INDIA-PAKISTAN 2025 CONFLICT
Published: July 31, 2025
This text is part of our News Breakdown weekly special series. Subscribe for more.
On 22 April 2025, 5 militants carried out a terror attack on a public tourist spot in Indian Kashmir.
They shot and killed 24 Hindu tourists, 1 Christian tourist, and 1 local Muslim.
The attack was claimed by a Pakistan-based militant group, in opposition to Hindu settlement in the Indian Kashmir.
On 7 May 2025, India launched a combination of missile and air strikes targeting “terrorist infrastructure” in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir.
The strikes, codenamed "Operation Sindoor", started a four-day conflict between the two nuclear-armed nations.
It involved mutual missile strikes, airstrikes and drone attacks, as well as border skirmishes and artillery shelling.
Both sides reported civilian casualties. Both sides claimed victory over the opponent.
Both sides actively took part in informational warfare, as misleading narratives and claims spread online.
The conflict ended on May 10, and the situation normalised, with commercial flights between India and Pakistan resuming.
In this report, we analyse the long-term consequences and lessons of the clash, including:
Did Pakistan shoot down Indian fighter jets?
Did India strike Pakistan’s military bases?
How did the geopolitical power balance shift in the region?
We also look at the most notable and interesting media angles on the event, including Indian (NDTV), Pakistani (Dawn), and Israeli (Haaretz) outlets, the latter showcasing the little-known role of Israel in the conflict.
The Daily Mirror: a UK daily left-leaning tabloid newspaper and website.
The Mirror warns that a “devastating” nuclear war could break out “at any time” as a result of Indian strikes, quoting a Pakistani official.
By highlighting the nuclear threat in the title and the top line, the Mirror is giving more importance to a relatively unlikely scenario.
This is a common tabloid tactic aimed at selling more newspapers.
The article estimates the number (125 million) of people who could be killed, citing unnamed “experts” who also apparently said that “starvation would unfold around the world”.
The lack of proper sourcing casts doubts on the accuracy of the claims.
Only in the 4th paragraph does the Mirror address what actually happened, without much detail, by reporting Pakistan’s promise to “avenge the loss of innocent Pakistani lives".
The article does not directly mention the terrorist attack in Indian-administered Kashmir.
Instead, it quotes Indian officials’ claims that the infrastructure hit by India in Pakistan was used to direct and carry out some terror attacks.
Other news coverage by the Mirror that day referred to the “escalating fears of a World War III”.
NDTV (New Delhi Television Ltd): major independent Indian news network, with a pro-government owner since 2022.
Angle: India’s strikes as a justified response to attacks by Pakistan-based terrorists.
NDTV focuses on the reasons for India’s strikes by repeatedly referring to the terrorist attack that provoked Operation Sindoor.
The title and 9 of the 10 opening paragraphs of the article refer to the attack, or the terrorists that carried it out.
However, the article fails to mention that Pakistan denied any connection to the attacksand asked for an independent investigation.
NDTV uses the words “terror” or “terrorist” over 10 times in the text.
The attack is described as “barbaric” and the “worst ever” in Indian Kashmir since 2019.
NDTV underlines the “precision” of India’s strikes, suggesting that no civilians would be hurt.
It quotes an official Indian statement describing them as “focused, measured and non-escalatory in nature”and highlighting India’s “restraint”.
The article notes that the strikes were targeted specifically at “logistical, operational, and training infrastructure”.
This contrasts with Pakistan’s claims that civilians were hit, which the article does not mention.
NDTV gives other justifications for India’s actions:
That diplomatic measures were taken before taking military action, by suspending a water-sharing treaty with Pakistan.
That Pakistan “violated the ceasefire incessantly” in the days before India’s strikes.
The only paragraph in the first 10 that does not refer to terrorism points out that Pakistan’s response to India’s strikes resulted in the killing of 3 “innocent” civilians.
The outlet shows bias by mostly ignoring Pakistan’s version of events.
Dawn: Pakistan’s newspaper of record in English, centre-left/progressive.
Angle: Pakistan’s successful response to India’s aggression.
Dawn focuses on Pakistan’s success in supposedly shooting down 5 Indian fighter jets while defending against India’s strikes.
India has confirmed the loss of at least 1 fighter jet due to “tactical errors”. We analyse this in more detail in the final section.
The article builds on the sense of Pakistan’s military superiority by citing footage on Pakistani state television of the Indian army waving a white flag at the border.
The article uses a misleading quote from a Pakistani official claiming that the Indian army had “accepted defeat”. The article refers to an unverified video that is now deleted.
The outlet also portrays Pakistan as a victim of Indian aggression, highlighting that 31 civilians were killed and 57 injured.
It quotes a minister describing them as “innocent”citizens and later as “martyrs” (people who have suffered death for defending their religion) and calling this a “cause of shame” for India.
