In a marked escalation of hostilities, India on Thursday morning launched precision strikes on multiple high-value military targets deep inside Pakistani territory, including advanced air defence systems of Chinese origin deployed in Lahore and Multan, officials with direct knowledge of the operation confirmed. This retaliatory action signals a significant shift from counter-terror operations to direct military-on-military engagement between the two nuclear-armed neighbours.

The strikes were carried out in response to Pakistan’s attempted attacks on 14 Indian military installations the previous night using a combination of drones and missiles, targeting locations across Jammu and Kashmir, Punjab, and Rajasthan — including Srinagar, Chandigarh, and Bhuj. Officials stated that India’s integrated air defence network effectively neutralised the threat, shooting down dozens of incoming aerial platforms and missiles. The debris recovered is being examined for forensic and intelligence analysis.

One Pakistani fighter aircraft is also believed to have been downed during the engagement.

According to defence officials, India deployed Harop loitering munitions, also known as “suicide drones,” for its counter-offensive against Pakistan’s forward-deployed air defence assets. Among the systems destroyed were the HQ-9 long-range surface-to-air missile systems, procured by Pakistan from China, and reportedly used in the attempted targeting of Indian military assets.

India’s own air defence posture, comprising a mix of indigenous, Russian-origin S-400 systems, and Israeli platforms, played a key role in intercepting the swarm of drones and missile barrages aimed at critical defence infrastructure across northern and western sectors.

Defence Minister Rajnath Singh commended the armed forces for their swift and precise response, stating, “These strikes demonstrate the capability of our professionally trained forces, equipped with cutting-edge platforms and systems to defend our national security interests.” He also confirmed that a high-value airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) system used by the Pakistan Air Force had sustained damage in the operations.

Navy Opens Western Front; Karachi Port Targeted for First Time Since 1971

In a significant maritime development, the Indian Navy opened a new front, targeting key Pakistani naval installations in and around Karachi Port, a move not witnessed since the 1971 Indo-Pak war. Explosions were reported late Thursday evening near Karachi’s southern dockyard and port infrastructure. Sources suggest missile strikes were launched by elements of the Western Naval Command operating from Mumbai.

This is the first time since Operations Trident and Python of 1971 that Indian naval forces have engaged Karachi directly. News reports indicate multiple explosions and widespread disruption across the port city, raising the possibility of a renewed maritime confrontation.

India’s Western Fleet is said to be in a heightened state of operational readiness, with full deployment in the Arabian Sea, anticipating further escalation.

Pakistan Intensifies Shelling Along LoC
Simultaneously, Pakistani forces stepped up artillery and mortar shelling across the Line of Control (LoC) in Jammu and Kashmir, targeting sectors including Kupwara, Baramulla, Uri, Poonch, Mendhar, and Rajouri. Heavy calibre artillery and mortars were used, to which Indian forces responded in kind. Exchange of fire continued into Thursday evening.

On Wednesday night, Pakistan had targeted Indian military positions in Awantipora, Srinagar, Jammu, Pathankot, Amritsar, Kapurthala, Jalandhar, Ludhiana, Adampur, Bhatinda, Chandigarh, Nal, Phalodi, Uttarlai, and Bhuj, utilising drone swarms and missile barrages. India’s multi-layered air defence grid intercepted the threats with high success, mitigating damage to vital installations.

Naval Firing Exercises to Overlap in Arabian Sea
Adding to tensions in the maritime domain, both India and Pakistan have issued Notices to Mariners (NOTAMs) for simultaneous naval firing exercises in the Arabian Sea. India’s drills are scheduled between May 8–13, while Pakistan’s coincide from May 9–12, suggesting possible face-offs or incidents at sea.

India Maintains Stance of Proportionate Response
Despite the clear military escalation, New Delhi reiterated its commitment to non-escalation, stating that the strikes were “calibrated, proportionate, and limited in scope” in response to provocation from Islamabad. Indian officials added that further action would depend entirely on Pakistan’s conduct in the coming hours and days.

Why Trump Is Missing in Action on the India-Pakistan Crisis

The intensifying conflict between India and Pakistan, traditionally the kind of flashpoint that would spark urgent American diplomatic engagement, is now unfolding with little more than rhetorical concern from Washington.

The Trump administration’s tepid response reflects a broader retreat from international leadership, indicating a diminished U.S. appetite for managing global crises, especially those that don’t align with transactional gains.

President Donald Trump’s initial remarks following India’s precision strikes on Pakistani military infrastructure were notably passive. Characterizing the situation as “a shame” and expressing vague hopes that it would “end quickly,” Trump stopped short of offering a substantive path to de-escalation.

A day later, he gestured at neutrality, offering help “if I can do anything,” but refrained from signaling any serious intent to broker peace. The contrast to past U.S. administrations, where such flare-ups in South Asia would trigger a full-spectrum diplomatic push, could not be more different.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio has reportedly maintained backchannel contacts with both Islamabad and New Delhi. However, no wider diplomatic architecture appears to be in motion.

This absence of a coordinated response from the U.S. long seen as the only outside power with the heft and leverage to contain Indo-Pak crises – points to two realities: the Trump administration’s distaste for traditional diplomacy and a global order adjusting to American disengagement.

Crucially, the situation may not yet have reached the stage where diplomacy can take hold. With both countries operating at the military-to-military level and Pakistan having vowed further retaliation any calls for calm may be premature or ignored. Yet, the U.S.’s absence from even the early stages of de-escalation planning is telling.

