In a tit-for-tat response to rising tensions, Pakistan on Saturday banned Indian-flagged vessels from its ports following a deadly attack in Indian-administered Kashmir.
According to a directive issued later in the day by the Ministry of Maritime Affairs’ Ports and Shipping Wing, “In order to safeguard Pakistan’s maritime sovereignty, economic interests, and national security, the Indian-flagged vessels will not be permitted to visit any Pakistani port; Pakistani-flagged vessels shall not visit any Indian port.”
India’s sweeping actions on Saturday—including halting trade, mail service, and port access, banning imports, and restricting port visits—prompted Pakistan’s reciprocal move.
Tensions between the two nuclear-armed neighbors escalated sharply following the April 22 terror attack in Pahalgam, which killed 26 people, most of them tourists.
Reciprocal measures taken by both sides
Following the Pahalgam attack, India promptly blamed Pakistan and undertook a series of unilateral steps, including suspending the Indus Waters Treaty, closing the Atari border, canceling visas for Pakistani nationals, and downgrading diplomatic ties.
In retaliation, Pakistan closed its airspace to Indian carriers, shut the Wagah border crossing, halted bilateral trade, revoked visas for Indian citizens, and warned it could withdraw from the Shimla Agreement.
Amid these escalating tensions, both countries placed their armed forces on high alert. The situation remains tense, with both sides closely monitoring each other’s military movements and raising fears of potential conflict.
Pakistan’s military announced Saturday that it had successfully carried out a training launch of a surface-to-surface Abdali ballistic missile with a range of 450 kilometers (about 280 miles).
According to the Pakistan Armed Forces’ media wing, Inter-Services Public Relations, the launch was conducted to assess operational readiness and validate the missile’s advanced navigation system and improved maneuverability.
The test, carried out by Pakistan Army strategic command forces, coincided with Islamabad’s warnings of a potential Indian strike, citing what it called “credible intelligence.”
Indian media outlet The Hindu reported that India viewed the missile launch as a “blatant” act of “provocation.”
Meanwhile, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi granted “complete operational freedom” to the military. Pakistan, in turn, claimed to have “credible evidence” of a possible Indian strike and vowed to respond forcefully.
Pakistan calls for impartial investigation
Pakistan condemned the loss of life in Kashmir, rejected terrorism in all its forms, and called for an impartial international investigation. India has not responded to the offer.
India’s suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty—a linchpin of bilateral cooperation—drew a strong warning from Pakistan, which views any disruption to its water supply as a national security threat. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif warned that such a move could be considered an act of war.
The treaty, brokered by the World Bank in 1960, allocates river rights between the two countries and prohibits unilateral changes. As a downstream state, Pakistan argues that any diversion of river flow would violate international law, deepening mistrust.
Kashmir remains the core dispute between India and Pakistan, having triggered three wars and repeated skirmishes since 1947. A limited conflict in Kargil in 1999 highlighted the risk of nuclear escalation, underscoring the urgent need for diplomacy and restraint.
In the wake of the Pahalgam attack, Pakistan launched a diplomatic campaign to ease tensions. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif sought mediation from Gulf allies, including Qatar, while Deputy Prime Minister Ishaq Dar consulted with leaders in Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and China. Islamabad also reached out to the US, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio urging restraint.
Pakistan’s ambassador to the US, Rizwan Saeed Sheikh, called on Washington to move beyond crisis management and support a lasting resolution to the Kashmir conflict.
In an interview with Fox News, Sheikh said recurring crises would persist unless the root causes were addressed. He added that President Trump could secure a legacy by resolving the issue, especially in light of the recent attack.
Federal Information Minister Atta Ullah Tarar told The Media Line that India remains a “cunning adversary” and the threat of an attack has not yet passed.
“Pakistan is fully prepared to respond to any acts of aggression,” he said. “If India attempts to take aggressive action, it will not be met with a light response, but with a firm and decisive countermeasure.”
On April 29, Tarar claimed that Islamabad had “credible intelligence” suggesting India might launch a military strike within 24 to 36 hours.
Adeeb Uz Zaman Safvi, a retired Pakistan Navy Captain and US Naval War College graduate, told The Media Line that India’s accusations against Islamabad lacked evidence and risked escalating tensions between nuclear powers.
“A limited conventional strike might be seen by Pakistan as a threat to its nuclear deterrent,” he warned. “That could prompt a preemptive response, blurring the line between tactical and strategic nuclear weapons.”
He also noted that crisis management mechanisms are weak. Although hotlines exist, they are often bypassed during moments of peak tension.
Still, Safvi believes that nuclear deterrence reduces the likelihood of all-out war. “But the risk of limited clashes—surgical strikes or artillery exchanges—remains high,” he said.
Rohit Sharma, a New Delhi-based political and security analyst, said the Pahalgam attack fits a pattern of destabilizing acts attributed to Pakistan.
“India has long raised concerns over cross-border terrorism,” he said, adding that global institutions share these concerns.
Sharma emphasized that nuclear escalation remains a worst-case scenario. “Both nations would suffer catastrophic losses,” he said. “That would be a nightmare for both.”
He noted that while Pakistan often references its nuclear capabilities, India maintains a No First Use policy.
In the past 10 days, Sharma said, Pakistan issued multiple alerts about an imminent Indian attack that did not materialize. “Whether tensions are truly easing or this is just a lull before another crisis remains unclear,” he said.
Aimen Jamil, an Islamabad-based strategic affairs analyst, told The Media Line that the situation has escalated beyond a bilateral dispute.
“Provocative rhetoric, military posturing, and India’s suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty have created global stakes,” she said.
Jamil warned that “given both nations’ nuclear capabilities, a limited military conflict—sparked by a retaliatory strike—carries a real risk of uncontrollable escalation.”
She explained that nuclear deterrence can paradoxically encourage low-intensity conflict under the illusion of stability.
While full-scale war seems unlikely, she said “the space for miscalculation remains dangerously wide.”
Dr. Shubhda Chaudhary, founder of Middle East Insights and visiting lecturer at universities in the UK and US, told The Media Line that the tensions highlight the importance of the Shimla Agreement as a framework for peaceful bilateral resolution.
She stressed that “the dynamics of the conflict are further complicated by China’s strategic alignment with Pakistan,” turning a two-party issue into a trilateral concern.
Chaudhary said China’s response—condemning terrorism while supporting Pakistan’s call for an investigation—reflects its careful balancing act.
She warned that the Indus Treaty’s suspension jeopardizes Pakistan’s agricultural base, worsening economic and social vulnerabilities.
True de-escalation, she concluded, will require diplomatic restraint, transparent investigations, and possibly international mediation.
Muhammad Shareh Qazi, assistant professor at the University of the Punjab, Lahore, said both countries understand deterrence rationally but suffer from weak risk-reduction mechanisms.
“The lack of trust reinforces perceptions akin to the ‘Madman Theory,’” he told The Media Line.
Qazi added that recent tensions still leave room for dialogue or mediation. “Both sides need to be encouraged to build confidence measures beyond the 1988 Non-Attack Agreement,” he said.