get to a hospital, Maryam was dead. Her sister, 7-year-old Iram Naaz, was also hit by a splinter in her forehead and is currently recovering in the family’s ancestral village in Qasba, close to the LoC.

A ghost town

The shelling continued in Sukha Katha for three days. Today, it looks like a ghost town, its ominous silence shattered only by the strong gales of wind sweeping through the open doors and windows of empty homes, with curtains fluttering and dust swirling around them.

Most residents who fled the shelling haven’t returned.

“There are about 200 homes here and they are empty because everyone has fled to safety,” said Muhammad Mukhar, a 35-year-old resident. He and a few others remained. “We are just keeping an eye out for thieves. These townspeople are unlikely to return soon because things are still uncertain.”

The villagers have reasons to remain fearful of more attacks, says Kashmiri political analyst Zafar Choudhary. He says the loss of civilian lives on the Indian side of the border in Poonch is due to the “peculiar” topography of the region, which confers a “unique advantage” to Pakistan.

“Most of the towns and villages on the Indian side are situated down in the valleys while Pakistani army posts remain high on the mountain tops, overlooking the civilian habitations here,” he says. “Even if India retaliates, the civilian loss to the Pakistani side would remain minimal. This makes border towns such as Poonch vulnerable.”

At Khanetar, a town of rundown structures of bricks and rebars overhung with life-size advertisements of soda drinks, an asphalt road zigzags through the forests and ravines and links the border areas of Poonch with the plains of Jammu, in the southern part of Indian-administered Kashmir.

In this village, a Pakistani shell explosion killed 13-year-old Vihan Kumar inside the family’s car when they were trying to escape the firing. The boy died on the spot, his skull ripped open.

“It was a loud sound, and at once, my son was in a pool of blood,” recalls Sanjeev Bhargav, Vihan’s father. “We immediately rushed to the district hospital in Poonch, where Vihan breathed his last.” Vihan was the only child of his parents.

‘Naked dance of death’

Meanwhile, at the intensive care unit of the Government Medical College Hospital in Jammu, the second largest city in Indian-administered Kashmir, about 230km (140 miles) southeast of Poonch, Arusha Khan is consoling her husband, Rameez Khan, a 46-year-old teacher, who is battling for his life after shrapnel punctured the left side of his liver.

They are mourning the loss of their twins – son Zain Ali and daughter Urba Fatima – who died in the shelling of their house on May 7. They had turned 12 in April.

The family was cowering inside their home in Poonch when the frightened twins called their uncle, Arusha’s brother Aadil Pathan, who lived in Surankote, in the same district, about 40km (25 miles) away, pleading with him to save them.

“The children were scared to their wits’ end,” Arusha’s sister Maria Pathan tells Al Jazeera over the telephone. “Aadil left home in his car at 5:30am and reached their place an hour later.”

Maria says Aadil called out from outside the house and swung open the door of his car. But as soon as the trapped family came out and began to dash in the direction of the car, a shell struck. Urba died on the spot. Rameez also suffered “tremendous blood loss” from his injuries, Maria said.

“And suddenly, Arusha couldn’t see Zain around,” says Maria. “He was injured and had staggered into a neighbour’s home about 100 metres (300ft) away. When Arusha rushed to see him, he was just a body on the floor.” He, too, had died.

“We don’t wish even for our enemies what has happened to my sister and her family,” Maria says amid sobs.

Meenakshi Ganguly, deputy director of Human Rights Watch Asia, says attacks on children during such conflicts between two nations could constitute war crimes.

“Indiscriminately striking civilian areas is a violation of international humanitarian law,” she says, speaking to Al Jazeera. “If such attacks are committed willfully, they would amount to war crimes.”

Poonch-based politician Shamim Ganai says the destruction wreaked by the Pakistani shelling was a “naked dance of death”.

“We weren’t prepared for what we eventually came to experience. There were no preparations to evacuate people. People were simply running, many even barefoot, holding on to chickens and other belongings in their arms,” he recalls.

“I have lived through previous border clashes,” he says. “But this was nothing like I have ever seen.”

Despite slowdown, data points to reliance of Chinese economy in the face of Donald Trump’s tariffs.

