Connect with us

Published

on

Tensions between India and Pakistan have ramped up following a militant gun attack in the disputed area of Kashmir.

At least 26 people, most of whom were Indian tourists, were shot dead by gunmen at a beauty spot near the resort town of Pahalgam in the Indian-controlled part of the region on 22 April.

India described the massacre as a “terror attack” and said it had “cross border” links, blaming Pakistan for backing it.

Map

Pakistan denied any connection to the atrocity, which was claimed by a previously unknown militant group called the Kashmir Resistance.

It was one of the worst attacks in recent times in Kashmir, which is split between the two countries, and, as Pakistan’s defence minister told Sky’s The World With Yalda Hakim, has the potential to lead to a full-scale conflict involving the nuclear-armed neighbours.

Here is everything you need to know.

What happened during the attack?

At least four gunmen fired at dozens of tourists who were enjoying their holidays in Baisaran meadow, which is three miles (5km) from Pahalgam, and known as ‘mini Switzerland’.

At least 26 people were killed, and three dozen others were injured, according to police officers.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

India and Pakistan tensions rise

Sky News’ India correspondent Neville Lazarus said on 23 April that security forces had been called to the area and an anti-terror operation was ongoing.

It is believed police and soldiers were continuing to search for the attackers.

Kashmiri men hold candles and placards as they condemn the tourists killing during a protest in Srinagar, Indian controlled Kashmir, Thursday, April. 24, 2025. (AP Photo/Dar Yasin)
Image:
A candle-lit vigil in Srinagar. Pic: AP

People place candles after a march against the killing of tourists by militants near Pahalgam in Indian controlled Kashmir, in Ahmedabad, India, Thursday, April 24, 2025. (AP Photo/Ajit Solanki)
Image:
And another in Ahmedabad. Pic: AP

Funerals for several of those killed have been held in some Indian cities, and people took part in candle-lit vigils at several places, including in Srinagar, the biggest city in Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir, in the disputed region.

Locals shut down markets, businesses and schools the day after the attack in protest, amid worries that it would hurt the region’s tourism economy.

Indian security force personnel stand guard at the site of a suspected militant attack on tourists in Pahalgam.
Pic: Reuters/Adnan Abidi
Image:
Indian security force personnel stand guard at the site of the attack in Pahalgam. Pic: Reuters/Adnan Abidi

What is the Kashmir Resistance?

The Kashmir Resistance, also known as The Resistance Front, has claimed responsibility for the attack.

The group, which emerged in 2019 is considered a splinter group of the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), according to the South Asia Terrorism Portal, a Delhi-based think-tank.

LeT is listed as a terrorist organisation by the US. The same group was accused of killing 166 people during a four-day attack on Mumbai in 2008.

At the time, the group was alleged to have close ties to Pakistan’s spy agency, the Inter-Service Intelligence – an accusation Islamabad denied.

Ajai Sahni, head of the South Asia Terrorism Portal, told Reuters that groups like these have been created by Pakistan particularly as a way to create a “pattern of denial that they were involved in terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir”.

Pakistan has always denied that it supports and funds militants in Kashmir, saying it offers only moral and diplomatic support.

How have India and Pakistan reacted?

India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who cut short his visit to Saudi Arabia and returned to India, “strongly” condemned the attack.

Addressing a rally in the east Indian state of Bihar on 24 April, he said his government will “identify, track and punish every terrorist and their backers”.

“We will pursue them to the ends of the earth,” he said, adding: “Terrorism will not go unpunished. Every effort will be made to ensure that justice is done.”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Modi: ‘We will punish’ Kashmir attackers

India also announced a number of punitive measures against Pakistan, including revoking visas issued to Pakistan nationals, expelling military advisers, closing a border crossing and suspending a crucial water-sharing treaty known as the Indus Water Treaty.

During a phone call with Mr Modi, the UK’s prime minister Sir Keir Starmer “expressed his deep condolences” to all those affected and agreed to stay in touch with the Indian leader.

India has accused Pakistan of harbouring and arming militant organisations whose members infiltrate the almost 500-mile border in Kashmir and attack the state.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Minister warns of ‘all-out-war’

Speaking to Sky News’ Yalda Hakim, Pakistan’s defence minister Khawaja Asif denied his country was behind the Pahalgam attack.

In a meeting of the country’s national security committee, Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif passed reciprocal measures on India including cancelling visas, closing its airspace for all Indian-owned or Indian-operated airlines and suspending all trade with India, including to and from any third country.

