India Launches Operation Sindoor After Pahalgam Terror Attack

Residents in Kashmir hold a candlelight vigil after the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack that killed 26 civilians. This massacre of largely Indian tourists at the scenic Baisaran meadow has spurred New Delhi to take military action. On May 6–7, 2025, India launched “Operation Sindoor”, striking multiple sites in Pakistani-administered Kashmir and Punjabreuter. Pakistan called India’s strikes a “blatant act of war” and retaliated militarily. reuters. The incident has reignited fears of a major India-Pakistan confrontation, drawing urgent calls for restraint from world leaders, Reuters.

The Pahalgam Terror Attack (April 22, 2025)

In late April 2025, gunmen ambushed tourists at Pahalgam in Jammu & Kashmir. According to Indian officials, 26 people – 25 Indians and one Nepali – were shot dead in the attack on the Baisaran meadow, a popular tourist site in the picturesque Anantnag district. Witnesses described “indiscriminate fire” at Baisaran, where hikers and families were picnicking. The attack, claimed by “The Resistance Front” (a shadow group of Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba), was one of the deadliest assaults on civilians in Kashmir in decades. Images and reports showed panicked tourists fleeing as local police and paramilitary forces rushed the wounded to safety. The massacre occurred during peak tourist season, heightening public outrage across India.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi cut short a trip to Saudi Arabia to address the crisis. He vowed that the perpetrators “will be punished beyond their imagination” and that India would pursue the attackers “to the ends of the earth”. The government swiftly downgraded ties with Pakistan and imposed diplomatic and economic sanctions, including threatening to suspend the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty. (Pakistan promptly warned that any move to divert the Indus waters would be “an act of war”.) Airspace restrictions also followed: Pakistan barred Indian flights from its airspace (a measure last seen after the 2019 Balakot strikes). With tensions rising, analysts warned that a military strike by India was likely.

India’s Response: Operation Sindoor Strikes

On May 6–7, 2025, the Indian Air Force and missile forces struck targets in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. New Delhi code-named the operation “Sindoor” (Hindi for vermilion). According to Indian defence sources, warplanes and drones hit nine terrorist “infrastructure” sites in Pakistani territory. Key militant bases – including camps of Jaish-e-Mohammed and Lashkar-e-Taiba – were reportedly targeted, especially around Muzaffarabad and Kotli in Pakistan-administered Kashmir. India’s Ministry of Defence emphasised that Operation Sindoor was “focused, measured and non-escalatory”, aimed solely at militant training camps and avoiding any sovereign Pakistani military installations. Senior officials noted that Indian jets did not cross more than a few kilometres into Pakistan and that missiles were precision-guided to minimise civilian harm. The strikes were framed as direct retaliation for the Pahalgam killings, targeting the militants “from where terrorist attacks against India have been planned and directed”.

Indian news reports later cited an official IAF statement confirming Operation Sindoor had hit 24 missile strikes on six locations in Muzaffarabad, Kotli and also Bahawalpur in Punjab. The strikes reportedly used BrahMos and Prithvi-II cruise missiles and Sukhoi jets, according to officials. Prime Minister Modi, in public remarks, reiterated that India would identify and punish every terror perpetrator and their backers. The Defence Ministry highlighted that India had shown “considerable restraint in selection of targets and method of execution”, and that no Pakistani military bases had been hit.

While India proclaimed success, Pakistan contested the narrative. Pakistani officials said that six areas had been hit (not nine) and insisted none were militant camps. Islamabad’s army blamed civilian sites – even mosques – being struck. Pakistan’s defence minister declared all the hit sites were “civilian” and “no militant hideouts”, as claimed by India. Local media in Pakistan-administered Kashmir showed damaged civilian buildings and burned forests. The Pakistani military said 8 people were killed and 35 wounded in the strikes, including bystanders in Muzaffarabad. (Pakistani news later reported dozens more injured, and nine civilians dead, including women and children, though those figures are hard to independently verify.)