China’s industrial output and retail sales growth have slowed amid trade tensions with the United States.

Factory output grew 6.1 percent year-on-year in April, down from a 7.7 percent rise in March, data released by China’s National Bureau of Statistics showed on Monday.

While down compared with the previous month, the figure beat analysts’ expectations.

Analysts polled by the Reuters and Bloomberg news agencies had respectively forecast growth of 5.5 percent and 5.7 percent.

Retail sales grew 5.1 percent year-on-year, slower than the 5.9 percent growth recorded in March and below analysts’ forecasts.

Fixed-asset investment, which includes property and infrastructure investment, rose 4 percent.

Unemployment fell slightly, from 5.2 percent to 5.1 percent.

The latest data is likely to bolster hopes of China’s economy remaining resilient in the face of US President Donald Trump’s tariffs, after gross domestic product expanded a better-than-expected 5.4 percent in the January-March period.

The National Bureau of Statistics said the economy maintained “new and positive development momentum” due to Beijing’s economic policies, despite the “increasing impact of external shocks”.

“However, we should be aware that there are still many unstable and uncertain factors in external environment, and the foundation for sustained economic recovery needs to be further consolidated,” the statistics agency said in a statement.

The economic figures are the first to be released since Washington and Beijing last week agreed to dramatically reduce tariffs on each other’s goods for 90 days.

Under the deal reached in Geneva, the US lowered its tariff on Chinese goods from 145 percent to 30 percent, while China slashed its rate from 125 percent to 10 percent.

“The risk is that tariffs remain in place for a long time, and eventually, we see production offshored,” Lynn Song, chief economist for Greater China at ING, said in a note on Monday.

“But amid tariff unpredictability, not just for China but across the world, few companies will be rushing to commit resources to set up offshore manufacturing facilities. This could mean that a decent portion of China’s manufacturing and exports will be less impacted than originally feared.”

Srinagar, Indian-administered Kashmir – In a quiet laser clinic in Indian-administered Kashmir’s biggest city, Srinagar, Sameer Wani sits with his arm stretched out, his eyes following the fading ink on his skin.

The word “Azadi” (freedom in Urdu), once a bold symbol of rebellion against India’s rule, slowly disappears under the sting of the laser. What was once a mark of defiance has become a burden he no longer wants to carry.

As Sameer, 28, watches the ink vanish, his mind drifts to a day he will never forget. He was riding his motorbike with a friend when Indian security forces stopped them at a checkpoint.

During the frisking, one of the officers pointed to the tattoo on his arm and asked, “What is this?”

Sameer’s heart raced. “I was lucky he couldn’t read Urdu,” he tells Al Jazeera, his voice tinged with the memory. “It was a close call. I knew right then that this tattoo could get me into serious trouble.”

When he was younger, he said, the tattoo was a “sign of strength, of standing up for something”.

“But now I see it was a mistake. It doesn’t represent who I am any more. It’s not worth carrying the risk, and it’s not worth holding on to something that could hurt my future.”

Sameer is one of many young Kashmiris choosing to erase tattoos that once reflected their political beliefs, emotional struggles or identity. Once worn with pride, the tattoos are now being removed in growing numbers across the region – quietly and without fanfare.

While a trend to remove tattoos was already under way, the urgency has deepened since India and Pakistan – who have fought three wars over Kashmir since emerging as independent nations in 1947 – came to the brink of yet another war following the killing of 26 people in the scenic resort town of Pahalgam in Indian-administered Kashmir last month.

New Delhi accuses Islamabad of backing an armed rebellion that erupted on the Indian side in 1989. Pakistan rejects the allegation, saying it only provides moral diplomatic support to Kashmir’s separatist movement.

Two weeks after Pahalgam, India, on May 7, launched predawn drone and missile attacks on what it called “terror camps” inside Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir – the most extensive cross-border missile strikes since their war in 1971. For the next three days, the world held its breath as the South Asian nuclear powers exchanged fire until United States President Donald Trump announced a ceasefire between them on May 10.

However, peace remains fragile in Indian-administered Kashmir, where a crackdown by Indian forces has left the region gripped by fear. Homes of suspected rebels have been destroyed, others have been raided, and more than 1,500 people have been arrested since the Pahalgam attack, many under preventive detention laws.

