Pakistan And India Say Civilians Killed After India Fires Missiles Into Pakistani Territory

On the morning of May 7, Pakistan reported that missile strikes by Indian armed forces resulted in the deaths of eight civilians. Islamabad labeled the assault as a “blatant act of war,” escalating already intense hostilities between the two nuclear-armed neighbors.

This incident marks the most serious conflict between India and Pakistan in over 20 years. It follows a deadly attack in Indian-administered Kashmir last month, where 26 Hindu pilgrims were killed. India blamed Pakistan-based militant groups for the incident, a claim that Pakistan has strongly denied.

India stated that it had targeted nine locations across Pakistan that it described as “terrorist infrastructure” allegedly used to coordinate attacks against India.

India also reported civilian casualties on its side, accusing Pakistani forces of indiscriminate shelling across the Line of Control—the de facto border in Kashmir, a region long disputed by both nations. According to the Indian military, three civilians died in the shelling. The army added that its response was “proportionate.”

Lieutenant General Ahmad Sharif, spokesperson for Pakistan’s Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR), said during a press briefing that Indian missiles hit six locations, causing eight deaths, 35 injuries, and leaving eight people unaccounted for. He noted that Pakistan would respond but did not take questions. He did not confirm reports of Indian aircraft being shot down. However, Information Minister Attaullah Tarar later claimed on social media platform X that Pakistan had downed three Indian jets and a drone.

In response to the situation, Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif convened an emergency session of the National Security Committee. Meanwhile, Punjab Province Chief Minister Maryam Nawaz declared a state of emergency. Schools and universities were ordered shut, and security personnel were placed on high alert. All doctors on leave were recalled.

Pakistan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs warned that the Indian strikes posed risks to international air travel, prompting the temporary closure of Lahore and Islamabad airports for 48 hours.

The Indian military referred to the operation as Operation Sindoor, claiming that its actions were “focused, measured, and non-escalatory.” The Indian statement clarified that no Pakistani military sites were targeted and emphasized India’s restraint in both selecting its targets and executing the operation.

According to the ISPR, Indian missiles struck Muzaffarabad and Kotli in Pakistan-administered Kashmir, as well as Bahawalpur in Punjab. Bahawalpur and Muridke are reportedly known strongholds for banned militant groups such as Jaish-e-Muhammad and Lashkar-e-Jhangvi.

The military action prompted alarm in the international community. U.S. President Donald Trump expressed concern and urged for a quick end to hostilities. UN Secretary-General António Guterres also appealed for restraint, warning that a conflict between India and Pakistan could have catastrophic global consequences.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio contacted Pakistani National Security Adviser Lt. Gen. Asim Malik, who also heads Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), to discuss the situation. Rubio also spoke with his Indian counterpart and stressed the need to reopen diplomatic communication between the two governments to avoid further escalation.

News said that tensions have significantly risen following the attack on Hindu pilgrims. Hassan Abbas, an international relations expert at the Near East South Asia Center for Strategic Studies, cautioned both countries against rushing to judgment. He criticized Pakistan for labeling the incident a false-flag operation without an investigation, and India for assigning blame prematurely.

“We need the courage to seek cooperation rather than confrontation,” Abbas said. “In a region already struggling with poverty and climate threats, war is a burden neither side can bear.”

Hussain Haqqani, former Pakistani ambassador to the U.S., noted that internal politics in both countries push leaders toward nationalistic rhetoric. He suggested that while limited military responses may satisfy domestic audiences, continued retaliation could spiral out of control. “If each strike leads to another, it becomes harder to de-escalate,” he warned.

Although both nations see strong public support for military action, Haqqani emphasized that civilians would suffer most, particularly as the economic fallout grows.

Tauseef Ahmad Khan, academic and former head of Mass Communication at Federal Urdu University, argued that this conflict stirs artificial nationalism. “The 1.5 billion people in this region, many of them impoverished, are the real victims,” he said.

Khan also criticized political narratives on both sides. He claimed that Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party aims to replace secularism with a Hindu nationalist agenda. Meanwhile, he said Pakistani media is manipulated by the country’s powerful security establishment to promote anti-democratic narratives.

“Indian media reflects the ideology of Hindutva, while Pakistani media is shaped by the deep state,” Khan said. “There’s hardly any space left for rational discourse.”