Back across the Line of Control, intense hostilities resumed. The Indian army reported that Pakistani forces opened fire along much of the de facto border after the strikes. In turn, Pakistani posts shelled Indian-held areas. Police and witnesses described heavy cross-border shelling and gunfire for hours on endreuters.com. Indian authorities said several civilians and soldiers were wounded on both sides. In one incident in Indian Kashmir’s Kulgam district, Pakistani fire reportedly killed three civilians, including an 18-year-old woman. Overall, Reuters noted this exchange was “the worst fighting in more than two decades” between the nuclear neighbours.

Pakistan’s Military and Political Reaction

Pakistan reacted swiftly and angrily. President Shehbaz Sharif convened his National Security Council. Pakistani Foreign Minister Bilawal Bhutto Zardari expressed condolences for Indian victims but blamed New Delhi’s policies for the violence. In strong terms, Pakistan’s army and government labelled India’s operation an “act of war. The military spokesman said Pakistan would “take all steps necessary for defending the honour, integrity and sovereignty of Pakistan”. On May 7, the ISPR (military’s press wing) confirmed that five Indian aircraft had been shot down (three jets and two drones, according to some reports) during the night’s engagements – a claim New Delhi neither confirmed nor denied. Pakistan claimed it had downed the Indian vehicles after repelling the attack, and paraded wreckage on TV. The Indian side said that three Indian pilots ejected safely and were hospitalised.

Domestically, Pakistan imposed emergency measures. Punjab province (bordering India) declared a state of emergency: schools, courts and businesses were closed, and residents were alerted. The air force scrambled jets, and maritime forces were on heightened alert. Pakistan closed its airspace for two days, canceling civilian flights out of Islamabad and Lahore (Israel’s interference in regional affairs was cited as another reason for the closure). The nation also shut the Wagah-Attari border to commercial traffic (mirroring India’s border closure), and suspended all bilateral trade and transit links. Pakistani diplomatic staff in India were reduced, and military attaches were expelled; India reciprocated by pulling its attaches back from Islamabad.

Politically, Pakistani leaders struck a defiant tone. Defence Minister Khawaja Asif warned India against further action, saying Pakistan was “ready to cooperate” in any neutral investigation but would consider an all-out war if attacked again. Foreign Minister Bhutto called for dialogue and a probe if there was evidence of Pakistan’s involvement, and criticised India’s “scapegoating” of Pakistan. Opposition politicians in Pakistan also condemned the killing of tourists as unacceptable, even as they blamed India for playing up terror incidents. On April 23, hours after the Pahalgam attack, Pakistan’s National Security Committee had suspended its part of the 1972 Simla Agreement and summoned India’s High Commissioner to protest India’s measures – steps that indicated both sides were preparing for prolonged confrontation.

International Reactions

Major powers and organisations have urgently called for calm and restraint. United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres “deeply deplored” the attacks on tourists and the subsequent strikes, urging maximum military restraint from both India and Pakistan. Pakistan formally notified the UN Security Council of the hostilities, reserving “the right to respond appropriately”.

The United States said it was in contact with both governments. A State Department spokesperson told Reuters that Washington “encourages all parties to work together towards a responsible resolution” of the crisis. The US has publicly “stood with India” in condemning terrorism, but also called for de-escalation after the strikes. On May 7, US President Donald Trump (in a surprising return to the White House) termed the fighting “a shame” and said he hoped the conflict “ends quickly”. (Some analysts worry that the US administration’s unequivocal support for India could embolden New Delhi, though Trump also reportedly leaned on both sides to avoid a wider war.)

China, Pakistan’s traditional ally, urged restraint as well. Foreign Ministry spokesman Guo Jiakun said Beijing “hopes that the two sides will exercise restraint, meet each other halfway, properly handle relevant differences through dialogue, and jointly maintain regional peace and stability”. Beijing offered to help defuse tensions, recalling that it would favour any measure that “cools down the situation”. China similarly cautioned against allowing the clash to derail broader regional stability.

