Front Burner - Dozens dead as India and Pakistan clash

Episode Date: May 9, 2025

Dozens have died this week as military tensions escalate between India and Pakistan over the disputed region of Kashmir. India fired missiles into Pakistan-controlled territory in what it says is retaliation for a militant attack on a tourist town in Indian territory in April.The Kashmir region has long been the source of violent conflict between India and Pakistan. But there are concerns that this latest flare-up could lead to a much bigger conflict between the two nuclear powers.Salimah Shivji, CBC's South Asia bureau chief, explains what's been happening this week and where it could go next.For transcripts of Front Burner, please visit: https://www.cbc.ca/radio/frontburner/transcripts

Canadians have plenty of reasons to pay attention right now, but not everyone has a daily news habit. So if you're hoping to build one, we're here to make that really easy. I'm Marcia Young. I'm John Northcott and we host World Report. Give us 10 minutes every morning and we'll give you the biggest stories happening in Canada and around the globe. Whether you're tracking Trump's latest tariff threats, election season in Canada, or how the war in Ukraine is changing, we'll help you understand what's going on. You can find and follow World Report wherever you get your podcasts. This is a CBC podcast.

Hi, I'm Jamie Prosson. Towards the end of the week, the worrying escalations from two nuclear powers, India and Pakistan, continued to roil. There were reports Thursday of heavy shelling overnight from both sides. That followed a day of violence on Wednesday, after India launched a series of airstrikes into Pakistan and Pakistan-run Kashmir. Dozens of people were killed. The eruption of violence has all been in response to a militant attack in April in Pahelgaon, a hillside town in India-run Kashmir that killed at least 26 people,

a hillside town in India-run Kashmir that killed at least 26 people, mostly Indian tourists. India has accused Pakistan of being behind it. Kashmir is one of the most contested pieces of land in the world. India and Pakistan have made historical claims to it and fought wars over it before. There is a real worry here that the latest round of violence could be the start of another one. So today I'm talking to the CBC South Asia Bureau Chief Salima Shivji out of Mumbai to understand how we got here. Salima, hey, it's good to have you. My pleasure to be here.

So this all started because of a militant attack in Pahalgam, right right? A town in India administered Kashmir on April 22nd. And this is the attack that the Indian government blames on Pakistan and Pakistan denies. And can you just take me through what happened? Yeah, so it was a pretty major militant attack, the deadliest attack against civilians in more than two decades in Indian controlled Kashmir. Obviously, that's a contested area, which is used to violence, but still this attack

took many Indian security officials by surprise. Several militant gunmen targeted a group of tourists and it was really the chilling details of the attacks that we heard from survivors that shocked and angered so many people in India when they, when they heard those details and the survivors were widows of the victims, right? Explaining that the attackers singled out Hindu men and shot them at really close range, often in the head, 26 men were killed. So those details, I think really resonated and shocked a lot of people in

the country. So those details, I think, really resonated and shocked a lot of people in the country. I understand Pakistan called for a neutral investigation into what happened and just what is happening with that right now? Well, there's nothing really happening with the neutral investigation. It was floated by Pakistan in the midst of their strong denials of involvement because basically what happened was the Indian police immediately identified three gunmen, they released sketches, they claimed two of those gunmen were Pakistani nationals. There was a massive manhunt underway, the gunmen have not been caught yet.

And India since then, since the attack, which is more than two weeks ago now, has consistently blamed Pakistan for it, right? Saying that New Delhi believes Pakistan has linkages to the shooting, which India calls a terrorist massacre. India's spirit will never be broken by terrorism. And Pakistan denied it was involved and repeatedly denied it was involved in any way in the attack. Our eastern neighbor continues a pattern of exploitation, leveling, baseless allegations. And then called for this neutral investigation to see who was behind it.

Now India believes that Pakistan was backing the militants and just in the larger context, New Delhi has long said that Pakistan fuels terrorism and insurgency in the area, really supporting attacks to destabilize the region. That's a pretty common refrain that we get from New Delhi and one, of course, that Islamabad denies repeatedly. Okay, and just the attack in Pahelgaon, it has sparked just a range of emotion in India, right?

And just tell me more about how charged the discourses around the militant attack, both from Indian politicians, but also in Indian news media and people that you've talked to. Yeah, you said it's really charged. It really is. There's been a lot of visceral anger, I'd say, in the country, in the wake of the attack, really because of the cold-blooded nature of the attack.

