Subscribe

0

Politics

Pakistani minister claims on CNN India pleaded for truce

As narratives continue to unfold, the balance of power between India and Pakistan — both militarily and in the media — will remain a critical arena for both nations

author-image
The Squirrels Bureau
Updated On
New Update
Pakistani minister claims on CNN India pleaded for truce

Photograph: (Staff)

Listen to this article
0.75x 1x 1.5x
00:00 / 00:00

The recent ceasefire in the 2025 India-Pakistan conflict has sparked a wave of conflicting narratives, with both sides presenting contrasting accounts of military successes and diplomatic manoeuvres. An X post by Nic Robertson, CNN’s international diplomatic editor, featured an interview with Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Muhammad Ishaq Dar, who claimed that US officials, including Secretary of State Rubio and JD Vance, were instrumental in mediating the truce.

Dar suggested that India had “miscalculated” after Pakistan’s military response, which included drone and missile strikes, prompting India to plead for a ceasefire.

This narrative stands in stark contrast to India’s official position. Prime Minister Narendra Modi publicly announced the continuation of “Operation Sindoor” during his address to the nation at 8 PM on 12 May, while the Indian DGMO and his colleagues had displayed satellite images that purportedly showed significant damage to Pakistani airbases at the press conference the previous day. This insistence on maintaining military operations despite the ceasefire calls into question Pakistan’s portrayal of the conflict and its outcomes.

Conflicting narratives and CNN’s coverage

The CNN interview’s framing of Pakistan’s claims raised eyebrows, given the network’s historical biases. During the first administration of Donald Trump, the president had himself accused CNN for its ‘selective’ coverage, as he saw it. He went to the extent of branding the media house as “fake news”. Much earlier, before the first Gulf War broke out in 1990, the year in which it first made a mark with arguably the best coverage of the action in Iraq, Americans used to lampoon it as “Chicken Noodles Network”.

CNN nickname
By Gemini AI, quoting Britannica Photograph: (Staff)

 

In this instance, Robertson’s interview with Dar appeared to lean heavily on Pakistan’s perspective, with little scrutiny of the foreign minister’s assertions that India had been forced into a truce. Dar also referenced Pakistan’s military success, citing drone and missile strikes as evidence of its upper hand — claims that remain largely unverified by independent sources.

International media reports, including those from Reuters and BBC, have indicated a different reality. India’s “Operation Sindoor” reportedly targeted key Pakistani installations with precision strikes, and India’s satellite imagery was used to validate these claims.

Despite Pakistan’s assertions of downing Indian aircraft, including French-made Rafales, there has been no independent corroboration of such incidents. Reuters mentioned a Pakistani jet shooting down two Indian fighters, attributed to “US officials,” but this has not been universally accepted. India’s military has not confirmed any major losses, only stating vaguely that “losses are a part of combat,” which muddies the waters further but does not align with Pakistan’s triumphant claims.

Wikipedia’s compilation of relevant reports

Pakistan’s account of Indian strikes

Wikipedia, which is purportedly a neutral platform allowing people to edit its contents, but which is accused by the right-wing of a leftist bias, compiled the media reports of casualties and damages on both sides as follows:

Pakistan reported that Indian missile attacks resulted in 31 fatalities and at least 46 injuries. Among the dead were 10 relatives of Masood Azhar, the leader of Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), including five children.

Reuters noted that a mosque in Muzaffarabad was damaged, while BBC News cited local sources claiming that an educational complex in Muridke, which included a school, college, and medical clinic, was also struck.

According to the BBC, this Muridke complex served as a base for Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), a Pakistan-based, UN-designated terrorist group, and its rebranded front, Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JuD).

Sky News found videos on social media expressing support for LeT and another militant group known as 313. It reported that the Markaz Taiba Mosque in Muridke functioned as a terrorist hub.

The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) informed Sky News that Muridke had long been known as LeT’s headquarters. Pakistan’s Defence Minister Khawaja Asif dismissed these reports as a “media hoax,” although Al Jazeera described the Muridke site as the most critical of the Indian targets. The compound was reportedly founded by Hafiz Saeed, co-founder of LeT and the architect behind JuD’s rebranding as a charitable front.

Indian strikes on Bahawalpur and global reactions

Another key target of Indian strikes was Bahawalpur, believed to house the headquarters of JeM. Reports emerged that Abdul Rauf Azhar, a senior JeM figure and an alleged co-conspirator in the murder of American journalist Daniel Pearl, was killed during the attacks.

