What happens next between India and Pakistan? Four key questions

In a dramatic overnight operation, India said it launched missile and air strikes on nine sites across Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir, targeting what it called militant positions based on "credible intelligence". The strikes, lasting just 25 minutes between 01:05 and 01:30 India time (19:35 and 20:00 GMT on Tuesday), sent shockwaves through the region, with residents jolted awake by thunderous explosions. Pakistan said only six locations were hit and claimed to have shot down five Indian fighter jets and a drone - a claim India has not confirmed. Islamabad said 26 people were killed and 46 injured in Indian air strikes and shelling across the Line of Control (LoC) - the de facto border between India and Pakistan. Meanwhile, India's army reported that 10 civilians were killed by Pakistani shelling on its side of the de facto border. This sharp escalation comes after last month'sdeadly militant attackon tourists in Pahalgam in Indian-administered Kashmir, pushing tensions between the nuclear-armed rivals to dangerous new heights. India says it has clear evidence linking Pakistan-based terrorists and external actors to the attack - a claim Pakistan flatly denies. Islamabad has also pointed out that India has not offered any evidence to support its claim. In 2016, after19 Indian soldiers were killed in Uri, India launched "surgical strikes" across the LoC. In 2019, thePulwama bombing, which left 40 Indian paramilitary personnel dead, promptedairstrikes deep into Balakot- the first such action inside Pakistan since 1971 - sparking retaliatory raids and an aerial dogfight. Experts say the retaliation for the Pahalgam attack stands out for its broader scope, targeting the infrastructure of three major Pakistan-based militant groups simultaneously. India says it struck nine militant targets across Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir, hitting deep into key hubs ofLashkar-e- Taiba(LeT),Jaish-e-Mohammed, andHizbul Mujahideen. Among the closest targets were two camps in Sialkot, just 6-18km from the border, according to an Indian spokesperson. The deepest hit, says India, was a Jaish-e-Mohammed headquarters in Bahawalpur, 100km inside Pakistan. A LeT camp in Muzaffarabad, 30km from the LoC and capital of Pakistan-administered Kashmir, was linked to recent attacks in Indian-administered Kashmir, the spokesperson said. Pakistan says six locations have been hit, but denies allegations of there being terror camps. "What's striking this time is the expansion of India's targets beyond past patterns. Previously, strikes like Balakot focused on Pakistan-administered Kashmir across the Line of Control - a militarised boundary," Srinath Raghavan, a Delhi-based historian, told the BBC. "This time, India has hit into Pakistan's Punjab, across the International Border, targeting terrorist infrastructure, headquarters, and known locations in Bahawalpur and Muridke linked to Lashkar-e-Taiba. They've also struck Jaish-e-Mohammed and Hizbul Mujahideen assets. This suggests a broader, more geographically expansive response, signalling that multiple groups are now in India's crosshairs - and sending a wider message," he says. The India-Pakistan International Border is the officially recognised boundary separating the two countries, stretching from Gujarat to Jammu. Ajay Bisaria, a former Indian high commissioner to Pakistan, told the BBC that what India did was a "Balakot plus response meant to establish deterrence, targeting known terrorist hubs, but accompanied by a strong de-escalatory message". "These strikes were more precise, targeted and more visible than in the past. Therefore, [they are] less deniable by Pakistan," Mr Bisaria says. Indian sources say the strikes were aimed at "re-establishing deterrence". "The Indian government thinks that the deterrence established in 2019 has worn thin and needs to be re-established," says Prof Raghavan. "This seems to mirror Israel's doctrine that deterrence requires periodic, repeated strikes. But if we assume that hitting back alone will deter terrorism, we risk giving Pakistan every incentive to retaliate - and that can quickly spiral out of control." The majority of experts agree that a retaliation from Pakistan is inevitable - and diplomacy will come into play. "Pakistan's response is sure to come. The challenge would be to manage the next level of escalation. This is where crisis diplomacy will matter," says Mr Bisaria. "Pakistan will be getting advice to exercise restraint. But the key will