I talked about those details, that the men were shot at close range, Hindu men were singled out. So that has really struck a chord, especially with the religious connotation of the attack. We saw protests erupting right after the shooting, effigies burned, Pakistan flags burned, because many Indians in the

country, you know, are listening to their government and also hearing that New Delhi blames Pakistan, even though Pakistan has denied it. So a lot of Indians were really calling for their neighbor Pakistan, which there's a lot of hatred towards Pakistan here. They were calling for Pakistan to be bombed as punishment, as vengeance, you know? And what's interesting is, you know, there was so much focus on the widows, the survivors of this. There was one photo in particular that I remember. It was a newlywed and you saw her sitting like really sort of listlessly behind her,

beside her husband's dead body. And that photo made the rounds. It really galvanized the sore and the anger in the country and became a bit of a signal. I just want the entire nation to praise for him, that wherever he is, he's in peace, he's healthy, and he's at peace. That's the only thing that I want. There is one more thing that I want. I do not want any hatred towards anybody. This is what is happening. People going against Muslims or Kashmiris, we don't want any hatred towards anybody. This is what is happening. People going against Muslims or Kashmiris, we don't want this. We want peace and only peace.

And then we heard from the Prime Minister of India as well, Narendra Modi, and he had so many harsh words condemning the attack. He spoke in English at a rally, which is really unusual for Modi. He usually speaks in Hindi, but he really wanted the message that he was giving to be heard far and wide. And basically he was saying, India will identify, track and punish every terrorist and their backckons. We will pursue them to the ends of the earth." And so that rhetoric, I would say, really reached a fever pitch in the newspapers as well, right? Not surprisingly.

So, and we see that continuing to now, right? The morning after the missile strikes that you mentioned. continuing to now, right? The morning after the missile strikes that you mentioned. Just after midnight, Pakistan's peace shattered. A wave of Indian missiles lighting up the sky and rocking the nation. India says it was preempting planned terror attacks, but has provided no evidence of that claim. Among the more than two dozen killed in Tuesday night's air raid were children.

Mosques were damaged and angered Pakistan has already vowed to respond. Of course, the headlines were consistent on that one too, right? There was one that said justice, one said valor, one said payback. Another wrote that India has avenged, spilled blood. There's even large billboards up here in Mumbai congratulating Narendra Modi on the military operation. There's one that's giant and it shows him in army fatigues and dark sunglasses. There's another where he's dressed as a fighter pilot. So a really a lot of focus on this attack and on the military strikes that followed.

Yeah. I understand that the Indian military response, the operation is being called Operation Sindor. And just like, what does that mean? What's the symbolism behind that? Yeah, it's really symbolic, Jamie. Sindor is vermilion powder. So it's the red powder that married Hindu women wear. And they put it in their hair parts or on their foreheads.

It's a sign that you're married and it's wiped off when they're widowed. So it's such a strong symbol here in India of the pain caused by the militant attack. And so in that billboard, I was mentioning that the red powder is there as well. Sindhore is on that billboard. It's also a very Hindu symbol.

So calling this Operation Sindor can be also seen as a signal from Modi's Hindu nationalist government to his base, you know, that he heard their calls for justice, their anger at this attack. So in the midst of these escalating tensions after the militant attack, India decided to suspend the Indus Waters Treaty, which, as I understand it, allowed water from India to flow to Pakistan. Any attempt to stop or divert the flow of water belonging to

Pakistan as per the Indus Water Treaty will be considered as an act of war. And what kind of impact could this have? You know I understand it's quite significant. It's a big it's definitely a big deal so the treaty divides rivers the Indus and its tributaries and really regulates how river water is shared between the two countries who are, you know, so close geographically connected and yet so far ideologically. So Pakistan downstream desperately needs the water from three western rivers that India controls the flow of and Pakistan needs that for about 80 percent of its agricultural output, a third of

its hydro power. So it's a big deal to them. Pausing the treaty, basically it's been put in abeyance. That's what India has done. So that's caused a lot of fear in Pakistan, especially after Modi commented just a few days ago, essentially saying that India's water used to go outside, it used to leave India, but it will now flow for India. So those comments triggered even more panic in Pakistan as well.

