The conflict between India and Pakistan over the disputed territory of Kashmir has escalated dramatically — and the rivals are both armed with nuclear weapons. Key points: India launched air strikes in Pakistan in retaliation for a Kashmir car bombing India launched air strikes in Pakistan in retaliation for a Kashmir car bombing Pakistan responded by shooting down two Indian jets and capturing a pilot Pakistan responded by shooting down two Indian jets and capturing a pilot The two countries previously fought three wars and went to the brink on a fourth On Wednesday Pakistan's military shot down two Indian warplanes and captured an Indian pilot, raising tensions to a level not seen for decades. The attack came just hours after Pakistan accused India of firing mortar shells into its side of divided Kashmir, killing six people. The two countries have a long and complicated history, one that is not always easy to grapple with. Here's what you need to know about the situation. What's the latest? The recent tensions began with a Kashmiri militant suicide bombing of an Indian paramilitary convoy in mid-February. That attack killed 46 people, mostly Indian soldiers, making it the deadliest attack in Kashmir's volatile history. India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi warned of a "crushing response", and the country soon followed through, launching air strikes in Pakistani's territory in retaliation this week. Pakistan said its Prime Minister would "engage with global leadership to expose irresponsible Indian policy". ( Pakistan Press Information Department via AP Meanwhile, Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan gave a speech saying it would be out of both leaders' control if the situation escalated further. Both countries now say they have shot down the others' fighter jets, and Pakistan has also launched strikes on India. It has led the two countries to the brink of a dangerous war. But how did it come to this? Supporters of India's ruling Bhartiya Janata Party have celebrated the airstrike on Pakistan. ( AP: Altaf Qadri It depends who you ask. India has placed the blame squarely on Pakistan's shoulders since the deadly car bombing, saying it has "incontrovertible evidence" Pakistan was involved and that it supports the militant group that claimed responsibility. Australia's Government seems to support India's position. Foreign Minister Marise Payne released a statement condemning the attack as "horrific" and calling on Pakistan to take "urgent and meaningful action against terrorist groups in its territory". In turn, Pakistan and its supporters say Indian troops in Kashmir have repeatedly attacked and killed people protesting against India's administration in parts of the disputed territory, a position supported by the United Nations Human Rights Office. And Pakistan-born British MP Yasmin Qureshi told the House of Commons that Mr Modi had "inflamed tensions in occupied Jammu [and] Kashmir", referring to the areas in dispute. Loading The history of India and Pakistan — in a nutshell When Britain finally relinquished its colonial jewel of India in 1947, it was divided into the new nations of India and Pakistan. The countries were split down roughly religious lines, meaning India's population was dominated by Hindus and Pakistan was a majority-Muslim state. Map A map showing the contested region of Kashmir in relation to Pakistan and India. But the plan also sparked a wave of deadly religious violence and unprecedented mass migration as people rushed to join the country that represented their religion. The fate of Jammu and Kashmir — then ruled by a prince — was never officially sealed, with the prince signing over the states to India but the UN recommending an election that was never held. Pakistan and India subsequently claimed competing swathes of the territory and have fought three wars since independence, two over the disputed Himalayan region. The nations also waged a limited conflict over Kashmir in 1999, and went to the brink again in 2002 after a Pakistani militant attack on India's parliament. Who are the key players? Sorry, this video has expired Imran Khan meets with national security advisers as Indians celebrate Kashmir strike Mr Khan was only elected to the position in August 2018, sweeping to power on promises of tackling poverty and fighting corruption. Before his Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party claimed victory, he was best known outside the country for his career as a top international cricketer. Meanwhile, Mr Modi is a divisive figure whose critics accuse him and his Bharatiya Janata Party of pandering to right-wing Hindu nationalism, stoking tensions between Hindus and religious minorities in India. He's also up for re-election in May, and some analysts believe his decision to order air strikes could pay off