Other international voices were cautious. India’s neighbours in South Asia (like Bangladesh and Sri Lanka) voiced concern about any resurgence of war, as it would strain the fragile regional bloc (SAARC) and divert attention from economic challenges. The EU, NATO and Middle Eastern states emphasised dialogue. Turkey and Iran (which have ties with both countries) quietly offered mediation. In short, the global community is anxious to prevent a full-scale war, recognising that “the world cannot afford a military confrontation between India and Pakistan,” as Guterres bluntly stated.

Geopolitical and Military Consequences

This flare-up carries serious risks. India and Pakistan are both nuclear-armed and have fought three wars, so any miscalculation could be catastrophic. Analysts note that a full-scale war would serve neither side. India, which seeks foreign investment and global standing, cannot afford long-term instability. Pakistan, facing economic fragility, would find war disastrous for development. Atlantic Council experts warn that in a nuclear neighbourhood, “the costs of escalation… are simply incalculable”.

For now, both governments appear to be containing the conflict. India’s strikes were limited and precise, echoing past “surgical” responses to terror (e.g. 2016 Uri and 2019 Balakot operations). By striking militant hideouts (and avoiding Pakistani military bases), New Delhi seemed intent on punishing terrorists while deterring a wider war. Pakistan’s response has been forceful in rhetoric but measured in escalation so far – it has shelled back along the Line of Control and shot down Indian aircraft, but has not launched a full counter-invasion.

Ceasefire lines in Kashmir have effectively collapsed in recent days. The 2003 truce was breached repeatedly since late April, and this week’s exchanges have been the heaviest in over 20 years. Pakistan’s offer to pause the Simla Agreement (1972 peace treaty) and India’s suspension of diplomatic channels reflect a deep breakdown in trust. Economically, the conflict has already hurt both countries – airspace closures are driving up fuel and ticket special.ndtv.Comthers pressing for restraint, back-channel diplomacy is reportedly active. According to analysts, leaders in Washington, Beijing, Riyadh and London are quietly consulting their counterparts. For instance, reports suggest India gave prior notice of the strikes to G20 partners in a bid to avoid a blindside escalation. Pakistan’s military has likewise signalled it does not want all-out war unless further provoked. The next few days will test whether cooler heads prevail.

Historical Context: Echoes of Past India-Pakistan Clashes

The Operation Sindoor strikes fit a familiar pattern in Indo-Pakistani relations. Terrorist attacks on Indian soil, especially in Kashmir, have often triggered cross-border reprisals. After the 2019 Pulwama suicide bombing (which killed 40 Indian paramilitary troopers), India flew jets into Pakistan’s Balakot region and struck a Jaish-e-Mohammed camp. That Balakot strike prompted a short-lived aerial clash in which each side downed an enemy jet. Pakistan retaliated the time with an Indian pilot (who was later released). The cycle of attack and reprisal then reached a tense but contained stalemate.

Similarly, in 2016, following an attack on an Indian army base in Uri, India carried out covert “surgical strikes” on militant launch pads across the Line of Control. And in 2001–2002, the Operation Parakram mobilisation occurred after the Indian Parliament was attacked (though no major war ensued). Analysts note that India’s strategy has been consistently “focused, measured and non-escalatory” to avoid losing international sympathy. Operation Sindoor appears to follow this playbook: it was limited in scope and announced quickly, aiming to punish terrorists while signalling “restraint.”

Pakistan’s response also has historical echoes. Islamabad routinely labels Indian military actions as aggression or “acts of war,” recalling how Pakistan perceived India’s Balakot raid. In domestic politics, Pakistani leaders often try to rally national unity against India during crises, as seen when Pakistan rushed the president and army chief onto television. Civilian casualties – whether real or reported – are highlighted in Pakistan to assert the moral high ground. These repeating patterns suggest both countries are engaged in a predictable tit-for-tat cycle, with outside observers deeply concerned about crossing red lines.

