Pakistan vows retaliation after India launches air strikes
Yahoo is using AI to generate takeaways from this article. This means the info may not always match what's in the article. Reporting mistakes helps us improve the experience.
Yahoo is using AI to generate takeaways from this article. This means the info may not always match what's in the article. Reporting mistakes helps us improve the experience. Generate Key Takeaways
Pakistan has promised to retaliate after India launched military strikes on Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir, fuelling fears of a broader confrontation between the nuclear-armed neighbours.
Pakistan's government on Wednesday pledged to respond 'at a time, place and manner of its choosing to avenge the loss of innocent Pakistani lives and blatant violation of its sovereignty'.
Pakistan's military said at least 31 civilians were killed and 46 others injured in the Indian attacks and ensuing cross-border shelling, describing the strikes as having 'ignited an inferno in the region'.
In New Delhi, Indian officials briefed more than a dozen foreign envoys, telling them: 'If Pakistan responds, India will respond'.
It comes amid spiralling tensions following a deadly attack last month on Hindu tourists in Indian-administered Kashmir, which India blamed on Pakistan-based fighters. Islamabad has denied any involvement.
Cross-border shelling
India's government said its forces targeted nine sites it described as 'terrorist infrastructure', including facilities allegedly linked to the fighters who killed 25 tourists and one local in last month's Kashmir attack.
However, in Muzaffarabad, the capital of Pakistan-administered Kashmir, residents said Indian missiles struck a mosque-seminary in the city centre.
Indian security force personnel stand guard near the site of a fighter jet crash in Wuyan in Indian-administered Kashmir's Pulwama district, May 7, 2025 [Sharafat Ali/Reuters]
The building, which included residential quarters, was left in ruins, with five missiles reportedly killing three people inside the two-storey structure.
Meanwhile, heavy cross-border shelling and gunfire continued along the Line of Control (LoC), the de facto border dividing Kashmir. Officials said 13 civilians were killed and 43 wounded on the Indian side, while at least six civilians were killed on the Pakistani side.
Pakistan's Prime Minister's Office claimed that five Indian fighter jets and drones were shot down during the escalation. The Indian embassy in Beijing dismissed reports of downed aircraft as 'disinformation'.
Sharif promises response
Pakistan's Foreign Minister Mohammad Ishaq Dar told TRT World that there had been communication between the national security advisers of the two countries, while Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif pledged that Pakistan would respond decisively.
'For the blatant mistake that India made last night, it will now have to pay the price,' Sharif said on state broadcaster PTV. 'Perhaps they thought that we would retreat, but they forgot that … this is a nation of brave people.'
Al Jazeera's Osama Bin Javaid, reporting from Islamabad, said that retaliation from Pakistan was widely anticipated.
'Pakistan is expected to retaliate within the next 24 to 48 hours, and that's something we've been hearing from politicians across the board,' he said.
'They're citing Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, which says that a country has the right to respond to an unprovoked act of aggression.'
India defended its actions, with Defence Minister Rajnath Singh claiming its 'targets we had set were destroyed with exactness according to a well-planned strategy'.
'We have shown sensitivity by ensuring that no civilian population was affected in the slightest,' he added.
Islamabad claims six sites targeted by India were not linked to armed groups.
A paramilitary soldier stands guard outside the Government Health and Educational complex after Indian strikes in Muridke, about 30 kilometres, or 20 miles, from Lahore, on May 7, 2025 [Arif Ali/AFP]
'I want to see it stop'
The Pakistani military said 57 commercial aircraft from multiple countries, including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, Thailand, South Korea and China, were in Pakistan's airspace at the time of India's attack, putting thousands of passengers at risk.
India has since ordered the closure of at least 21 civilian airports in the northern and western parts of the country for passenger flights until May 10, The Hindu reported.
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan spoke with Prime Minister Sharif and expressed Ankara's support. According to the Turkish presidency, Erdogan praised Pakistan's 'calm and restrained policies' during the crisis.