In place of multilateralism and confidence-building, the Trump doctrine favors coercive leverage, often aimed at smaller nations and often transactional in nature. For instance, while U.S. diplomacy has floundered in Ukraine and Gaza, its efforts have often been entangled in bids for economic or political advantage, from rare earth mining deals in Ukraine to unsettling ideas of demographic engineering in Gaza.

Kashmir offers no immediate financial or strategic incentive that would capture Trump’s interest. Unlike his predecessors, Jimmy Carter, who facilitated the Egypt-Israel peace accords, or Bill Clinton, whose groundwork helped end the Balkan conflict, Trump has shown little patience for the slow, complex nature of real diplomacy. His administration lacks both the will and the diplomatic depth to handle a South Asian crisis that requires more than soundbites and vague offers.

Experts such as Tim Willasey-Wilsey of the Royal United Services Institute note that the U.S. has historically played a calming role in Indo-Pakistan tensions in 2000, 2008, and 2019. But the current leadership appears disinclined. “We now have a president in the White House who says he doesn’t want to be the policeman of the world,” said Willasey-Wilsey. He also noted Trump’s apparent alignment with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi over Pakistan’s leadership — a factor that could further erode the perception of U.S. neutrality.

As the crisis escalates, the Trump administration’s inaction may not just signal a missed opportunity but a strategic abdication. With nuclear-armed rivals testing each other’s thresholds, the absence of a steady hand at the global diplomatic table could have consequences far beyond South Asia.

Why Washington Has Historically Sought to Contain Kashmir Violence
Kashmir, a geopolitically sensitive region nestled between India, Pakistan, and China, has long been a flashpoint for conflict in South Asia. Since the partition of British India in 1947 into a predominantly Hindu India and a Muslim-majority Pakistan, Kashmir has remained the unresolved territorial dispute that continues to test regional stability. Each side controls part of the region and claims it in full, while China holds a strategically important third portion.

Washington’s historic interest in preventing full-blown conflict in Kashmir stems from a broader imperative: to avert a regional war, particularly one involving nuclear-armed states. The U.S. has traditionally positioned itself as a crisis manager, recognizing that escalation in South Asia could have catastrophic global consequences.

A case in point was the Kargil conflict in 1999. Amid fears within the U.S. intelligence community that the skirmishes could spiral into a nuclear exchange, then-President Bill Clinton intervened directly to de-escalate tensions. It was a defining moment that reinforced Washington’s role as a stabilizing actor in South Asia. Since then, India and Pakistan have gradually matured as nuclear powers, and nuclear brinkmanship has been dialed down, though never entirely off the table.

Despite this moderation, the United States has continued to view Kashmir as a flashpoint that merits engagement. In 2019, then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo intervened during a particularly volatile episode following India’s airstrikes inside Pakistani territory. As Pompeo later wrote, “the world [didn’t] properly know just how close the India-Pakistan rivalry came to spilling over into a nuclear conflagration.”

A Crisis in a Changed Global Context
What differentiates the current crisis from earlier episodes is the altered geopolitical arena and Washington’s shifting role within it. Traditionally, the United States acted as a reliable intermediary with enough influence over both Islamabad and New Delhi to broker de-escalation. Today, that balance has changed.

India has grown in strategic and economic significance, becoming a key partner in the U.S. Indo-Pacific strategy aimed at countering China. This strategic alignment has made Washington more reluctant to apply public pressure on New Delhi, even amid provocations. Conversely, Pakistan’s utility to the U.S. has waned with the end of the war in Afghanistan, and its pivot toward China has diminished American leverage.

This realignment reduces the likelihood of robust U.S.-led diplomatic intervention. As Milan Vaishnav of the Carnegie Endowment observed, the U.S. is now far more invested in its strategic partnership with India, while Pakistan’s declining significance limits its diplomatic pull in Washington. The Biden administration, much like its predecessor, may prefer calibrated messaging over direct engagement especially in a volatile election year.

At the same time, the nature of U.S. diplomacy has transformed. Where past administrations built slow-moving but deep coalitions for conflict resolution, recent efforts have leaned more transactional and reactive, lacking the institutional scaffolding necessary for sustained peace-building.

Regional Actors and Diplomatic Substitutes
In the absence of strong U.S. leadership, alternative mediators may emerge. Qatar, which has gained prominence as a neutral interlocutor in conflicts such as Israel-Hamas, has already initiated outreach to both India and Pakistan. However, its influence is likely limited by its cultural and religious proximity to Pakistan and the broader Gulf strategic calculus.

Moreover, Pakistan’s economic vulnerability gives Gulf states like Saudi Arabia and the UAE some leverage. These nations, as major creditors, may influence Islamabad’s military calculus, though this is far from guaranteed, especially in the face of nationalist pressure and strategic inertia.

The Last Bit,

The latest Kashmir flare-up is unfolding in a world where the old rules of international diplomacy no longer apply.

The U.S., once the principal actor in defusing crises in South Asia, now operates with diminished bandwidth, constrained by competing global priorities and altered strategic interests.

In this new environment, the prospects for effective mediation rest not just on diplomatic will, but on the availability of credible and neutral actors willing to bear the risks of brokering peace, a role Washington once played, but now appears reluctant to resume.

However, the fact is that Pakistan is a rouge country and has over the years sponsored terrorism in India and other countries. The Pahalgam terror attack was aimed at diluting peace and return of tourism (financial capacity) of a region that has been continuously targeted, only this time they dared to target civilians and promote regional tension within India, and failed, Pakistan must pay the price!