‘We feel it on our skin’

In such a tense atmosphere, many Kashmiri youth say they feel exposed – and more vulnerable to scrutiny over even the most personal forms of expression.

“Every time something happens between India and Pakistan, we feel it on our skin – literally,” Rayees Wani, 26, a resident of Shopian district, tells Al Jazeera.

“I have a tattoo of Hurriyat leader Syed Ali Shah Geelani’s name on my arm, and after the Pahalgam attack, I started getting strange looks at checkpoints,” he said, referring to the separatist leader who passed away at the age of 91 in 2021. The Hurriyat is an alliance of pro-freedom groups in Indian-administered Kashmir.

“Even my friends ask me uncomfortable questions. The media, police, and even the neighbours start looking at you differently,” Rayees added.

“I just wish people understood that a tattoo doesn’t define someone’s loyalty or character. We are just trying to live, not explain ourselves every day. I want to erase this as soon as possible.”

Arsalan, 19, from Pulwama recently booked a tattoo removal session. He did not share his last name over fears of reprisal from the authorities.

“People with visible tattoos – especially those hinting at past political affiliations – are suddenly worried they could be profiled, questioned – or worse,” he said.

To be sure, tattoo culture itself isn’t fading in Kashmir. Tattoo studios are still busy, especially with clients aged between 22 and 40, many of whom wait for hours to get inked. But the trend has shifted; instead of political or religious tattoos, people now prefer minimalistic designs, nature-inspired patterns, names or meaningful quotes in stylish fonts.

Some Kashmiris trying to get rid of tattoos say that’s part of their personal evolution and growth.

“For me, it was about being brave,” Irfan Yaqoob from Baramulla district told Al Jazeera. Now 36, Yaqoob got a slain rebel’s name tattooed on his left arm when he was a teenager.

“Back then, it felt like a symbol of courage. But now, when I look at it, I realise how much I have changed. Life has moved on, and so have I. I have a family, a job, and different priorities. I don’t want my past to define me or create trouble in the present. That’s why I decided to get it removed. It’s not about shame. It’s about growth,” he said.

Many reasons to remove tattoos

It isn’t just the security forces that are driving this move among many Kashmiris to get rid of tattoos.

For some, tattoos became painful reminders of a turbulent past. For others, they turned into obstacles, especially when they tried to move ahead professionally or wanted to align the inscription on their bodies with their personal beliefs.

Anas Mir, who also lives in Srinagar, had a tattoo of a sword with “Azadi” written over it. He got it removed a few weeks ago.

“People don’t clearly say why they are removing tattoos. I removed mine only because of pressure from my family,” the 25-year-old said.

“It’s my choice what kind of tattoo I want. No one should judge me for it. If someone had an AK-47 or a political tattoo, that was their choice. The authorities or government shouldn’t interfere. And yes, tattoo trends also change with time,” he added, referring to the Russian-made Avtomat Kalashnikova assault rifles, arguably the most popular firearm in the world.

One of the key reasons behind people removing tattoos is religion. In a Muslim-majority region, tattoos, especially those carrying religious or political messages, could often conflict with the faith’s teachings.

Faheem, 24, had a Quranic verse tattooed on his back when he was 17.

“At that time, I thought it was an act of faith,” he told Al Jazeera, without revealing his last name over security fears. “But later, I realised that tattoos – especially with holy verses – are not encouraged [in Islam]. It started to bother me deeply. I felt guilty every time I offered namaz [prayers] or went to the mosque. That regret stayed with me. Getting it removed was my way of making peace with myself and with my faith.”

Many others said they shared the feeling. Some visit religious scholars to ask whether having tattoos affects their prayers or faith. While most are advised not to dwell on past actions, they are encouraged to take steps that bring them closer to their beliefs.

“It’s not about blaming anyone,” said Ali Mohammad, a religious scholar in Srinagar. “It’s about growth and understanding. When someone realises that something they did in the past doesn’t align with their beliefs any more, and they take steps to correct it, that’s a sign of maturity, not shame.”

Another key factor driving tattoo removals is job security. In Kashmir, government jobs are seen as stable and prestigious. But having a tattoo, especially one with political references, can create problems during recruitment or background checks.

