India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi has vowed to respond strongly to any future “terrorist attack”, after four days of military exchanges with neighbouring Pakistan.

“This is not an era of war, but this is also not an era of terror,” Modi said in his first public address since days of intense shelling and aerial incursions, carried out by both sides, began.

These followed a militant attack in Indian-administered Kashmir that killed 26 people, for which India blamed a Pakistan-based group. Islamabad has strongly denied backing the group in question.

The US-brokered ceasefire agreed between the nuclear-armed neighbours at the weekend appears to have held so far.

Both nations say they remain vigilant.

“If another terrorist attack against India is carried out, a strong response will be given,” Modi said in his speech on Monday.

“Terror and trade talks cannot happen together,” he remarked. This was most likely a reference to comments from US President Donald Trump, who said he had told India and Pakistan his administration would only trade with them if they end the conflict.

“Similarly, water and blood cannot flow together,” Modi added, this time referring to the suspension of a water treaty between India and Pakistan.

• ANALYSIS: How backchannels and US mediators pulled India and Pakistan back from the brink

Earlier, top military officials from India and Pakistan discussed finer details of the ceasefire agreed between them over the weekend.

According to the Indian army, the two sides spoke about the need to refrain from any aggressive action.

“It was also agreed that both sides consider immediate measures to ensure troop reduction from the borders and forward areas,” it said in a statement.

Announcing the ceasefire on Saturday, Trump said “it was time to stop the current aggression that could have led to the death and destruction of so many, and so much”.

India announced on Monday that it was reopening 32 airports for civilians that it had earlier said would remain closed until Thursday due to safety concerns.

The recent tensions were the latest in the decades-long rivalry between India and Pakistan, who have fought two wars over Kashmir, a Himalayan region which they claim in full but administer in part.

The hostilities threatened to turn into a fully-fledged war as they appeared unwilling to back down for days.

Both countries have said that dozens of people from both sides died over the four days of fighting last week, partly due to heavy shelling near the de facto border.

After the ceasefire, however, both the rivals have declared military victory.

On 7 May, India reported striking nine targets inside Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir in response to the 22 April deadly militant attack in the picturesque Pahalgam valley.

In the days after the first strike, India and Pakistan accused each other of cross-border shelling and claimed to have shot down rival drones and aircraft in their airspace.

As the conflict escalated, both nations said they had struck the rival’s military bases.

Indian officials reported striking 11 Pakistan Air Force bases, including one in Rawalpindi, near the capital Islamabad. India also claimed Pakistan lost 35-40 men at the Line of Control – the de facto border – during the conflict and that its air force lost a few aircraft.

Pakistan has accepted that some Indian projectiles landed at its air force bases.

Indian defence forces have also said that they struck nine armed group training facilities in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir, killing more than 100 militants.

The Pakistan military, in turn, claims it targeted about 26 military facilities in India and that its drones hovered over the capital, Delhi.

India has confirmed that some Pakistani projectiles landed up at its air force bases, though it did not comment on the claim about Delhi.

Pakistan also claims to have shot down five Indian aircraft, including three French Rafales – India has not acknowledged this or commented on the number, though it said on Sunday that “losses are a part of combat”.

Pakistan denied the claims that an Indian pilot was in its custody after she ejected following an aircraft crash. India has also said that “all our pilots are back home”.