Dawn quotes a Pakistani minister claiming that the country targeted no civilians in its counterattack.
The article only mentions the terrorist attacks that provoked India’s strikes in the 9th paragraph of the text.
Dawn misleadingly claims that US President Trump called India’s actions “a shame” while he was actually talking about the India-Pakistan conflict in general.
The article emphasises Pakistan’s calls for an independent investigation of the attacks, more than the attacks themselves.
The article strengthens the sense that Pakistan responded correctly by highlighting that the Indian jets were “only targeted after they attacked Pakistan”.
Dawn plays up Pakistan’s apparent victory by calling the downing of the jets “the most serious loss for the Indian military in decades”.
It points out that Indian authorities avoided mentioning the issue.
It quotes a minister saying the Indian media was “continuously running [made up] stories” about Pakistani aircraft losses.
The article quotes Pakistani officials emotionally criticising India’s actions but provides a limited account of India’s version.
Haaretz: Israeli daily newspaper, left-wing/liberal, often critical of the Israeli government.
Angle: the controversial role of Israeli drones in the conflict.
The article highlights Pakistan’s success in shooting down Israeli-made drones that were sent to some of its biggest cities, including Karachi and Lahore.
It quotes a Pakistani official criticising India’s “naked aggression”for which it will “pay dearly”.
Haaretz portrays the use of Israeli technology in a negative light, just as it is critical of the Israeli government’s own use of violence.
The outlet remains balanced by mentioning both sides of the story early on:
India said the strikes were provoked by a terrorist attack.
Pakistan denied any involvement in the incident.
The article describes the “suicide” drone itself, which is used by Israel, India and Azerbaijan, and has a range of up to 1,000 kilometres.
It then highlights the “close defence relationship” that has developed between India and Israel over the past two decades.
Both countries face significant threats from Islamist terror groups within and outside their borders.
Haaretz quotes an unnamed source pointing out that "there is no Israeli defence product that doesn't have components made in India – and vice versa [the other way around]”. This claim is an exaggeration.
This industrial collaboration, as well as the conflict in Gaza, has brought India and Israel closer together.
Post factum
Both India and Pakistan tried to claim victory, but there was no clear winner in military terms, and the result was effectively a draw.
India’s successes:
India hit some of Pakistan’s military infrastructure and airfields, proving its ability to do so. Pakistan is reportedly now purchasing China’s latest air defence systems.
India managed to hit some terrorist-linked locations in Pakistan. This allows India to claim victory in the eyes of some Hindu-nationalist voters.
India carried out strikes deeper into Pakistani territory than in previous conflicts, pushing the diplomatic boundary of what is a proportional response to a terror attack on its territory.
India was able to intercept Pakistan’s missiles aimed at its military infrastructure, such as over the Sirsa airbase.
Pakistan’s successes:
Diplomatic victory: international media coverage of the conflict generally discussed India and Pakistan as equals, which counters India’s official view of Pakistan as a terrorist-sponsoring “rogue” state.
Drone strikes: while India successfully intercepted most of Pakistan’s drones, this conflict marked their first mass use with some limited success.
Fighter jets downed: major military success for Pakistan came as India lost 1 to 6 fighter jets, including at least 1 modern French-made Rafale jet.
Initially, the loss of the fighter jets was attributed to the strength of Chinese-supplied J-10 fighter jets, air-to-air and surface-to-air missiles.
However, it is now also known that India’s military command made a tactical mistake: the airstrikes on day 1 targeted terrorist-linked infrastructure directly, instead of Pakistan’s air defence systems.
Potential reason: India wrongly assumed that Pakistan would not risk escalation by shooting down an Indian jet before it crosses into Pakistani territory.
India adjusted its tactic and in the later days of the conflict successfully hit sensitive targets in Pakistan without suffering more losses.
What are the global consequences of a Rafale being shot down?
Chinese arms boosted: the event, and conflict overall are seen as a win for China in the global arms trade, as Chinese-made weapons are combat-tested and improve their reputation.
Fighter jet competition: India is now looking to speed up its fighter jet fleet modernisation, looking to buy a 5th generation jet, such as the US-made F-35 or Russian Su-57, which India used to co-develop before leaving the program over quality concerns.
India-China relations: long-present tensions increase as China confirms its close ties with Pakistan after the conflict.
Thank you for reading!
Author Benedict Mander
Editor Anton Kutuzov
Some further reading:
Conflict Between India and Pakistan (CFR: Global Conflict Tracker)
How did Pakistan shoot down India’s fighter jets? (The Economist)
“Truth is the casualty”: How Indian fact-checkers debunked false claims during the India-Pakistan crisis (Reuters Institute, Oxford Univeristy)
Please share some feedback about News Breakdown with us…