India-Pakistan live: Islamabad vows revenge after 'dozens killed' in Indian missile strikes

India dismisses Pakistan jets claim as 'disinformation'

India has now spoken out over Pakistan's claim it shot down five of its jets last night.

Its embassy in China has described the report as "disinformation".

The embassy's social media statement followed a post by state-run Global Times, which said the Pakistan Air Force had downed Indian fighter jets in response to the missile strikes.

China calls on countries to 'prioritise peace'

As our lead world news presenter Yalda Hakim pointed out around an hour ago, India will have eyes on how one of Pakistan's main allies reacts - see our 13.10 post.

China, which supplies Pakistan with military equipment, has said it "regrets" the military action taken by India - but is ready to help de-escalate.

Foreign ministry spokesperson Lin Jian said: "India and Pakistan are neighbours that cannot be moved, and both are also neighbours of China."

Lin added: "China opposes all forms of terrorism and calls on both India and Pakistan to prioritise peace and stability, remain calm and exercise restraint, and avoid actions that could further complicate the situation.

"We are willing to work with the international community to continue playing a constructive role in easing the current tensions."

Pakistan PM repeats claim Indian jets were downed

Pakistan's prime minister has repeated the claim five Indian aircraft were downed by his country's air force overnight.

That hasn't been independently verified, and our military analyst Michael Clarke said in the past hour he would be "very surprised if any Indian aircraft were above Pakistani airspace last night".

But Shehbaz Sharif said Indian jets were downed after they released their payloads from Indian airspace.

In a speech to Parliament, Sharif added the air force had been on high alert since India tried to implicate Pakistan in the 22 April attack on tourists in Indian-administered Kashmir.

Sharif also claimed that on the night of 29 April, Indian Rafale jets took off in a combat formation, but had their comms jammed by Pakistan. 

"The enemy couldn't even understand what had happened to them," he claimed, adding the Indian jets turned back.

Why even a small war could be bad for global trade and the economy

How does this conflict affect trade and the global economy?

The final question is about the potential impact of a war on the global economy.

That's a very good question, Michael Clarke says.

He points out that global trade is in "such a volatile state at the moment" and says the world may be "hovering on the edge of a recession".

"If it became a war, even a small war, that would be bad for trade, it would disrupt supply chains.

"So it would be another factor which would likely push the world into global recession in the second half of this year."

'We won't know anything until it goes off': Could India-Pakistan conflict go nuclear?

With both countries being nuclear states and the disregard of any 'rules', with rising tensions could this go nuclear?

Michael Clarke says he's often made the point that nuclear deterrence works better in practice than it does in theory.

"There's no doubt what will happen if a nuclear device is used," he says.

"And for that reason, everybody gets a bit careful whenever the nuclear issue comes up."

However, in the case of India and Pakistan, this is "the nuclear relationship that's the closest - the one that's got the least distance involved". 

"It would be instant if a nuclear weapon were used... the other side wouldn't know about it until it went off," he adds.

"In effect, there's no reaction time. And for that reason, both sides get very worried about nuclear diplomacy, even though a crisis is far away."

Nuclear weapons would only be used by any country, it is said, if its existence were at stake, Clarke adds.

"And nothing that happens in Kashmir threatens the existence of Pakistan or India as presently constituted," he said. 

"So why would they go there? They won't. 

"But the decision makers on both sides of the border tend to get nervous that the other side might have taken leave of its senses, use a nuclear weapon, just to demonstrate it.

"And we won't know anything about it until it goes off, and then it will be too late."

No great powers want to see a war - it's up to Delhi and Islamabad how far this goes

Who are the key international moderators in this conflict - are their countries who India and Pakistan really listen to and don't want to isolate?

Michael Clarke says only great power politics solves problems, but then everybody needs the UN to legitimise, record and monitor the solution.

"That's where the UN will come in in this case as well, I suspect.

"But we do live in an era now of great power conflict far more than multilateral cooperation.

"So it'll come down to who's prepared to put pressure on either side."

China backs Pakistan and is "extremely antagonistic" to India, while the US is much closer to India than it was and "lost patience" with Pakistan over the war in Afghanistan, says Clarke.

"Washington always thought that Islamabad was not being helpful, that Islamabad was behind the Taliban," Clarke explains.

"You've got the US on one side and China on the other. Neither of them are in a good position to play a mediating role. 

"Funnily enough, the country that is listened to by both [Indian and Pakistan] is Britain.

"Britain is one of the very few powers that has a good relationship with Pakistan for historical reasons, for reasons of recent history as well," says Clarke.

"And London and Delhi are getting on better than for a long time."

China doesn't want a war but it doesn't want Pakistan to be humiliated or undermined, and neither the US nor China want the conflict to pull their focus.

