Fact check: What was the war over between Pakistan and India

1. Why a Tourist Massacre Became an International Flashpoint

A massacre that killed 26 tourists in Pahalgam on 22 April 2025 served as the proximate trigger for the May escalation, with India attributing the attack to Pakistan‑based militant groups and using that attribution as justification for precision missile and air strikes on Pakistani territory on 7 May under Operation Sindoor ^{[1] [2]}. Pakistan categorically denied responsibility, framed the Indian strikes as an act of war, and responded with artillery, drone incursions and attacks on air bases, highlighting how terrorist incidents on the ground rapidly shifted into interstate military action when both sides perceived existential threats tied to Kashmir ^{[1] [2]}.

2. What Each Side Said and Did: Competing Narratives

India’s public narrative framed the strikes as lawful retaliation against cross‑border terrorism and targeted militant infrastructure, asserting a defensive posture meant to deter future attacks; Pakistan’s narrative presented the Indian attacks as unprovoked aggression violating sovereignty and international norms, prompting reciprocity via mortar, drone and air operations ^{[1] [2]}. Both narratives are politically useful domestically: India projected decisive counter‑terror capability, while Pakistan emphasized victimhood and sovereignty, a dynamic that reduces space for de‑escalation because each party must explain actions to national constituencies as justified rather than conciliatory ^{[2] [1]}.

3. The Long Shadow of Historical Wars and the Kashmir Claim

The 2025 exchange sits squarely within a century‑old dispute over Kashmir that produced major wars in 1947–48, 1965, 1971 and the Kargil conflict of 1999; these conflicts show that territorial sovereignty over Kashmir is the deep structural cause, while specific incidents provide episodic triggers ^{[3] [5]}. Kashmir’s partitioned administration — Indian‑administered Jammu and Kashmir, Pakistani‑administered Azad Kashmir — creates constant friction points along poorly defined and militarized lines; the durability of this territorial contest explains why similar triggers have repeatedly spiraled into wider confrontations ^{[4] [3]}.

4. Military Actions and Tactical Details Reported

Reporting indicates India conducted missile and air strikes on sites in Pakistan‑administered Azad Kashmir and Punjab as part of Operation Sindoor on 7 May, claiming strikes on militant infrastructure, while Pakistan replied with a combination of artillery, drone incursions and strikes on Indian air bases—actions that demonstrated both conventional and asymmetric capabilities and raised concerns about escalation between two nuclear‑armed neighbors ^{[1] [2]}. The fighting was concentrated along contested border areas and involved rapid exchanges over a four‑day period before international mediation intervened ^[1].

5. International Mediation and the Ceasefire

The four‑day hostilities ended after diplomatic pressure and a U.S.‑brokered ceasefire on 10 May 2025, illustrating how external actors can be decisive in stopping short, intense escalations even when underlying disputes remain unresolved ^[1]. The ceasefire halted kinetic exchanges but did not address root grievances over sovereignty, militant networks, or cross‑border accountability mechanisms, leaving space for renewed tensions given the historical pattern of periodic flare‑ups tied to Kashmir ^{[1] [5]}.

6. Divergent Agendas and Media Framing Across Sources

Contemporary accounts converge on the basic sequence—Pahalgam attack, Indian strikes, Pakistani retaliation, ceasefire—but diverge on emphasis: timeline sources stress continuity with Kashmir’s historical dispute and episodic nature of triggers, while some summaries foreground terrorist culpability as the immediate cause and state responses as reactive ^{[2] [6]}. Each framing reflects political priorities: security‑focused narratives legitimize forceful retaliation, while sovereignty‑focused narratives frame responses as defensive or unlawful, and both frames shape international opinion and policy choices ^{[2] [6]}.

7. What Was Omited and What Matters Going Forward

Contemporaneous reports highlight actions and claims but omit sustained verification on militant involvement, detailed casualty and damage assessments, and long‑term accountability mechanisms—gaps that matter because claims of militant links were the proximate rationale for military strikes yet remain contested in public reporting ^{[1] [2]}. Absent independent investigations, the cycle of accusation and retaliation can recur; durable mitigation will require confidence‑building, transparent inquiry into terrorist attacks, and mechanisms to manage incidents along the Kashmir divide, none of which were achieved by the brief ceasefire ^{[1] [4]}.