Indian state media, DD News, noted that members of the American-Jewish community and human rights activists expressed their gratitude to India on social media. Among them were Amy Mek, a political analyst, and Asra Nomani, an American journalist and former colleague of Pearl who had travelled with him to Bahawalpur.

The Jerusalem Post and Algemeiner Journal reported that Pearl’s father, Judea Pearl, also acknowledged the event on social media, detailing his son’s death and Azhar’s alleged involvement.

Artillery shelling and drone attacks

Pakistani officials stated that five additional people died as a result of Indian artillery shelling, raising the total death toll to 31. One civilian and four security personnel were also reported injured in Indian drone strikes.

Meanwhile, Indian authorities claimed that Pakistani artillery fire killed 15 civilians, including four children, and injured 43 others in Indian-administered Kashmir. The majority of the casualties were reported in the Poonch district, where a gurudwara, a school, and multiple homes were damaged. One Indian soldier also died in the shelling, while in Punjab’s Bathinda district, an explosion from a downed unidentified aircraft killed an Indian farmer and injured nine others.

Conflicting death tolls and military claims

On 8 May, India’s Defence Minister Rajnath Singh declared that the missile strikes had eliminated at least 100 terrorists. Conversely, Pakistan’s Defence Minister reported only 25 Indian soldiers killed, contradicting the Pakistan Army and Information Minister Atta Tarar, who cited a toll of 40 to 50 Indian casualties. According to the Pakistan Army, 33 people died between 6 and 9 May.

The Indian military maintained that Pakistan lost between 35 and 40 personnel in the conflict and confirmed that over 100 terrorists were killed, a figure reiterated by Prime Minister Narendra Modi. India also acknowledged the loss of five military personnel.

Geopolitical implications and the role of US mediation

The ceasefire’s announcement by Donald Trump, with Pakistan’s agreement, contradicts the notion of India pleading for a truce. Modi’s firm stance on continuing operations highlights India’s confidence, even amid international mediation efforts. US involvement, particularly from Secretary Rubio and JD Vance, seems more aligned with a desire to prevent escalation between the two nuclear-armed nations rather than any clear Indian concession. Diplomatic pressure from the UN, Singapore, and the broader international community underscores the strategic imperative for restraint rather than a one-sided plea for peace.

The broader geopolitical stakes are evident in the conflict’s economic impact. Stock markets in both countries reflected heightened volatility, while the Indus Water Treaty was once again thrust into the spotlight.

Dar’s mention of “Daronomics” hints at Pakistan’s economic strategy in the face of conflict, but it remains overshadowed by the immediate realities of military engagement and international pressure.

CNN’s narrative and arms market implications

The interview with Ishaq Dar also contrasted with technological shortcomings on Pakistan’s side. Reports saying that American F-16s and Chinese fighter jets failed to prevent Indian strikes, a key reason for Pakistan’s military vulnerabilities, threatened the US's global arms market.

Speculation arose about American unease regarding the performance of its military hardware in the conflict, likely influencing CNN’s reporting to reflect a pro-Pakistan slant. Yet, this remains conjecture without concrete evidence of editorial bias linked to geopolitical interests.

The global arms market also played a crucial, albeit understated, role in the conflict’s perception. Indian Rafales reportedly executed precise strikes, bolstering India’s narrative of superiority, while Pakistan’s claims of downing these aircraft seemed unsubstantiated. This divergence in military accounts hints at a broader strategic messaging war, where battlefield outcomes are as much about narrative control as they are about military might.

Contested narrative with geopolitical ripples

Muhammad Ishaq Dar’s claim that India pleaded for a truce due to military setbacks appears increasingly tenuous when juxtaposed with international reports and India’s continuation of “Operation Sindoor.” The ceasefire seems more plausibly rooted in global diplomatic efforts to avoid nuclear escalation than any admission of weakness by India. CNN’s coverage, criticised for its historical biases, may have shaped its narrative around Pakistan’s version of events, but the broader geopolitical landscape suggests a more complex interplay of power, technology, and narrative-building.

The 2025 India-Pakistan conflict has once again highlighted the strategic depth and geopolitical weight of subcontinental military engagements. As narratives continue to unfold, the balance of power — both militarily and in the media — will remain a critical arena for both nations.

Pakistan war