"In a sense, this is going to be a rather self-contained crisis, and it's up to Delhi and Islamabad to decide if they really are going to take it to another level.

"By the end of this week, we'll know if Pakistan has matched India's escalation and [are] not going any further.

"If that's what they've done, then this crisis might be over quite quickly."

'If it came to a war, India will win'

I want to know, how do the nuclear arsenals and militaries of these two countries compare internationally?

Our security and defence analyst Michael Clarke explains that India and Pakistan have similar capabilities on nuclear terms.

"They believe both have about 170 odd warheads, which are easily deliverable from their point of view because they've got a very short distance to go," he says.

Clarke adds that there's a global firepower list which breaks down "who's got the ability to deliver firepower with all the logistics and transport".

He points out the India ranks as number four on that list, while Pakistan is 12th.

"That tells you something about the difference between them and the Indian forces are about double the size of Pakistan's forces," he says.

Clarke goes on to state that the bottom line is "if it came to a war, India will win".

"If it's below the level of a war, if it's some sort of military confrontation, then Pakistan might think it could get something out of it," he adds.

Islamist groups seen as being Pakistani government proxies - but 'powerful in their own right'

What proxies are in play in this conflict? And how powerful are they?

The finger of blame for various attacks in India has always been pointed at militant groups Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM).

Both are considered terrorist organisations by the UN and the UK, and India said they struck bases of both groups during the attacks.

"They have been seen to be a proxy of the Pakistani government," Yalda Hakim says.

"And let's not forget that the ISI - the intelligence agency of Pakistan - was long accused of backing, funding, harbouring, giving shelter and sanctuary to the Afghan Taliban as well during NATO's 20-year war in Afghanistan.

"The Americans were often extremely frustrated with Pakistan. At one point in 2018, one of the things that Donald Trump during his first administration did was say that he was going to cut military aid to Pakistan because of accusations of playing a double game."

So these are groups that operate within Pakistan's territory, Hakim adds, which are "powerful in their own right".

They have proven to be a problem for Pakistan as well, she says, with thousands of people over the years killed as a result of terrorist attacks in Pakistan."

Below: Read the full story of India and Pakistan's conflict

Britain has some responsibility for 'chaotic' Indian independence and regional rivalry

How much of this is down to how India was partitioned and the UK's part in that?

Yalda Hakim says these moments make you realise how keenly that history is felt.

"It goes back to 1947, during partition. At the time, there were questions asked about whether Kashmir should become an independent state, whether a Muslim majority territory should be on the Pakistani side, or whether it should become part of India."

She continues: "It has been hotly contested, a flashpoint, the most heavily militarised zone on the planet."

Michael Clarke adds that the last British governor-general of India before independence was Lord Louis Mountbatten, who was very accommodating to his friend, the Maharaja Hari Singh.

"The leadership weakness of Mountbatten does feature in Britain's responsibility for this particular situation."

The decision to create independence within just two years was "always going to be a chaotic process".

"And of course, more than two million people were killed in the inter-communal violence.

"It was a messy process of almost instant independence, which might have been handled differently, and Kashmir might have been handled differently, if Lord Louis Mountbatten had been a more decisive and better decision-maker at the time. 

"Britain should acknowledge some responsibility for that."

Risk of miscalculation beyond Kashmir military incursion

If Pakistan or India don't back down, is a military incursion into Kashmir the only goal for each country?

There have been four wars between India and Pakistan since independence in 1947, our defence and security analyst Michael Clarke explains.

Three of them have been about Kashmir one way or another, he says.

"The point is that neither side needed a war over this because neither side's integrity is threatened. As such, neither side's sovereignty is threatened, neither side has a real national stake in this other than credibility about what's happening in Kashmir. 

"There's always the possibility of miscalculation."

Turning to what Pakistan does now, Clarke says there will be a response.

"If that response is around the level of the Indian action, then probably it won't go very much further," he says.

"If it goes above that, the Indians will say we've got to establish deterrence."

What are the chances of a full-scale war? It could depend on China...

What are the chances of this ending up in a full scale war? Who would support India or Pakistan?

With anything like this, misunderstandings can lead to miscalculations, which can lead to escalations, which can lead to war, says our lead world news presenter Yalda Hakim.

"There is no doubt that this situation, while currently contained, could actually escalate," she adds.

"And in terms of who is on whose side, I think India is currently watching to see a how Pakistan responds.

"But they're also looking at what China does as well. China is a close economic ally of Pakistan. It also supplies them with their military hardware and military equipment.

"So India will be curious to see where China sits on this."

In the last few years, Washington and New Delhi have forged very close ties, Hakim adds, to counter the rise of China in the region.

-SKY NEWS