Paris (Imran Y. CHOUDHRY) :- Former Press Secretary to the President, Former Press Minister to the Embassy of Pakistan to France, Former MD, SRBC Mr. Qamar Bashir analysis : In the immediate aftermath of the tragic terrorist attack in Pahalgam—a heavily militarized yet scenic area of Indian-administered Kashmir—India’s response was marked by outrage rather than introspection. Yet, ten days later, no retaliatory action has occurred. Domestically, Prime Minister Narendra Modi finds himself increasingly isolated, while internationally, India stands diplomatically cornered for attempting to implicate Pakistan without credible evidence. Despite fiery rhetoric, India’s inaction reflects a sobering realization: any military confrontation with Pakistan would be regionally destabilizing, globally condemned, and potentially catastrophic.
India’s restraint from launching punitive strikes against Pakistan can be attributed to four compelling reasons. First, Prime Minister Modi’s narrative failed to gain traction among critical segments of Indian society—including Indian Muslims, ordinary citizens, and even Kashmiris and victims of the attack—many of whom demanded evidence before blaming Pakistan.
Second, Pakistan’s swift and robust military readiness served as a strong deterrent, making any offensive operation risky.
Third, the global community, including major powers like the United States, Russia, China, the European Union, the United Kingdom, and the United Nations, collectively cautioned India against taking aggressive action without concrete proof.
Lastly, the absence of international support left India diplomatically isolated, forcing it to reconsider any rash military options.
Not a single opposition party supported the call for action against Pakistan. Civil society, religious minorities—including a vocal segment of the Sikh community—and even victims’ families publicly questioned the government’s rush to assign blame without evidence. Interviews conducted with Kashmiri civilians in Pahalgam revealed a powerful counter-narrative: while many condemned the attack, they rejected the notion of Pakistani involvement in the absence of concrete proof. More compellingly, survivors recounted how local Kashmiris risked their own lives to shelter and assist fleeing tourists—an act of humanity that contradicted the vilifying rhetoric being propagated by New Delhi.
The attack was universally condemned—including by Pakistan. Yet, instead of rallying global support, India’s accusations failed to gain traction among international powers or even within its domestic political spectrum. Major global stakeholders—ranging from the United States, China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and the European Union—issued strong condemnations of the terrorist act but stopped short of echoing India’s allegations.
Pakistan, for its part, responded with urgency and maturity. Its air force, army, and navy were placed on high alert to defend against any incursion, and preparations for a measured counterstrike were reportedly in place. Yet, Islamabad’s official posture remained one of composure and diplomacy. Pakistan reiterated its commitment to peace and offered to form a joint investigation commission—national or international in nature—to identify and prosecute the perpetrators. It was a move that showcased both moral clarity and strategic sophistication.
International reactions reflected this cautious approach. U.S. Vice President JD Vance emphasized the importance of restraint, stating, “Our hope here is that India responds to this terrorist attack in a way that doesn’t lead to a broader regional conflict,” and urged Pakistan to cooperate in addressing terrorism emanating from its territory. President Donald Trump condemned the attack as “deeply disturbing” and reaffirmed support for India, expressing solidarity with Prime Minister Modi and the Indian populace. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio engaged in diplomatic outreach, speaking with Indian Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar and Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, advocating for de-escalation and cooperation in investigating the attack.
The United Nations and European Union similarly declined to attribute blame without an investigation. The EU’s foreign affairs spokesperson stressed the importance of “thorough, impartial inquiry” before making any judgments. Even traditionally close allies of India, such as France and the UK, withheld any statements implicating Pakistan, instead emphasizing regional peace and counterterrorism cooperation. In short, Modi’s call to arms found no international takers.
This global restraint had a profound effect domestically in both countries. In Pakistan, a prevailing sentiment of vindication emerged. Citizens across ethnic, political, and religious lines rallied in unity—not in fear of war, but in confidence that the truth would prevail.
In India, Modi’s credibility began to erode under scrutiny. The Sikh diaspora, particularly vocal in the UK and Canada, denounced the government’s failure to produce evidence and accused it of communal scapegoating for political gain. They highlighted that diverting water from Pakistan, as threatened by Modi, was both technologically unfeasible and diplomatically provocative.
The credibility gap widened further when local Kashmiri interviews aired on Indian media and social platforms showed ordinary citizens, tourists, and survivors questioning how such a brazen act could occur in a zone saturated with military surveillance. Pahalgam, located hundreds of miles from the Line of Control (LoC), is among the most tightly guarded areas in South Asia. Many questioned how attackers could infiltrate such a zone without insider facilitation or gross security lapses—raising uncomfortable questions for Indian authorities.
Public opinion, even among those not deeply involved in politics, leaned strongly toward peace. A telling anecdote from a Pakistani household illustrates this mood. The author’s wife, observing the situation carefully, made a light-hearted bet with her brother—an American citizen—over whether India would retaliate. She confidently said India would not attack Pakistan, while her brother disagreed. The wager? One hundred U.S. dollars. As days passed and no military action occurred, her foresight proved correct. This simple household bet reflected a broader public sentiment: that common sense and mature diplomacy would prevail over hollow threats and rash decisions.
What this incident exposed, beyond geopolitical calculations, was a significant shift in global norms regarding conflict and accountability. No longer can states hurl accusations and expect blind support. The world demands evidence, proportionality, and legal procedure. Pakistan’s transformation from a nation once blamed for regional instability to one actively advocating transparency and collaboration is a diplomatic victory. India’s inability to present proof or secure diplomatic endorsement is a cautionary tale in the perils of reactionary politics.
The road ahead remains fraught. Terrorism is a mutual enemy, and both nations must prioritize internal reforms, intelligence sharing, and regional cooperation. For India, this begins with introspection: evaluating its own intelligence failures, resisting the temptation to exploit tragedy for political mileage, and honoring its democratic commitments to truth and justice. For Pakistan, it means continuing to dismantle residual extremist networks and demonstrating—consistently—its resolve to combat terrorism in all its forms.
In the final analysis, the Pahalgam attack was not just a test of national security—it was a test of national character. Pakistan passed with dignity and poise. India, blinded by political posturing, faltered in the court of global opinion. It is now for the international community to hold all actors accountable—not just with rhetoric but through principled engagement that promotes peace, justice, and mutual respect. In a region brimming with nuclear weapons and historic mistrust, silence, patience, and truth—not sabre-rattling—are the most powerful weapons of all.