In Washington, United States President Donald Trump said he hoped to help de-escalate the situation. 'I want to see it stop. And if I can do anything to help, I will be there,' he told reporters at the White House. 'We want to see them work it out.'
Uday Chandra, assistant professor of government at Georgetown University in Qatar, said while retaliation from Pakistan was expected, it appeared that neither country was seeking 'an all-out war'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
12 minutes ago
- USA Today
Supreme Court pauses ruling that weakened 1965 Voting Rights Act
A lower court severely limited who can bring discrimination challenges under the landmark 1965 law. WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court paused a lower court's ruling limiting who can sue under the under the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act, a move backed by civil rights groups and other advocates. Over the objections of three conservative justices, the high court on July 24 put a ruling by the St. Louis-based 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on hold while two Native American tribes appeal it. If allowed to stand, the appeals court's decision would severely undermine enforcement of the law. It said only the U.S. attorney general is authorized to sue under a key section of the law, meaning voters, Native American tribes and groups like the NAACP would be barred from doing so. In this case, the tribes and three voters challenged a state legislative map in North Dakota they said dilutes the voting power of Native Americans. A federal district judge agreed, but the appeals court said vote dilution claims cannot be enforced through lawsuits brought by individual voters or groups. The Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians and the Spirit Lake Tribe called that decision a 'knee-cap' to the nation's 'most important civil rights statute.' Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act bars voting practices or procedures that discriminate on the basis of race, color or other characteristics. In a brief supporting the tribes, the NAACP said the history of that section 'has been written largely through private enforcement.' But North Dakota's attorney general argues Congress did not clearly intend a private enforcement right when the act became law decades ago. The state also said the Supreme Court should keep the appeals court's decision in effect for now to allow the 2026 elections to be conducted under the map challenged by the tribes. That map eliminated two of the three legislative districts in which Native American voters could elect their preferred candidates. Three justices − Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch − said they would have kept the decision in place while the Supreme Court considers whether to hear the tribes' appeal. The appeals court's decision affects voting rights litigation in seven states: Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota. Republican attorneys general in most of those states and a few others filed a brief backing the appeals court's decision. More: Supreme Court defers decision on challenge to Louisiana congressional map The Supreme Court is still deciding how to resolve a dispute over Louisiana's congressional districts that involves an interplay between the Voting Rights Act and a racial gerrymandering challenge. Instead of issuing a decision, the court announced in June that it will hear new arguments in its next term.
New York Times
13 minutes ago
- New York Times
Trump Has a Terrible Idea for American Sports Teams
On Sunday, President Trump, still on the ropes because of the controversy over the government's Jeffrey Epstein files, ventured a distraction. With all the usual exclamation points and eccentric capitalization, he sounded the alarm on an issue a reader might have mistaken for a national crisis: the names of professional sports franchises. In particular those franchises that had cast off names that no longer felt culturally appropriate: the Washington Commanders, formerly the Redskins, and the Cleveland Guardians, formerly the Indians. 'The Washington 'Whatever's' should IMMEDIATELY change their name back to the Washington Redskins Football Team. There is a big clamoring for this. Likewise, the Cleveland Indians, one of the six original baseball teams,' — by the way, it wasn't — 'with a storied past. Our great Indian people, in massive numbers, want this to happen. Their heritage and prestige is systematically being taken away from them.' With typical subtlety, Trump concluded, 'OWNERS, GET IT DONE!!!' The controversy dates back more than a half-century. It was formalized in 1968, when the National Congress of American Indians embarked on a campaign to fight negative stereotypes of native people in American culture. For a while, however, the evidence on the word 'redskin' seemed equivocal. Polls by the Annenberg Public Policy Center, in 2004, and again by The Washington Post, in 2016, reported that a vast majority of actual Native Americans had no problem with the term. Was the whole thing just a politically correct tempest in a teapot, an effort to fix something that wasn't actually a problem? In 2020, a new poll was conducted. This one asked respondents for more finely grained responses and gave them more opportunity to consider their answers. The outcome was very different: Almost half of 1,000 Native Americans surveyed indeed found the term 'Redskin' to be offensive. Organized college athletics had long since forsworn team mascots that were based on caricatures of Indians. Amid the national climate of racial reckoning that George Floyd's death and the Black Lives Matter movement brought on, the Washington football franchise announced it would be changing its name. When Trump claims that 'our great Indian people, in massive numbers, want this to happen,' there is no reason to wonder if he commissioned his own secret polling. But you don't need a poll to understand why he's wrong. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Bloomberg