Expert Analysis and Commentary

Security analysts and former officials stress that full war is neither inevitable nor desirable. An Atlantic Council report observes that India’s airstrikes, while serious, were “calibrated,” with New Delhi publicly emphasising they targeted only terrorist camps. By avoiding Pakistani military bases or major cities, India appears to have aimed at neutralising immediate threats yet minimising escalation. As one analyst put it, this strike mirrors India’s 2016 and 2019 tactics: enough to satiate domestic demands for vengeance, but not a prelude to a wider war.

Correspondingly, Pakistan’s public rhetoric has been bellicose, but on-the-ground actions remain measured. Pakistan’s leaders know that any further major attack on India could erode the limited support they enjoy internationally and hurt the economy. Former diplomats argue that although Pakistan is talking tough (even threatening Simla suspension or “all-out war”dawn.com), it also offered to cooperate with an inquiry into the Pahalgam attack – a sign it is trying to avert war on diplomatic terms.

Washington-based experts note the U.S. is walking a fine line. The new U.S. administration has strongly backed India against terrorism, but officials recognise that backing India “at any cost” risks making Pakistan feel isolated. U.S. think-tankers warn that if Islamabad perceives the U.S. will fully support India, it may resist de-escalation. Nevertheless, with Washington now tied up in other crises (Ukraine, Middle East), experts worry the U.S. may not exert enough pressure to force a calm dawn.comatlanticcouncil.org.

Regional experts also highlight the human toll. In Kashmir, civilians and officials fear retaliation targeting ordinary Kashmiri communities. Reports emerged of harassment and arrests in Indian Kashmir after the Pahalgam attack, aggravating a sense of injustice among locals. Any long standoff could further destabilise Kashmir’s fragile peace. One analyst warns that without diplomatic de-escalation, both countries risk being drawn into a deeper conflict neither truly wants.

In summary, most security professionals believe the situation remains dangerous but containable. They expect heightened alert levels and a diplomatic push (possibly via back channels) to prevent any further air strikes or ground clashes. Both India and Pakistan understand the global stakes: renewed war would devastate regional stability and international trade routes (as sanctions and border closures could widen). For now, international mediation and domestic pressures are likely to keep this limited exchange from spiraling into open war – though any misstep could quickly undo that balance.

FAQs

• What was the Pahalgam terror attack? On April 22, 2025, Islamist militants ambushed tourists at the Baisaran meadow in Pahalgam, Jammu & Kashmir. They opened fire on a sightseeing group, killing 26 people (25 Indians and one Nepali). The victims included families and senior citizens visiting the scenic “mini-Switzerland” of Baisaran. A shadow affiliate of Lashkar-e-Taiba (the Resistance Front) claimed responsibility. The massacre provoked outrage across India and set the stage for military retaliation.

• What is Operation Sindoor? Operation Sindoor is the code name for India’s May 6–7, 2025 air strikes on Pakistan. India launched these strikes in response to the Pahalgam attack. Officially, the strikes targeted nine militant “infrastructure” sites in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir. The name “Sindoor” refers to vermilion powder, a traditional symbol of marriage, and was chosen for this military mission. India’s military described Sindoor as a focused, measured counterterrorism operation.

• Why did India strike Pakistan? India says it was retaliating for the Pahalgam massacre. Delhi accused Pakistan of harbouring militant groups that carried out the attack, specifically mentioning camps of Jaish-e-Mohammed and Lashkar-e-Taiba. Indian officials argued that the precise strikes on terror camps were necessary to disable those networks and deter future attacks. The government emphasised it was acting defensively after months of diplomatic pressure following the April terror attack.