So the move is a big escalation. Basically, this is an important treaty. It's not been touched even during the three previous wars that India and Pakistan have fought. So when you're suspending it, what does that mean? Symbolically, it's huge. But practically, you said what kind of impact could it have? Practically, India doesn't currently have the infrastructure to divert the rivers, nor does it have the capacity to store massive amounts of water just to deprive Pakistan

downstream. So they can't really do anything with it yet, but even just suspending it is a punishing tactic. It's just not concrete yet. Right. And then in turn, Pakistan threatened to pull out of the Shimla agreement, a peace accord that was signed in 1972 after the creation of Bangladesh. And why is that important for us to know? Yeah. So again, it's a big symbolic threat. The Shimla agreement was signed back in the

seventies, like you said, after the war that India and Pakistan have fought, it basically freezes the line of control. So that's the contentious and heavily fortified border between Pakistan and India basically dividing Indian controlled Kashmir from Pakistan controlled Kashmir. So it freezes that line of control. The agreement basically ensures that no side can change the line unilaterally. So threatening to get rid of it ensures that no side can change the line unilaterally. So threatening to get rid of it just ramps everything up a whole other few notches and creates a whole other set of problems,

especially with what we're seeing now. We're seeing gunfire and artillery exchanged along the line of control. So that if that line becomes blurry and moves, then there's the potential for a lot more violence along that line. Already India says 16 people living along the de facto border have been killed in that heavy exchange of gunfire after the military strikes.

So it's a big potential for violence. Have you ever finished a book and just needed to talk about it immediately? Or wanted to know the wildest research an author has done for a book? Or even what Book Talk books are actually worth your time? Hi, I'm Morgan Book. Yes, that is actually my last name. And this is Off the Shelf, my new podcast that covers everything related to books. Each Thursday I chat with other bookworms and authors, or sometimes it's just me rambling

about my latest book obsession. From book-to-screen updates to hot takes on new releases, and of course, our monthly book club discussions, I've got you covered. So get your TBR list ready and listen to Off the Shelf wherever you get your podcasts. I know you've talked a little bit about some of it, and we mentioned some in the intro,

but just tell me a little bit more about what we've seen this week in terms of escalating violence. You and I are talking just before 9 p.m., your time in Mumbai on Thursday. Mm-hmm. Yeah. So the military actions, it's important to say that it's already more aggressive than what we've seen in previous times when tensions have flared up between India and Pakistan. We saw an escalation in 2019, we saw one in 2016. This is already more than what we saw those two previous times. So it's a major escalation and you know when India hit Pakistan with those missile

strikes targeting those nine locations, Delhi claimed that those were what they call terrorist training camps. But Pakistan says the strikes killed more than two dozen people, including children. India keeps stressing that the military operation was measured, non-ascalatory, proportionate and responsible. They focused on dismantling the terrorist infrastructure and disabling terrorists likely to be sent across to India. And then you for Pakistan calling it a cowardly act of war and they're promising that they'll strike back with corresponding action with whatever is needed to match India's strikes.

Pakistan reserves the right and will respond to this aggression at a time, place and means of our own choice. And since then, you mentioned this as well, the tensions have stayed high, right? We've had heavy exchanges of gunfire overnight, last night along the contested border. India hit Pakistan's air defenses today, and Pakistan is claiming that it shot down

numerous drones, number is like 25. They also during the initial strikes overnight and Wednesday, Pakistan said they shot down several Indian fighter jets, which claimed that Delhi refused to confirm. So there's this all of this back and forth, there's you know heavy exchanges of gunfire that and the potential for more along the line of control and the very real possibility that Pakistan will feel the need to retaliate further, to respond. Salima, we've got this horrible militant attack that India blames on Pakistan and Pakistan denies. We now have these violent eruptions that are worse than the violent eruptions that we've

seen in 2016-2019, right? And I just wonder if what we could do now is take a step back to better understand the tension surrounding the contested region of Kashmir here, which is at the center of this. So India and Pakistan have fought multiple wars over it. Whenever there is violence between them, Kashmir is usually at the center of it, right? And so why does it continue to be a powder keg between these two countries? Well, yeah, each country lays claim to Kashmir. They both want it and each of them considers the region

in the Himalayas as an essential part of their identity. I think that's what's important here. They both think it's extremely essential to their country, but each only controls parts of it. And also important to say that China administers a section as well to the east, a much smaller section of Kashmir. But basically this has been a division, a rift, and a long-standing tension that goes all the way back to partition in 1947, when British India was split and the former colonial power was split along religious lines.

Then became India, which was secular and predominantly Hindu, and Pakistan, which formed an Islamic republic. And Kashmir's population is majority Muslim, but it's Maharaja at the time of partition chose to join India. And so this is where all of this tension stems from. It's really created so much animosity and that animosity has endured for decades.