Talib, who disclosed his first name only, had a tattoo of a Quranic verse shaped like an AK-47 rifle on his forearm. When he applied for a government position, a family friend in law enforcement hinted it might be an issue.

“He didn’t say it directly, but I could tell he was worried,” said the 25-year-old. “Since then, I have been avoiding half-sleeve shirts. I got many rejections and no one ever gave a clear reason, but deep down, I knew the tattoo was a problem. It felt like a wall between me and my future.”

As the demand for tattoo removal rises, clinics in Srinagar and other parts of Indian-administered Kashmir are seeing a steady increase in clients. Laser sessions, once rare, are now booked weeks in advance.

Mubashir Bashir, a well-known tattoo artist in Srinagar who also runs a tattoo removal service, said: “After a popular singer’s death in 2022, the trend of AK-47 tattoos exploded,” Bashir said. Punjabi singer Sidhu Moose Wala, whose music often glorified guns, was killed in May 2022. Police blamed his death on an inter-gang rivalry.

“But now, especially after the Pahalgam attack, we are seeing more people coming in to erase those tattoos. The fear is real,” Mubashir said.

He estimated that tens of thousands of tattoos have been removed in the region over the past seven years, since 2019, when India abrogated Kashmir’s semi-autonomous status and launched a major crackdown, arresting thousands of civilians. “Some say the tattoo no longer represents them. Others mention problems at work or while travelling,” Mubashir said.

Laser tattoo removal isn’t easy. It requires multiple sessions, costs thousands of rupees and can be painful. Even after successful removal, faint scars or marks often remain. But for many Kashmiris, the pain is worth it.

Sameer, whose “Azadi” tattoo is almost gone, remembers the emotional weight of the process. “I didn’t cry when I got the tattoo,” he says. “But I cried when I started removing it. It felt like I was letting go of a part of myself.”

Still, Sameer believes it was the right choice. “It’s not about shame,” he says. “I respect who I was. But I want to grow. I want to live without looking over my shoulder.”

As he finishes another laser session, a faint scar is all that is left of the word that is Kashmir’s war-cry for freedom.

“I will never forget what that tattoo meant to me when I was 18,” Sameer says as he rolls down his sleeve. “But now, I want to be someone new. I want a life where I don’t carry old shadows.”

A professor from an elite, private liberal-arts university in India has been arrested for a social media post about news briefings on the military operation against Pakistan more than a week after the two nuclear-armed neighbours agreed to a ceasefire, according to local media reports.

Ali Khan Mahmudabad, an associate professor with the Department of Political Science at Ashoka University, was arrested on Sunday under sections of the criminal code pertaining to acts prejudicial to maintaining communal harmony, incitement of armed rebellion or subversive activities, and insults of religious beliefs.

A police official told the Indian Express newspaper that Mahmudabad, 42, was arrested in the capital, New Delhi, 60km (37 miles) south of the university, located in Sonepat in Haryana state.

A report by the online publication Scroll.in on Sunday quoted Mahmudabad’s lawyer as saying the case against him was filed on Saturday based on a complaint by Yogesh Jatheri, general secretary of the youth wing of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in Haryana.

The arrest was made days after the Haryana State Commission for Women summoned Mahmudabad for his comments on the daily briefings on India’s military operation in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir. Colonel Sofiya Qureshi and Wing Commander Vyomika Singh from the Indian armed forces held media briefings on Operation Sindoor, launched on May 6.

In a Facebook post on May 8, Mahmudabad had said: “I am very happy to see so many right wing commentators applauding Colonel Sophia Qureishi but perhaps they could also equally loudly demand that the victims of mob lynchings, arbitrary bulldozing and others who are victims of the BJP’s hate mongering be protected as Indian citizens.

“The optics of two women soldiers presenting their findings is importantly but optics must translate to reality on the ground otherwise it’s just hypocrisy.”

The post referred to Qureishi, a Muslim officer in the Indian army, and attacks against Muslims, including lynchings and destruction of their houses without due process.

According to local media reports, the Haryana Women’s Commission on Monday said the professor’s statement “disparaged women officers in the Indian Armed Forces and promoted communal disharmony” and summoned him.

