ISPR refutes Indian claim of LoC fire exchange in Neelum valley

Says Indian posts damaged, heavy casualties to Indian soldiers in response to ceasefire violation along LoC


News Desk December 21, 2019
ISPR says Indian posts damaged and heavy casualties to Indian soldiers in response to ceasefire violation in Dewa Sector along LoC. PHOTO: REUTERS/FILE

Pakistan Army has refuted the Indian media’s reports that the two Pakistani soldiers had been killed in cross-border clashes along the Line of Control (LoC) between the two hostile neighbours on Friday night.

“No major exchange of fire in Kiran or Neelum valley as being propagated by Indian media,” said a statement issued by the Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) on Saturday.

The military’s media wing however added that “intermittent CFVs (ceasefire violations) by the Indian side continued along the LoC and being befittingly responded” in Dewa Sector.



There were also reports of damage to Indian checkposts and heavy casualties to Indian soldiers.

A section of Indian media earlier reported that at least two Pakistani soldiers had been killed in Akhnoor and Sunderbani sectors of the Indian side of LoC.

PM warns India against any misadventure to divert attention from protests

The incident takes place the same day Prime Minister Imran Khan warned the international community that Pakistan will be left with no option but to give a “befitting response” to the Indian “false flag operation” in an attempt to divert world’s attention from violent protests against recently passed anti-Muslim law.

“I have been warning the international community of this for some time and am reiterating again: if India does such an operation to divert attention from its domestic chaos plus whip up war hysteria to mobilise Hindu nationalism, Pakistan will have no option but to give a befitting response,” said the premier in a series of tweets earlier in the day.

COMMENTS

Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