He also warned that the suspension of the Indus Water Treaty would be considered an act of war.

The treaty, which was brokered by the World Bank in 1960, is essential for supporting agriculture and hydropower for Pakistan’s 240 million people. Suspending it could lead to water shortages at a time when parts of the country are already struggling with drought and declining rainfall.

Supporters of the Pakistan Markazi Muslim League (PMML), carry flags and banners, during a protest against the suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty by India, in Karachi, Pakistan April 24, 2025. REUTERS/Akhtar Soomro
Image:
Demonstrators protest against the suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty in Pakistan. Pic: Reuters

‘Brief exchange of fire’

Days after the attack, three Indian army officials said that its army had a brief exchange of fire with Pakistani soldiers along the highly militarised border of Kashmir.

The officials claimed Pakistan soldiers used small arms to fire at Indian positions in Kashmir late on 24 April, to which Indian soldiers retaliated. No casualties were reported.

Indian paramilitary soldiers patrol a busy market in Srinagar, Indian-controlled Kashmir. Pic: AP
Image:
Indian paramilitary soldiers patrol in Srinagar, Indian-controlled Kashmir. Pic: AP

Pakistan’s foreign ministry declined to confirm or deny the report.

Ministry spokesman Shafqat Ali Khan told a news conference: “I will wait for a formal confirmation from the military before I make any comment.”

A Border Security Force (BSF) security personnel stands guard at the Attari-Wagah crossing on the India-Pakistan border near Amritsar, following Tuesday’s attack on tourists near south Kashmir’s scenic Pahalgam, India, April 25, 2025. REUTERS/Pawan Kumar REFILE - QUALITY REPEAT
Image:
A border security force member stands guard at the Attari-Wagah crossing. Pic: Reuters

The exchange of fire followed Pakistan’s defence minister Mr Asif warning that the attack could lead to an “all-out war” between his country and India and that the world should be “worried”.

Mr Asif suggested India had “staged” the shooting in a “false flag” operation. He warned his military was “prepared for any eventuality” amid escalating tensions and diplomatic measures from both sides.

“We will measure our response to whatever is initiated by India. It would be a measured response,” he said.

“If there is an all-out attack or something like that, then obviously there will be an all-out war… If things get wrong, there could be a tragic outcome of this confrontation.”

The United Nations has urged both sides “to exercise maximum restraint and to ensure that the situation and the developments we’ve seen do not deteriorate any further”.

Indian police officers stand guard at a check point following a suspected militant attack, near Pahalgam in south Kashmir's Anantnag district, April 22, 2025. REUTERS/Stringer
Image:
Indian police officers stand guard at a check point near Pahalgam. Pic: Reuters

What caused the two country’s tensions?

India and Pakistan have fought several wars and conflicts since their independence from Britain in 1947, primarily due to territorial disputes over Kashmir.

Both countries claim the Himalayan region as their own, but in reality control different sections of the territory.

Armed insurgents in Kashmir have resisted New Delhi for decades, with many Muslim people in the region supporting the rebels’ goal of uniting the territory either under Pakistan’s rule or as an independent country.

The dispute over the land has claimed the lives of tens of thousands of people over the past three decades, although outbreaks of sporadic violence did seem to have eased in recent years.

In 2019, a suicide bomber in a vehicle killed 40 paramilitary soldiers in a military convoy, which brought the two countries close to war.

Follow The World podcast
Follow The World podcast

Listen to The World with Richard Engel and Yalda Hakim every Wednesday

Tap to follow

Read more from Sky News:
A ‘barbaric’ 24 hours in the ‘horrendous’ Russia-Ukraine war
There are signs the world is losing faith in the dollar

Before that, there was the Mumbai terror attack in 2008 and in 1999, the 10-week-long Kargil War.

The conflict began after Pakistan’s military covertly occupied Indian posts across the line of control (LoC) in the Kargil region.

At least 1,000 combatants were killed on both sides. The fighting stopped after Pakistan asked then US president Bill Clinton to help de-escalate the conflict.

Continue Reading

World

‘Cheap ceasefire’ between Ukraine and Russia would create ‘expensive peace’ for Europe, Norway’s foreign minister warns

Published

on

By

'Cheap ceasefire' between Ukraine and Russia would create 'expensive peace' for Europe, Norway's foreign minister warns

A “cheap ceasefire” between Ukraine and Russia – with Kyiv forced to surrender land – would create an “expensive peace” for the whole of Europe, Norway’s foreign minister has warned.