Mahmudabad has defended his comments and said on X that they had been misunderstood.

“If anything, my entire comments were about safeguarding the lives of both citizens and soldiers. Furthermore, there is nothing remotely misogynistic about my comments that could be construed as anti-women,” he said.

In February last year, the human rights group Amnesty International urged the government to stop “unjust targeted demolition of Muslim properties”.

“The unlawful demolition of Muslim properties by the Indian authorities, peddled as ‘bulldozer justice’ by political leaders and media, is cruel and appalling. Such displacement and dispossession is deeply unjust, unlawful and discriminatory. They are destroying families – and must stop immediately,” said Agnes Callamard, Amnesty’s secretary-general.

“The authorities have repeatedly undermined the rule of law, destroying homes, businesses or places of worship, through targeted campaigns of hate, harassment, violence and the weaponization of JCB bulldozers. These human rights abuses must be urgently addressed,” she said in a statement.

India’s Supreme Court has ordered a halt to so-called bulldozer justice, but that has not stopped authorities from disregarding due process.

The government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi of the BJP has also been accused of allowing far-right Hindu vigilante groups to act with impunity. They have lynched Muslims and tried to police interfaith relations. Modi has spoken against cow vigilante killings, but his government has done little to stop the activities of vigilante groups.

My statement re the summons that I received from the Haryana State Women’s Commission.

The posts that were misunderstood and objected to can be accessed on my Facebook page. pic.twitter.com/U4rZrAXhFx

— Ali Khan Mahmudabad (@Mahmudabad) May 14, 2025

Professors and activists across the country have shown their support for Mahmudabad.

An open letter with about 1,200 signatories released on Friday said: “It is clear that Prof Khan praised the strategic restraint of the armed forces, analysed how any distinction between the terrorists or non-state actors and the Pakistani military has now collapsed, and said that the optics of the women officers chosen for media debriefs was ‘important’ as proof that the secular vision of the founders of our Republic is still alive.”

The truce between India and Pakistan, announced on May 10, halted several days of missile and drone attacks across their shared border. Pakistan said at least 31 people were killed in India’s strikes while India said at least 15 people were killed in Pakistan’s counterattacks.

After deadly attacks between Pakistan and India, a ceasefire was suddenly declared. Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar rejects claims that Washington imposed the truce, insisting Pakistan acted independently. He addresses India’s accusations and Pakistan’s military influence. As two rivals teetered on the edge of war, Ishaq Dar explains Pakistan’s strategy, its position on Kashmir, and whether this ceasefire might not last.

Pretoria says the visit is to ‘reset’ ties with Washington, after the US welcomed dozens of white Afrikaners as refugees.

South African President Cyril Ramaphosa will meet United States President Donald Trump at the White House next week in an attempt to “reset” ties between the two countries, Pretoria has said.

The reported visit comes after the US welcomed dozens of white Afrikaners as refugees this week, following widely discredited allegations made by Trump that “genocide” is being committed against white farmers in the majority-Black country.

“President Ramaphosa will meet with President Donald Trump at the White House in Washington, DC to discuss bilateral, regional and global issues of interest,” South Africa’s presidency said in a statement on Wednesday.

“The president’s visit to the US provides a platform to reset the strategic relationship between the two countries,” it added, saying the trip will take place from Monday to Thursday and the two leaders will meet on Wednesday.

The White House had no immediate comment on the meeting, which would be Trump’s first with the leader of an African nation since he returned to office in January.

Relations between Pretoria and Washington have soured significantly since Trump returned to the White House.

Trump has criticised Ramaphosa’s government on multiple fronts. In February, he issued an executive order cutting all US funding to South Africa, citing disapproval of its land reform policy and its genocide case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against US ally Israel.

‘Wrong end of the stick’

Trump’s order also offered to take in and resettle people from the minority Afrikaner community, whom he alleges are being persecuted and killed because of their race – claims that have been disproven by experts and South Africa’s government.

Afrikaners are descendants of mainly Dutch colonisers who led the apartheid regime for nearly five decades.

Pretoria maintains there is no evidence of persecution of white people in the country and Ramaphosa has said the US government “has got the wrong end of the stick”, as South Africa suffers overall with the problem of violent crime, regardless of race.

