Updated May 8, 2025 at 12:32 PM PDT
One of the largest escalations in the decades-old conflict between nuclear-armed India and Pakistan is currently unfolding. An expert on the matter says that the world seems to not be taking it seriously.
India struck multiple targets in Pakistan early Wednesday, which its military said were "terrorist infrastructure." The Indian government said the strikes were in response to an attack by gunmen that killed at least 26 tourists in India-administered Kashmir.
The Pakistani government called India's strikes "an act of war." It said the strikes and subsequent shelling killed more than 30 people. The two countries have entered multiple military conflicts since 1947, when British-ruled India was divided.
President Trump told reporters in the Oval Office this week that the strikes were "a shame" and that he hoped the fighting would end "quickly." He added that the two had fought for decades and "centuries." Pakistan was founded in 1947.
Praveen Donthi, a senior analyst for the International Crisis Group, told Morning Edition that U.S. intervention is needed in the conflict, but that the president's statement makes it sound like it is a "benign war that's been going on and [that] they're bound to stop at one point."
He said that view by the international community "carries a huge risk" because both India and Pakistan "are nuclear powers and all it takes is a miscalculation or a mistake."
Donthi spoke to NPR's Steve Inskeep about how this latest escalation compares to past fighting and what could come next.
This interview has been lightly edited for length and clarity.
Interview highlights
Steve Inskeep: NPR's Diaa Hadid reports that India struck earlier in the week. We had the impression that would be it. National security advisers talking, trying to work it out. But suddenly more strikes today. What do you make of that?
Praveen Donthi: Well, it portends a serious escalation that's going to occur in the next few days and weeks maybe. The very first round of escalation between India and Pakistan has started on a much larger scale than in the last crisis in 2019, so that's a cause for concern. And probably it was in 1971 when both the nations went to a full-fledged war that we've seen these kind of exchanges.
Inskeep: India says it's striking air defenses in Pakistan. Let's assume that's true for purposes of this question. When you strike air defenses, it is often to clear the way for hitting something else, to clear out the airspace. Is there an expectation that India could strike yet again?
Donthi: Well, they say it's an ongoing operation. They've already claimed to have hit nine sites, which they call "terror infrastructure." So more strikes could be on the way. And Pakistan is bound to retaliate and retaliate strongly because they are under immense public pressure, because this time around there have been civilian casualties, unlike the last time.
Inskeep: I want to sort through what you think India's objective is. India says it's responding to this terror attack from April, and that officials believe it was launched from Pakistani soil. That's the rationale for these strikes. But as they go on, day by day, you have to wonder, what's the end state? What are they trying to gain here?
Donthi: [India has] been in Kashmir since 2019, which has been, you know, a heavy handed security approach [that] hasn't worked, which led to this gruesome attack on April 22. India hasn't really provided any hard evidence so far, so it's been under immense public pressure to show something, do something. And India has resorted to these strikes, which seems to have placated the Indian public.
Note: Donthi is referring to when India revoked Kashmir's special status in 2019, and intensified a crackdown on residents in the Muslim-majority state.
Inskeep: I'm interested in listening to you because you told me that India may have struck partly because of public pressure to do something. And now Pakistan is under pressure to strike back in some dramatic way because of public pressure to do something.
Donthi: That's right. There have been tit-for-tat diplomatic moves followed by military strikes. And every time there seems to be a demand for a more forceful strike, we don't know what's going to come next. But this time around, it looks very serious. But the world seems to be not taking it seriously. President Trump talked about how this conflict has been going on for many decades. In fact, he said "centuries," which might make it sound like it's a benign war that's been going on and they're bound to stop at one point. But that carries a big risk, huge risk, because both are nuclear powers and all it takes is a miscalculation or a mistake. So both these powers are not completely in control of the escalation dynamics, which the world seems to believe.
Inskeep: What leverage, if any, does the United States have, if it chose to use it, to try to bring some calm?
Donthi: It's only the United States which can actually put an end to these hostilities, which it did successfully in 2019. Because power really works. You know, there have been other friendly nations from the Middle East who've been trying to mediate, but that's not going to really work unless the U.S. steps in with full sincerity.
Inskeep: Because the United States is trying to be close to India and has some historic ties with Pakistan? That's why it has to be the U.S.?
Donthi: Yeah, exactly. President Trump claimed to be close to both the powers, which we know is true, though India and the U.S. have been growing closer in the past 10 years. But there are historic ties with Pakistan as well. And ultimately, the U.S. is the superpower who can bring both the parties to the table.
The radio version of this story was edited by Adam Bearne and produced by Nia Dumas. The web version was edited by Treye Green.
Copyright 2025 NPR