be the diplomacy after the Pakistani response to ensure that both countries don't rapidly climb the ladder of escalation." Pakistan-based experts like Ejaz Hussain, a Lahore-based political and military analyst, say Indian surgical strikes targeting locations such as Muridke and Bahawalpur were "largely anticipated given the prevailing tensions". Dr Hussain believes retaliatory strikes are likely. "Given the Pakistani military's media rhetoric and stated resolve to settle the scores, retaliatory action, possibly in the form of surgical strikes across the border, appears likely in the coming days," he told the BBC. But Dr Hussain worries that surgical strikes on both sides could "escalate into a limited conventional war". Christopher Clary of the University at Albany in the US believes given the scale of India's strikes, "visible damage at key sites", and reported casualties, Pakistan is highly likely to retaliate. "Doing otherwise essentially would give India permission to strike Pakistan whenever Delhi feels aggrieved and would run contrary to the Pakistan military's commitment to retaliating with 'quid pro quo plus'," Mr Clary, who studies the politics of South Asia, told the BBC. "Given India's stated targets of groups and facilities associated with terrorism and militancy in India, I think it is likely - but far from certain - that Pakistan will confine itself to attacks on Indian military targets," he said. Despite the rising tensions, some experts still hold out hope for de-escalation. "There is a decent chance we escape this crisis with just one round of reciprocal standoff strikes and a period of heightened firing along the Line of Control," says Mr Clary. However, the risk of further escalation remains high, making this the "most dangerous" India-Pakistan crisis since2002- and even more perilous than the 2016 and 2019 standoffs, he adds. Experts in Pakistan note that despite a lack of war hysteria leading up to India's strike, the situation could quickly shift. "We have a deeply fractured political society, with the country's most popular leader behind bars. Imran Khan's imprisonment triggered a strong anti-military public backlash," says Umer Farooq, an Islamabad-based analyst and a former correspondent of Jane's Defence Weekly. "Today, the Pakistani public is far less eager to support the military compared to 2016 or 2019 - the usual wave of war hysteria is noticeably absent. But if public opinion shifts in central Punjab where anti-India feelings are more prevalent, we could see increased civilian pressure on the military to take action. And the military will regain popularity because of this conflict." Dr Hussain echoes a similar sentiment. "I believe the current standoff with India presents an opportunity for the Pakistani military to regain public support, particularly from the urban middle classes who have recently criticised it for perceived political interference," he says. "The military's active defence posture is already being amplified through mainstream and social media, with some outlets claiming that six or seven Indian jets were shot down. "Although these claims warrant independent verification, they serve to bolster the military's image among segments of the public that conventionally rally around national defence narratives in times of external threat." India is once again walking a fine line between escalation and restraint. Shortly after the attack in Pahalgam, India swiftly retaliated by closing the main border crossing, suspending a water-sharing treaty, expelling diplomats and halting most visas for Pakistani nationals. Troops on both sides have exchanged small-arms fire, and India barred all Pakistani aircraft from its airspace, mirroring Pakistan's earlier move. In response, Pakistan suspended a 1972 peace treaty and took its own retaliatory measures. This mirrors India's actions after the 2019 Pulwama attack, when it swiftly revoked Pakistan's most-favoured-nation status, imposed heavy tariffs and suspended key trade and transport links. The crisis had escalated when India launched air strikes on Balakot, followed by retaliatory Pakistani air raids and the capture of Indian pilot Abhinandan Varthaman, further heightening tensions. However, diplomatic channels eventually led to a de-escalation, with Pakistan releasing the pilot in a goodwill gesture. "India was willing to give old-fashioned diplomacy another chance.... This, with India having achieved a strategic and military objective and Pakistan having claimed a notion of victory for its domestic audience," Mr Bisaria told me last week.