The US’s criticism also appears to focus on South Africa’s affirmative action laws that advance opportunities for the majority-Black population, who were oppressed and disenfranchised under apartheid.

A new land expropriation law gives the government power to take land in the public interest without compensation in exceptional circumstances. Although Pretoria says the law is not a confiscation tool and refers to unused land that can be redistributed for the public good, some Afrikaner groups say it could allow their land to be redistributed to some of the country’s Black majority.

According to data, white people, who make up about 7 percent of South Africa’s population, own more than 70 percent of the land and occupy most top management positions in the country.

Ramaphosa has spoken repeatedly of his desire to engage with Trump diplomatically and improve the relationship between the two countries.

The US is South Africa’s second-largest bilateral trading partner after China.

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.”

Pakistan reiterates its commitment to the ceasefire but warns it will respond forcefully to any future Indian attacks.

India has ordered a Pakistani diplomat to leave the country within 24 hours as tensions simmer in the wake of heavy military exchanges between the nuclear-armed neighbours before a ceasefire was agreed last week.

The unnamed official, stationed at Pakistan’s embassy in New Delhi, was accused by India’s Ministry of External Affairs on Tuesday of “indulging in activities not in keeping with his official status”.

The move comes after a brief but intense military confrontation last week that threatened to erupt into the fifth full-scale war between the two countries. While the truce brought a temporary halt to cross-border missile and drone strikes, sporadic skirmishes continue along the Line of Control (LoC), the de facto border  in disputed Kashmir, a region claimed by both nations.

On Tuesday, Pakistan reiterated its commitment to the ceasefire but warned it would respond forcefully to any future attacks.

The statement came after Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi warned in his first national address since the truce that India would strike “terrorist hideouts” across the border if provoked again.

The ultranationalist Hindu leader added that India “only paused” its military action against Pakistan.

Modi’s remarks were swiftly condemned by Pakistan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which called them “provocative and inflammatory”.

“At a time when international efforts are being made for regional peace and stability, this statement represents a dangerous escalation,” it said.

“Pakistan remains committed to the recent ceasefire understanding and taking necessary steps towards de-escalation and regional stability,” the statement continued, adding that any future aggression would receive a response.

The conflict ignited after a deadly April 22 shooting attack in the Pahalgam area of India-administered Kashmir, where 25 Indian tourists and one Nepalese visitor were killed. India accused Pakistan’s government of links to the attacks – an accusation Islamabad strongly denied.

India launched strikes on what it called “terrorist infrastructure” in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir.

According to Islamabad, 40 civilians and 11 Pakistani military personnel were killed in last week’s violence. India said at least 16 civilians and five Indian soldiers were killed.

The fighting marked the most severe exchange between the two countries in nearly 30 years and ended only after sustained diplomatic pressure. On Monday, India said it held a rare phone call with Pakistan’s military leaders, agreeing to uphold the ceasefire and explore ways to de-escalate the conflict.

Fragile ceasefire

Despite the ceasefire, sporadic violence continued on Tuesday with Indian forces reporting a gun battle in southern Kashmir’s Shopian district. The army said three suspected fighters were killed in a “search and destroy” operation launched on intelligence input.

On Tuesday, Modi visited Adampur airbase near the border and reiterated India’s stance in a speech to air force personnel. “We will not differentiate between the government sponsoring terrorism and the masterminds of terrorism,” he said.

“We will enter their dens and hit them without giving them an opportunity to survive.”

Meanwhile, both sides have taken a series of retaliatory diplomatic and economic measures.

India has suspended most visa services for Pakistani nationals, halted bilateral trade and announced its intention to unilaterally suspend the Indus Waters Treaty, a World Bank-brokered water-sharing agreement in place since 1960 that is critical for farming.

In response, Pakistan banned visas for Indians, closed its airspace to Indian aircraft and imposed a reciprocal trade embargo.

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.

On May 4, Sudan’s paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) launched a barrage of suicide drones at Port Sudan, the army’s de facto wartime capital on the Red Sea.

The Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) accused foreign actors of supporting the RSF’s attacks and even threatened to sever ties with one of its biggest trading partners.

The RSF surprised many with the strikes. It had used drones before, but never hit targets as far away as Port Sudan, which used to be a haven, until last week.