Espen Barth Eide explained this could mean security challenges for generations, with the continent’s whole future “on the line”.

It was why Ukraine, its European allies and the US should seek to agree a common position when trying to secure a settlement with Vladimir Putin, the top Norwegian diplomat told Sky News in an interview during a visit to London on Tuesday.

Ukraine war latest: Trump says Putin has upper hand in peace talks

“I very much hope that we will have peace in Ukraine and nobody wants that more than the Ukrainians themselves,” Mr Eide said.

“But I am worried that we might push this to what in quotation marks is a ‘cheap ceasefire’, which will lead to a very expensive peace.”

Explaining what he meant, Mr Eide said a post-war era follows every conflict – big or small.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Inside Ukraine’s underground military HQ

How that plays out typically depends upon the conditions under which the fighting stopped.

“If you are not careful, you will lock in certain things that it will be hard to overcome,” he said.

“So if we leave with deep uncertainties, or if we allow a kind of a new Yalta, a new Iron Curtain, to descend on Europe as we come to peace in Ukraine, that’s problematic for the whole of Europe. So our future is very much on the line here.”

He said this mattered most for Ukrainians – but the outcome of the war will also affect the future of his country, the UK and the rest of the continent.

“This has to be taken more seriously… It’s a conflict in Europe, it has global consequences, but it’s fundamentally a war in our continent and the way it’s solved matters to our coming generations,” the Norwegian foreign minister said.

Russia ‘will know very well how to exploit vagueness’

Asked what he meant by a cheap ceasefire, he said: “If Ukraine is forced to give up territory that it currently militarily holds, I think that would be very problematic.

“If restrictions are imposed on future sovereignty. If there’s vagueness on what was actually agreed that can be exploited. I think our Russian neighbours will know very well how to exploit that vagueness in order to keep a small flame burning to annoy us in the future.”

Progress being made on peace talks

Referring to the latest round of peace talks, initiated by Donald Trump, Mr Eide signalled that progress was being made from an initial 28-point peace plan proposed a couple of weeks ago by the United States that favoured Moscow over Kyiv.

That document included a requirement for the Ukrainian side to give up territory it still holds in eastern Ukraine to Russia and Mr Eide described it as “problematic in many aspects”.

But he said: “I think we’ve now had a good conversation between Ukraine, leading European countries and the US on how to adapt and develop that into something which might be a good platform for Ukraine and its allies to go to Russia with.

“We still don’t know the Russian response, but what I do know is the more we are in agreement as the West, the better Ukraine will stand.”

Continue Reading

World

Lithuania declares state of emergency over Belarus balloons

Published

on

By

Lithuania declares state of emergency over Belarus balloons

Lithuania has declared a state of emergency over smuggler balloons from Belarus that have disrupted aviation.

Vilnius airport has been closed because of the balloons, which Lithuania says have been sent by smugglers transporting cigarettes in recent weeks.

It also says they constitutes a “hybrid attack” by Belarus, which is a close ally of Russia.

Lithuania is a NATO member and ally to Ukraine during its fight against Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022.

On Tuesday Lithuania’s interior minister Vladislav Kondratovic told a government meeting: “The state of emergency is announced not only due to civil aviation disruptions but also due to interests of national security.”

Mr Kondratovic added that the Lithuanian government had asked parliament to grant the military powers to act with police, border guards and security forces during the state of emergency.

Should parliament agree, the army will be given permission to limit access to territory, stop and search vehicles, perform checks on people, their documents and belongings, and to detain those resisting or suspected of crimes.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen described the balloon incursions as "completely unacceptable". Pic: AP
Image:
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen described the balloon incursions as “completely unacceptable”. Pic: AP

Lithuania’s defence minister Robert Kaunas said the military would be permitted to use force for these functions.

Belarus has denied responsibility and accused Lithuania of provocations.

This includes sending a drone to drop “extremist material”, which Lithuania denies.

Read more:
Belarus opposition leader Siarhei Tsikhanouski freed from jail
Russia’s ‘hybrid attacks’ against NATO ‘look like war’

The emergency measures in Lithuania will last until the government calls them off.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said on 1 December the situation at the border was worsening.

She described the balloon incursions a “hybrid attack” by Belarus, and branded it “completely unacceptable”.