13 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
India Commerce Minister on Trade Talks, Economy, Visas
CC-Transcript 00:00Let me start by asking you about Indian businesses. You've managed doing some really key concessions, especially on the National Insurance payments front. Are you hearing from companies that they want to increase investments in the UK as a result? And if so, where? Well, I think immune business is very excited that we have got the free trade agreement in place. We've got the double contribution convention in place. Indian businesses have been very bullish on the UK and if one looks at the investments flowing in from India to UK, it's tied more than the other way round. So I think this will also encourage greater investments because of the stable and predictable environment, business environment. It will also open the doors for more robust and resilient supply chains. It will ensure that we can both work as trusted partners, expanding trade in goods and services. I think Prime Minister Narendra modi and Prime Minister Starmer both very clearly recognise and articulated today that this is a milestone and historic achievement which will hold good stead as redouble our trade as we grow our jobs in both countries. It's a win win for both. You can India or any big Indian conglomerates already planning that expansion? I think we saw, for example, the party group become the single largest investor in British Telecom. Yeah, clearly a sign that there is trust between businesses on both sides. In fact, they're also a major part of the one that you're aware that many pharma companies, many I.T. companies already have a significant presence in the UK, companies working on pesticides and chemicals. And very many sectors are looking at the UK as a possible centre, both for goods and services. The other talks were, of course ongoing on the bilateral investment treaty. Can I ask what are the sticking points remaining on that? Sessions happened in the negotiating room. We don't discuss that in the media, but I do hope we will get that also across the Council. And are there any concern, especially for Indian generics makers or in terms of dumping from India that are still there or have those all been resolved? Well, in fact, we were being wrongly. Classified as a country which had any problems with our patent and our IP regime. Yes, we were able to have very, very good discussions with the pharma companies, with all the stakeholders, both in India and in other parts of the world. Concerns that came to our attention, which merited any change, have been addressed, and it has given a big boost to patent filing faster clearances. In fact, in the last two years, we've done nearly 160,000 patents being issued, so much so that we don't have much of a backlog left anymore. And I think we've been able to create a trusted atmosphere with fast track clearances, and we now have a robust intellectual property rights chapter, both with Switzerland and the UK, two countries which always used to be at the forefront of innovation and had earlier expressed concerns. So you would appreciate that. Now we have a good Segway on IPR also with the advanced and developed economies, and we do believe that we will see a lot of innovation happening in India in the years to come. And do you see this deal as a template for the deals that you're looking to in with the US, for instance, starting with, you know, one of the questions, if I may ask, is on visa access, because that is something that came up a lot in the trade agreement. I don't think so. That's completely wrong propaganda that's been discussed in the United Kingdom. I have often said on the record that free trade agreements are not about immigration. Now, of course, business visas to further providing goods to do business or to provide some service in the short term is a different matter. And unfortunately, the debate in the UK went into the wrong direction. I'm glad that now more and more clarity is coming to everybody. This was never about immigration. It was about free trade, both in goods and services. It does open up a plethora of opportunities for businesses on both sides and will be great. It will be a win win for the UK, as much for India. And you know, President Trump is in the UK this weekend. How were the negotiations with the US going? Do you see those happening by August 1st? Will be a very robust negotiations going on with several countries, with the United States, with