In a recent interview, Prime Minister Narendra Modi spoke positively about India’s relationship with long-time rival China. He said normalcy had returned to the disputed India-China border and called for stronger ties.

These are striking comments, because tensions have been high since a nasty border clash in the northern Ladakh region in 2020 – the deadliest since a 1962 war.

Chinese foreign ministry spokeswoman Mao Ning expressed appreciation for Modi’s words and declared that “the two countries should be partners that contribute to each other’s success”.

Modi’s pitch for closer partnership isn’t actually as big of a leap as it may seem, given recent improvements in bilateral ties. But the relationship remains strained, and much will need to fall into place – bilaterally and more broadly geopolitically – for it to enjoy a true rapprochement.

India-China ties have many bright spots.

Bilateral trade is consistently robust; even after the Ladakh clash, China has been India’s top trade partner. They co-operate multilaterally, from Brics, the alliance of major developing countries, to the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. They share interests in advancing non-Western economic models, countering Islamist terrorism and rejecting what they deem US moral crusading.

Even after the Ladakh clash sunk ties to their lowest level in decades, the two militaries continued to hold high-level dialogues, which resulted in a deal in October to resume border patrols. Modi met Chinese President Xi Jinping at a Brics summit in Russia that month and they pledged further co-operation. In January, the two sides agreed to resume direct flights.

Still, the relationship remains troubled.

Each side has close security ties with the other’s main competitor: India with the US and China with Pakistan.

China opposes Indian policies in the disputed Kashmir region. Beijing frustrates India’s great power ambitions by blocking its membership in influential groupings like the Nuclear Suppliers Group and permanent membership on the UN Security Council.

China has a large naval presence, and its only overseas military base, in India’s broader maritime backyard.

The Belt and Road Initiative, the connectivity corridor through which Beijing has expanded its footprint in India’s neighbourhood, is categorically rejected by Delhi for passing through India-claimed territory.

• Bangladesh wooed by China as ties with India fray
• What led to Modi and Xi meeting and thaw in ties

Meanwhile, India is deepening ties with Taiwan, which China views as a renegade province. It hosts the Dalai Lama, the exiled Tibetan leader. Beijing regards him as a dangerous separatist.

India is negotiating sales of supersonic missiles to Southeast Asian states that could be used to deter Chinese provocations in the South China Sea. China views several global forums to which India belongs, such as the Indo-Pacific Quad and the Middle East Europe Economic Corridor, as attempts to counter it.

There are several signposts to watch to get a better sense of the relationship’s future trajectory.

One is border talks. Fifty thousand squares miles of the 2,100-mile (3,380km)-long frontier – an area equal to the size of Greece – remain disputed.

The situation on the border is the biggest bellwether of the relationship. The Ladakh clash shattered trust; last year’s patrolling deal helped restore it. If the two sides can produce more confidence-building measures, this would bode well for relations.

Future high-level engagement is also important. If Modi and Xi, both of whom place a premium on personal diplomacy, meet this year, this would bolster recent momentum in bilateral ties. They’ll have opportunities on the sidelines of leaders summits for Brics in July, G20 in November and the Shanghai Co-operation Group (SCO) sometime later this year.

Another key signpost is Chinese investment, which would bring critical capital to key Indian industries from manufacturing to renewables and help ease India’s $85bn (£65.7bn) trade deficit with China.

An increase in such investme ts would give India a timely economic boost and China more access to the world’s fastest-growing major economy. Stronger commercial co-operation would provide more incentives to keep broader tensions down.

Regional and global developments are also worth watching.

Four of India’s neighbours – Bangladesh, the Maldives, Nepal and Sri Lanka – recently had new leaders take office who are more pro-China than their predecessors. But so far, they’ve sought to balance ties with Beijing and Delhi, not align with China.

If this continues, Delhi’s concerns about Beijing’s influence in India’s neighbourhood could lessen a bit. Additionally, if China were to pull back from its growing partnership with India’s close friend Russia – a more likely outcome if there’s an end to the war in Ukraine, which has deepened Moscow’s dependence on Beijing – this could help India-China ties.

The Trump factor looms large, too.

US President Donald Trump, despite slapping tariffs on China, has telegraphed a desire to ease tensions with Beijing.

If he does, and Delhi fears Washington may not be as committed to helping India counter China, then India would want to ensure its own ties with China are in a better place.

• India’s balancing act with West as Brics flexes new muscles
• India-China border row explained in 400 words

Additionally, if Trump’s impending reciprocal tariff policy hits India hard – and given the 10% average tariff differentials between the US and India, it certainly could – India will have another incentive to strengthen commercial cooperation with Beijing.

India and China are Asia’s two largest countries, and both view themselves as proud civilisation states.

They’re natural competitors. But recent positive developments in ties, coupled with the potential for bilateral progress on other fronts, could bring more stability to the relationship – and ensure Modi’s conciliatory language isn’t mere rhetoric.

Taken From BBC News

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj4nkxv4e4po