politically. Loading But India's opposition parties have accused him of capitalising on conflict, releasing a joint statement criticising the "blatant politicisation of the sacrifices made by our armed forces". Both leaders are fierce nationalists, setting the stage for a tense standoff as they attempt to navigate an extremely tricky conflict. Could it really lead to nuclear war? Pakistan has closed its airspace entirely, forcing airlines to reroute planes around the country. ( Screenshot: Flight Radar Mr Khan has called an emergency session of Pakistan's Parliament and is consulting with his nuclear chief in the wake of the Indian air strikes. Somewhat ominously, a spokesman told a news conference "you all know what that means". World leaders, and even well-known public figures such as Pakistani activist Malala Yousafzai, are now calling for calm. In a statement posted to Twitter, she called on the two leaders to "show true leadership in this difficult time: to sit down, shake hands and settle the current conflict and longstanding issue of Kashmir through dialogue". Loading Many observers believe the two countries are now posturing, and would be unlikely to escalate the conflict much further. If the predictions are correct, it wouldn't be the first time tensions had flared and quickly extinguished. However, on both sides, citizens have been preparing for the possibility of war breaking out, with hopes that it doesn't.<doc-sep>Tensions between regional archrivals India and Pakistan have rapidly escalated after the deadliest militant attack on Indian forces in decades. Leaders of the South Asian neighbors have warned each other about potential military strikes after the Pakistan-based Jaish-e Muhammad militant group claimed responsibility for the February 14 attack that killed more than 40 soldiers in the disputed Himalayan region of Kashmir. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi warned Islamabad of a "befitting reply” after the attack, the worst during the three-decade-long insurgency in Kashmir. But Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan said his country “will not think of retaliating; we will retaliate” if attacked. Such retaliatory strikes could eventually escalate into a full-fledged war. The two nuclear-armed countries have already fought three wars and spend a large part of their national resources on maintaining two of the world’s largest militaries. While experts say a conflict is likely, whether it would escalate into a war remains a question. A conventional war has the potential to morph into a nuclear nightmare, one that could not only ruin the lives of some 1.6 billion people in India and Pakistan but have grave consequences for South Asia and beyond. Shashank Joshi, The Economist's defense editor in London, says the likelihood of an Indian military response is high given the severity of the attack and its timing months ahead of a hotly contested parliamentary election. “The risk of an Indian retaliation and a Pakistani reprisal that causes some sort of spiral, I think, is reasonably high,” he told RFE/RL’s Gandhara website. “We are in one of the most dangerous situations since 2008 -- possibly even since the major standoff that occurred after the parliament attack in 2001.” Tensions between India and Pakistan skyrocketed after New Delhi accused Pakistan-based Lashkar-e Taiba of orchestrating coordinated attacks on luxury hotels, a Jewish center, and the central train station in India’s commercial hub, Mumbai. At least 166 people were killed in the November 2008 attacks. Earlier in 2002, India and Pakistan mobilized close to 1 million troops after New Delhi accused Jaish-e Muhammad of carrying out attacks on the state assembly building in Srinagar, the summer capital of Indian-administered Kashmir, and the Indian Parliament in 2001. “The probability of military conflict is quite high,” said Christopher Clary, a South Asia expert at the University at Albany, State University of New York. “There is probably the greatest risk of such an outcome since 2001-2002.” He says the more likely scenario is one of “limited strikes” similar to the “surgical strikes” in 2016 that Modi claimed were conducted to avenge the killing of some 20 Indian soldiers in Uri, a town in Indian-administered Kashmir. Officials in Islamabad, however, denied New Delhi’s claim. Given India’s larger size, population, and economy, its forces appear bigger than those of Pakistan. India’s estimated 2.1 million active duty and reservist troops are twice those of Pakistan’s 1.1 million. The countries have a similar disparity in terms of tanks and artillery vehicles. Both countries have missiles and nuclear weapons. The Indian Air Force is larger, but many of its aircraft are aging Russian jets such as the MiG 21, while the Pakistani Air Force has modernized some of its inventory. Given India’s