“The strikes … led to a huge displacement from the city. Many people left Port Sudan,” Aza Aera, a local relief worker, told Al Jazeera. “If the aggression continues … I think I’ll leave like everyone else.”

A drone war

When a civil war erupted between the SAF and RSF in April 2023, the army had aerial supremacy due to its fleet of warplanes and drones.

Yet the RSF is closing the gap with an arsenal of suicide drones, which it used on Port Sudan for six consecutive days, hitting an army base, a civilian airport, several hotels, and a fuel depot, which caused a massive blast.

“Sudan had already entered the phase of drone warfare over the last … few months at least,” said Suliman Baldo, the founder of the Sudan Transparency and Policy Tracker think tank.

The army largely relies on the relatively affordable Turkish-made Bayraktar TB2 drones, reportedly receiving $120m worth of them since late 2023.

Bayraktars can travel long distances with a large payload, and the army says they helped it regain swaths of territory from the RSF in eastern and central Sudan between September 2024 and March 2025, including the capital Khartoum.

Despite losing significant ground, the RSF then stepped up its aggression against the SAF with Chinese-made drones, according to a recent report by Amnesty International.

The human rights group, Sudan’s de facto military government and other monitors all accuse the United Arab Emirates (UAE) of purchasing these drones – and other weapons – and supplying them to the RSF.

The UAE has denied the accusations as “baseless”.

“The UAE strongly rejects the suggestion that it is supplying weapons to any party involved in the ongoing conflict in Sudan,” said Salem Aljaberi, a spokesperson for the UAE’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in a statement on X.

Regardless, the increasing use of drones by both sides marks an escalation and risks exacerbating an already catastrophic situation for civilians, according to experts and human rights monitors.

Bold announcement

On May 6, the army-backed authorities in Port Sudan announced the severing of all ties with the UAE after accusing it of being behind the attacks.

That announcement was not well thought-out, according to Baldo.

Sudan’s army could lose tens of millions of dollars in gold revenue, as well as access to vital banking operations, he told Al Jazeera.

A UAE-backed company, Emiral Resources, owns a majority of shares in Sudan’s largest gold mine, the Kush mine.

Kush is administered by Sudan’s army, which likely sells tens of millions of dollars worth of gold to the UAE.

According to the Central Bank of Sudan, about 97 percent of gold exports from army-controlled areas went to the UAE in 2023.

Kush exported at least one tonne of gold in 2024, although it is unclear how much higher the number is for production.

Furthermore, UAE banks own a majority share in the Bank of Khartoum, whose digital platform, Bankak, facilitates money transfers for millions of displaced Sudanese and public institutions.

The UAE state also owns El Nilein Bank, which manages and approves international transactions on behalf of Port Sudan, according to a report that Baldo co-authored in March for the Chatham House think tank.

“This was a rushed decision [to cut ties with the UAE] that will have serious consequences … due to the UAE’s control over [Sudan’s] national economy,” Baldo told Al Jazeera.

Major escalation?

Sudan’s army has not clarified how and when it will sever ties with the UAE.

On May 6, SAF chief Abdel Fattah al-Burhan vowed in a video to “defeat the militia (RSF) and those who help them”.

Al Jazeera sent written questions to army spokesperson Nabil Abdullah, asking if Port Sudan will implement the announced suspension.

No reply was received by time of publication.

For its part, the UAE’s Foreign Ministry told Al Jazeera in an email that it will not retaliate against Port Sudan.

“The statement issued by the so-called ‘Security and Defence Council’ will not affect the deep-rooted and enduring ties between the UAE and the Republic of the Sudan, and their peoples,” the emailed statement said.

Meanwhile, experts and observers believe the war in Sudan is trending towards a major escalation.

The army’s regional backers could respond to the RSF’s increased use of drones by doubling down on their support for the army, warned Alan Boswell, a Sudan expert for the International Crisis Group.

“The obvious risk [from the attacks on Port Sudan] is that it brings other [regional powers] into deeper involvement on the army’s side,” he told Al Jazeera.

“We could see an escalating war with greater and greater firepower, and nothing would be left of Sudan’s infrastructure by the end of it.”