• What targets were hit in Pakistan? Indian forces struck camps in both Pakistani Punjab and Pakistani-administered Kashmir. Reportedly, locations included Muzaffarabad and Kotli in Kashmir and Bahawalpur in Punjab – areas known to host militant training camps. Indian statements said these camps belonged to groups behind past attacks. Pakistan, however, insisted the sites were civilian and not genuine terror bases.

• How did Pakistan react? Pakistan strongly condemned the strikes. Military spokespersons said Pakistan shot down Indian jets (Pakistani officials claimed 5 Indian planes), though India said its pilots returned safely. Islamabad vowed to respond and called India’s action “a blatant act of war”, Reuters.com. Within hours, Pakistan resumed artillery exchanges along the Kashmir border. Politically, Pakistan closed the Wagah-Atari crossing and its airspace to Indian flights, suspended trade, expelled diplomats and threatened to put key treaties (Simla Agreement) on hold. Domestically, Pakistan mobilised troops on high alert and declared emergencies along the border regions.

• What has the international community said? The UN, US, China and others have urged immediate restraint. UN Secretary-General Guterres appealed for maximum military restraint. A US State Department spokesperson urged both sides to work towards a “responsible resolution” and reiterated condolences over the Pahalgam victims. US President Trump called the conflict a “shame” and hoped it would end quickly. China’s Foreign Ministry urged dialogue and halfway concessions to restore stability. There were also reports that Saudi Arabia and Iran offered to mediate. In essence, world leaders are alarmed and pushing for de-escalation.

• Could this lead to a wider war? So far, both countries appear to be keeping the confrontation limited. Analysts note that a full-scale war would be disastrous for both India and Pakistan, given their nuclear arsenal. For now, India has emphasised precision strikes and Pakistan has mainly responded with defensive measures. Experts say both sides have incentives to contain the conflict. However, any further miscalculation – especially if civilian casualties mount or popular pressure intensifies – could risk a broader military clash. The international consensus is that a nuclear-armed conflict would be catastrophic and must be avoided.

• What about past India–Pakistan skirmishes? These tensions have historical roots. For example, after the 2019 Pulwama terror attack (which killed 40 Indian soldiers), India struck Pakistan’s Balakot region to hit a militant camp. That also led to aerial skirmishes but did not escalate into full war. In 2016, India carried out covert strikes on militant bases after another Kashmir terror attack. In 2002, the two countries came close to war after the Indian Parliament attack in 2001. Each time, international pressure and mutual deterrence eventually forced a return to the status quo (often at huge political cost). Observers say history shows a cycle of terror attacks and retaliation, followed by a tense standstill – but there is always the danger of that cycle spinning out of control.

• Why mention the Indus Waters Treaty and Simla Agreement? These treaties symbolise longstanding India–Pakistan frameworks. The Indus Waters Treaty (1960) governs river water sharing. India’s suspension of the treaty after the Pahalgam attack (threatening to cut water supply to Pakistan) was a major escalation. Pakistan called any violation “an act of war.” Similarly, the 1972 Simla Agreement has been the basis for bilateral diplomacy. Pakistan’s threat to suspend Simla if conflict continues highlights how foundational agreements are being endangered. These developments show how far the crisis has strained bilateral relations beyond military actions.

Overall, the situation remains highly volatile. India’s Operation Sindoor has made good on its promise to respond forcefully, but Pakistan’s countermeasures and the involvement of major powers mean both sides are now under intense pressure to pull back. The coming days will test whether diplomacy and mutual caution can prevent this crisis from erupting into wider war.

Sources: Reports from NDTVndtv.comndtv.com, Reutersreuters.comreuters.comreuters.comreuters.com, Dawn (Islamabad)dawn.comdawn.com, Al Jazeeraaljazeera.comaljazeera.comaljazeera.com, Atlantic Council analysisatlanticcouncil.orgatlanticcouncil.orgatlanticcouncil.org, and other reputable news outlets.