vast coastline, the country has a much bigger Navy compared with that of Pakistan. Joshi, however, says New Delhi will struggle to mobilize its conventional superiority on the battlefield. “It can take India weeks to bring its forces to the border to use against Pakistan, and Pakistan is in some respects more agile and move its forces to the [eastern] border with India more quickly,” Joshi noted. “The two sides are still more evenly matched than you might think from the major discrepancy in the sizes of their economy and the respective defense budgets.” Clary says that in the absence of a full-scale war between the two rivals since 1971, it is not clear whether India could easily defeat Pakistan in a major conflict. “War has changed a lot since 1971,” he said. “And the limited war in Kargil, where Pakistan had difficulty reinforcing its troops, tells us very little about the fighting ability of either country in a full-scale war.” According to Kyle Mizokami, a defense and national security writer, New Delhi envisions a major offensive against Pakistan under a doctrine called Cold Start. In January, however, Pakistan launched a short-range, nuclear-capable rocket that can hit targets within a 70-kilometer range to deter a surprise conventional attack. Clary, however, says it is improbable that a full-scale war would escalate to the nuclear level because the weapons were not deployed in two previous conflicts between the Soviet Union and China in 1969 and India and Pakistan during the limited war in Kashmir’s remote Kargil region in 1999. “In 1999, we are still debating whether India or Pakistan put nuclear forces on alert,” he told Gandhara. Joshi says the use of nuclear weapons, even low-yield tactical ones, would have a devastating impact on millions of people in northwest India and Pakistan’s eastern province of Punjab, which borders it. “The India-Pakistan border area is a fairly small place, and the fallout from any nuclear use -- given prevailing winds and climatic conditions -- would have devastating impact on both the Indian and Pakistani sides,” he said. International diplomacy has successfully prevented such scenarios. But unlike the crises in 2008 and 2001, Washington now seem less keen on de-escalating tensions between Islamabad and New Delhi. China, a neighbor and close ally of Pakistan, however, is advocating restraint. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang told journalists that Beijing hopes “Pakistan and India can exercise restraint, engage in dialogues, and realize an early ‘soft landing’ of this issue.” Clary, however, sees a limited clash on the horizon because he says that, unlike his predecessor, Modi seems to believe that re-establishing deterrence with Pakistan may be part of what a new India needs over the long run to grow and prosper. “Over the medium term, India probably can build up pressure to further isolate Pakistan economically, especially given Pakistan's likely need for international lending institutions to help it with its foreign currency situation,” he said.<doc-sep>The disputed region of Kashmir has been at the centre of tensions between India and Pakistan since both states came into being in 1947. Both claim it in full, and each controls a section of the territory. These sections are separated by one of the most heavily militarised borders in the world, known as the line of control, where there are frequent exchanges of artillery and small arms fire. The two countries have gone to war three times over Kashmir, most recently in 1999. The roots of the current escalation lie in a bomb attack by Pakistan-based militants, Jaish-e-Mohammad, on an Indian army convoy in the Indian-controlled portion of Kashmir on 14 February, which killed 40 troops. 26 February India blamed Pakistan for the bombing, and in the early hours of Tuesday it launched attacks from the furthest inside Pakistani territory since 1971, targeting with airstrikes what it claimed was a terrorist training camp. Pakistan said the Indian jets dropped bombs on a hilltop near the town of Balakot but there were no casualties, and it produced photographs to back up its claims. Pakistan’s military spokesman told India’s leaders to prepare for a “surprise”. A view of damage caused to trees in hilly terrain after Indian jets dropped bombs in the Balakot area. Photograph: AFP/Getty Images 27 February Pakistan launched strikes on the Indian side of the line of control and a dogfight ensued when Indian jets retaliated. Pakistan said two Indian jets were shot down and India said it hit one Pakistani warplane, which fell on the Pakistani side of the border. Pakistan captured an Indian pilot, identified as Wing Commander Abhi Nandan. Pakistan said it kept a safe distance from military and civilian sites and stayed on its side of the line of control when it launched its airstrikes, but India claimed Pakistan targeted a military installation. Pakistan denied losing a jet. The incidents have raised concerns of a greater escalation. Tens of thousands of Indian and Pakistani soldiers face off along the Kashmir boundary and the sides both possess nuclear weapons. Pakistan’s prime minister, Imran Khan, has appealed for talks with India, making reference to both countries’ nuclear arsenals: “With the weapons you have and the weapons we have, can we afford miscalculation? Shouldn’t we think that if this escalates, what will it lead to?” India’s prime minister, Narendra Modi, has yet to comment publicly. India has called for the pilot’s immediate return.<doc-sep>