the European Union and with New Zealand, with the Peru, Chile and USA. Slightly more significant. There are significant and of course I've had some wonderful engagement with my friend and colleague from the US, the Commerce Secretary, Mr. Howard. The United States Trade Representative, Ambassador Jamison Greer, are both very dear friends and I'm sure they are looking at the great business with the United States in the years to come. And you know, this thing President Trump has said of an extra 10% tariffs on BRIC nations, tariffs on countries that are importing oil from Russia. Are those sticking points at all? I don't think there is any sticking point in our relationship or negotiation with the United States, and it's making good progress. And you're confident in terms of given the clock is ticking there as well? Well, I'm always confident. I'm curious also. You know, one of the things has been it seems like there's a thaw in trade relations between India and China, two of the big global economies. How do you see that? And, you know, what's your outlook for there? Well, I think China is a large economy and they have trading relations across the world. There have also been in dialogue with the United States. They're doing significant work with your country in the UK and the European Union. And India has always stood for fair play. And that is what we are looking to achieve with all our trading partners. I think whoever plays by the trade rules or for open trade gives equal access to Indian goods and services, helps us develop our economy to become a developed economy by 2047, which is Prime Minister Narendra modi's vision for the country. Will be willing to work with all such countries. And what do you see next after this really successful one? You know, you spoke about the US. Is the EU next? What can we be expecting? Well, I think all the trade negotiations are important and they are all moving along very fast, very well. I'm in continuous dialogue. I was just exchanging messages with the EU Agriculture Commissioner a few minutes back. So it's a continuous process, particularly given the time zones are different all over the country. I think it's a round the clock effort also. What do you in the UK coming back to? It was the biggest concession. You know, these trade negotiations have gone on for more than three years, successive governments. What was the biggest concession that you think really swung it? I don't think there's anything big or small. A trade deal is always a comprehensive package. And you always balance different elements of a deal. In this particular transaction also, and it's one of the most comprehensive trade deals ever. It does. Then it took the chapters more than we've had in any other trade deal. So I think it's a holistic, comprehensive agreement. And very often you balance instead of one against the other. You don't literally pick up one as the most important of the other is less import. Absolutely. How are you feeling now with the middle of the year? You know, this new government has done something. This deal was the first in a decade that India has done at this scale. You know, what is India's outlook when you're looking at the global economies and its new position in the world? After Prime Minister Modi came into government, the first stop, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, which was an agreement with the effectively with the non-market economies. So, you know, we already had a free trade deal with the ASEAN region and with Japan and Korea, Australia and New Zealand. We could have bilaterally and we've already now completed it with Australia. We're in dialogue with New Zealand. So if I didn't, it would have been a free trade deal with China. So I think it was important to stop that because that would have hurt India's manufacturing prowess. Having said that, Prime Minister Modi is focused on free trade deals with advanced and developed economies. We've concluded one with Australia, with the United Arab Emirates and Mauritius, with the full bloc after countries Switzerland, Norway. Let's then stay in and I said the amount that the United Kingdom, in active dialogue with you, with the U.S., with Peru, Chile, we've concluded discussions with Oman. So India has now changed track and is engaging with the larger and the more consequential partnerships which will help India in its journey to becoming a developed nation. And sorry, just one clarification on the US, because you mentioned look, Nick in Korea is I'm just wondering, is Scott Bessant not involved in those negotiations as negotiations are with the Commerce Secretary and the USGA? Okay. And you said visas for Indian workers, which has been a big issue. I mean, in the US, that is not part of the talks. H1-B visas for Indian workers. I think most current H-1B visas is not an Indian issue at all. A lot of people realize that you can do great amount of work from home, so you can do a great amount of work from third countries. So frankly, in the last four years, nobody has come to me with the problem about it to be visas. So that's no longer an issue, no more an issue. And it's not even we've not discussed that even once in our dialogues. Okay. Well, Minister, thank you so much for taking the time. Thank you.