Continue Reading

World

Ukraine war: The signs Putin is expecting more conflict, not less – and the frank conversation Keir Starmer needs to have

Published

on

By

Ukraine war: The signs Putin is expecting more conflict, not less - and the frank conversation Keir Starmer needs to have

With more than a thousand troops being killed or wounded every day, there’s no sign that Donald Trump’s push to end Russia’s war in Ukraine is reducing the battles on the ground.

Quite the opposite.

Ukraine‘s military chief says Vladimir Putin is instead using the US president‘s focus on peace negotiations as “cover” while Russian soldiers attempt to seize more land.

That means much greater pressure on the Ukrainian frontline, even as Russian and American, or American and Ukrainian, or Ukrainian and European, leaders shake hands and smile for cameras before retreating behind closed doors in Moscow, Alaska, and London.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

This was not an upbeat meeting of Ukraine and its allies

Putin’s not counting on peace

The lack of any indicators that the Kremlin is looking to slow its military machine down also makes the risk of war spreading beyond Ukraine’s borders increasingly likely.

It takes a huge amount of effort, time, and money to put a country on a war footing as Putin has done, partially mobilising his population, allocating huge portions of government spending to the military and realigning Russia’s vast industrial base to produce weapons and ammunition.

Putin has been in India to shore up support from Narendra Modi. Pic: Reuters
Image:
Putin has been in India to shore up support from Narendra Modi. Pic: Reuters

But when the fighting stops, it requires almost as much focus and energy to switch a society back to a peace time rhythm.

Deliberately choosing not to dial defence down once the battles cease means a nation will continue to grow its armed forces and weapons stockpiles – a sure sign that it has no intention of being peaceful and is merely having a pause before going on the attack again.

The absence of any preparations by Moscow to slow the tempo of its military operations in Ukraine – where it has more than 710,000 troops deployed along a 780-mile frontline – is perhaps an indicator that Putin is anticipating more not less war.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

What is Putin trying to achieve in India?

How could the war end?

What happens next in Europe will depend on the content of any peace deal on Ukraine.

An all-out Russian defeat is all but impossible to conceive without a significant change of heart by the Trump White House and a massive increase in weapons and support.

The next best result for Ukraine would be a settlement that seeks to strike a fair balance between the warring sides and their conflicting objectives.

This could be done by pausing the fighting along the current line of contact before substantive peace talks then take place, with Ukraine’s sovereignty supported by solid security guarantees from Europe and the US.

But such a move would require Europe’s NATO allies, led by the UK, France and Germany, genuinely to switch their respective militaries and populations back to a wartime footing, with a credible readiness to go to war should Moscow attempt to test their support of Ukraine.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Why Ukraine’s allies may welcome Trump walking away

Will Starmer level with the public?

That does not just mean increased spending on defence at a much faster rate – in the UK at least – than is currently planned. It is also about the mindset of a country and its willingness to take some pain.

France is already openly saying that parents may have to lose their children in a war with Russia, while Germany is requiring all 18-year-old men to undergo medical checks for possible national service.

No such tough but frank conversation is being attempted by Sir Keir Starmer with the British public.

The furthest his military chief has gone is to say “warfighting readiness” is his top priority.

But that is meaningless jargon for most of the public. Being ready for war is about so much more than what the professional armed forces can do.

Armies fight battles. Countries fight wars.

Read more:
UK unveils undersea tech
Navy chief offers chilling warning
Does Britain’s threat to Russia ring hollow?

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

New UK military technology unveiled

Worst case scenario?

The other alternative when it comes to Ukraine is a scenario that sees a sidelined Europe unable to influence the outcome of the negotiations and Kyiv forced to agree to terms that favour Moscow.

This would include the surrender of land in the Donbas that is still under Ukrainian control.

Such a deal – even if tolerated by Ukraine, which is unimaginable without serious unrest – would likely only mean a temporary halt in hostilities until Putin or whoever succeeds him decides to try again to take the rest of Ukraine, or maybe even test NATO’s borders by moving against the Baltic States.

With Trump’s new national security strategy making clear the US would only intervene to defend Europe if such a move is in America’s interests, it is no longer certain that the guarantees contained in NATO’s founding Article 5 principle – that an attack on one member state is an attack on all – can be relied upon.

To have a sense of how a war with Russia might play out without the US on NATO’s side, Sky News and Tortoise ran a wargame that simulates a Russian attack on the UK.

In the scenario, Washington does not come to Britain’s defences, which leaves the British side with very few options to respond short of a nuclear strike.

👉Search for The Wargame on your podcast app👈

Continue Reading

Trending