It's been nearly 80 years that these two countries have been fighting over Kashmir and it's really strategic region, right? It's strategic. It's beautiful. It's rich in resources and it's sandwiched between all of these regional powers. So it's a real flash point. Indian controlled Kashmir has seen armed insurgency basically resisting Delhi's

rule for decades, ever since 1989. And tens of thousands of people have died in those ensuing decades. And India accuses Pakistan of fostering that unrest and backing militants. Again, a claim that Islamabad denies. And that's basically the root of this flaring up of the conflict once again, is that blame going back and forth. I also know that there's like a budding independence movement

on the ground. Yeah. Home to many that desire Kashmiris to have full independence. And what's the state of that movement today? How does that fit into the conversation that we're having? Yeah, it's very much a fact there. There are many in Kashmir who are either resentful of

India's role, you know, on the Indian administered side, and some want to join Pakistan, but others wish for full independence. But that is really not something that would ever be entertained by either Pakistan or India. Really, each of them want Kashmir in full, you know, there have been calls for a referendum way back when to be held in the region, but neither country would really like that, would really like to hear from what Kashmiris want. We talked about how this time is different in that

the violence is more intense than what we saw in 2016 and 2019. In both cases, the fighting didn't spiral into an all-out war in those years. Is there anything else that makes this time different? Um, yeah, I think it is. I mean, the flare-ups are nothing new. Obviously they're, this one is different. Like we mentioned, it's, it's really quite aggressive. But now things are a little bit different because of those previous skirmishes, I would say.

There was always a sense that in 2019, that the Indian response of strikes on Pakistan was like a warning, basically, look to what you're doing is what India was trying to say, take care of the terrorism that Delhi sees as being fostered in Pakistan. So that was sort of the impetus for 2019, and then it was like, okay, we're done, we can move on, and the tensions were dialed down.

In this case, it sort of feels, I think, and there's a push on the ground in India, that that didn't work. It didn't deter Pakistan. So perhaps we need to go bigger this time around. So that is one thing on the Indian side, I would say. Another is that what's different is that the world is different. I think there's a lot more war rhetoric thrown around.

There's a lot more conflict thrown around. There's a lot of focus on both countries here on the need to respond, the need to retaliate. So I would say that is what's different here. The international community is obviously calling for a dial down, for de-escalation, but the world is also a little bit distracted. Right, but these are still two nuclear powers. So I do imagine that much of the international community

is deeply concerned about this, right? Yeah, and we're seeing signs of that all around, ever since the militant attack two weeks ago, right? The international community has been calling for comment and really speaking in a common clear voice We've heard these the same message from the United States as we've heard from China as we've heard from the United Kingdom Numerous other countries the United Nations everybody really calling for calm in this situation Pushing India and Pakistan to de-escalate the situation and to dial it back

I want to see it stop and if I can can do anything to help, I will be there. We are engaging urgently with both countries, as well as other international partners, encouraging dialogue, de-escalation, and the protection of civilians. The EU recalls the need for a negotiated, mutually agreed, and lasting peaceful solution to the conflict.

Because there is very much, like you said, an awareness that this is a volatile situation. It's unpredictable and each side could easily be drawn into escalation when you look at that need that each side sometimes feels to retaliate. We talked about what's different as well. The United States' role in this is quite different. So I think when people look around

at the international community, there's a question as to who could help both India and Pakistan dial it down and dial down the tensions. There's not sort of a natural leader as much as there used to be in 2019. The United States is no longer the same type of player as they were on the world stage. Multilateralism is a lot weaker than it used to be, but also the US is a lot more closer to India than it was even five years ago when

the previous strikes happened, right? At the time, the United States was still quite friendly with Pakistan, obviously because of the situation in Afghanistan, a neighboring country. So the role of the United States has shifted somebody, that is a country that would have naturally been somebody that the world would look to, to sort of play an arbitration role in all of this and to speak to both sides. We are seeing them doing that.

You know, we heard from Secretary of State Marco Rubio saying that he spoke to both parties and that we're calling for calm. We heard Donald Trump talk about it as well, but is there a strong international voice to sort of help this situation become a little bit more calm? I think that's a question for that. A lot of people are asking right now. Yeah. Really concerning stuff, especially considering how quickly this

could spiral out of control. Salima, thank you very much. You're welcome. ["Spring Day in the City"] All right, that is all for today. Frontburner was produced this week by Matthew Omha, Matt Muse, Ali James, Joytha Shengupta, Lauren Donnelly, and Mackenzie Cameron.

Our video producer is Evan Agard, and our YouTube producer is John Lee. Our music is by Joseph Shabason. Our senior producer is Elaine Chao. Our executive producer is Nick McCabe-Locos, and I'm Jamie Poisson. Thanks so much for listening, and we'll talk to cbc.ca slash podcasts.