The region of Kashmir has long been a source of conflict between India and Pakistan but the latest escalation is of particular concern because of specific internal and external factors. For India, a general election is set for the spring, making it all the more important for Prime Minister Narendra Modi to demonstrate that he is defending his country from attacks by a militant group based in Pakistan that is opposed to Indian control in Kashmir. This need was heightened by a bombing on 14 February carried out by the Jaish-e-Mohammad group that left 41 Indian paramilitary soldiers in the disputed region dead. India's decision to deploy warplanes into Pakistani airspace on Tuesday to go after what Indian officials described as a militant training camp was significant. Image: Wreckage of an Indian fighter jet Pakistan says it shot down on its side of Kashmir The aircraft flew beyond the Line of Control that divides the Indian and Pakistani controlled sides of Kashmir to launch airstrikes on Pakistani soil - something that is not known to have happened since the two countries were at war in 1971. The Pakistani response on Wednesday, with a counter strike on the Indian-controlled side of Kashmir would have been factored into the Indian calculations. However, the subsequent downing of two Indian jets, flying in response to the Pakistani offensive and the capturing of an Indian pilot raises the stakes yet further. The strange decision by the Pakistani armed forces to release video footage of the downed pilot, bloodied and blindfolded, is not only a violation of the Geneva Convention but will doubtless cause outrage in Delhi. Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player Indian air force plane crashes On the Pakistani side, this is the first significant conventional military crisis for Prime Minister Imran Khan - better known in Britain for his previous sporting career as captain of the Pakistani cricket team. His experience in such high-stakes decision-making is fledgling at best. His decision to signal publicly how he was meeting with the National Command Authority - the body charged with overseeing the deployment and management of Pakistan's nuclear weapons - was deliberate and concerning. Image: Europeans were evacuated from Kashmir by the British Army after the first post-partition conflict broke out in 1947 Pakistan, as the smaller of the two nuclear powers, has a track record of moving to active deployment and manoeuvres with nuclear weapons when dealing with India. This, as Patricia Lewis of the Chatham House think-tank pointed out to me, is what happened the last time the two countries came close to war over Kashmir in 1999. The situation now is also far more unpredictable internationally than it was back then. Image: Indian military commanders review the boundaries in Kashmir after a ceasefire ended the 1965 conflict In the 1999 confrontation - known as the Kargil conflict - intervention by Bill Clinton, the then president of the United States, was key in influencing the then Pakistani prime minister Nawaz Sharif to withdraw his forces from the Indian-administered side of Kashmir. This time around President Donald Trump has overseen a souring of relations between the United States and Pakistan, instead forging closer ties with India. This could have an impact on the ability of Washington to encourage both sides to back down. Sovereignty over Kashmir, which hugs the northern tip of India and Pakistan across the Himalayas, is divided by what is known as the Line of Control. Image: An Indian tank in Matijheel, Dhaka, in East Pakistan in 1971 But many people on the larger, Indian-administered side say they do not want to be governed by Delhi and would prefer independence or to come under Pakistan's control. India and Pakistan have fought two wars and the shorter, but still bloody, Kargil conflict over Kashmir since both countries' independence from Britain in 1947. The latest crisis is the most grave in 20 years. Britain, the United States, China and other members of the international community are working behind the scenes to try to defuse the tensions but there is little sign so far that they are having an impact.