Today, India carried out an airstrike against an alleged terrorist camp based in Pakistan. After the strike, India claimed they killed about 350 terrorists.
India has not provided any proof of this.
Given that tensions between India and Pakistan are high, that both nations possess nuclear weapons (Pakistan have an estimated 140 warheads, India have 130, and neither country are part of the proliferation treaty, so these numbers are estimated to rise in the coming years), and that Pakistan literally came out and said it would 'retaliate', what possible reasons does India have for not providing proof that they actually did target and accomplished demolishing a terrorist training camp?
It seems logical that in carrying out such a strike, India has brought the two nations closer to warfare. As everyone would like to avoid such an event (an all-out war means mutual destruction), what reasons does India have to not cool tensions by merely providing proof that it did indeed target a terrorist group?
Since it was an air-strike, obviously such proof ought to exist: any sort of aerial or satelitte photo would be enough to garner the support of the international community and Pakistan would be pressured to accept it, similar to how Pakistan was forced to accept US strikes on Pakistani soil, because the US provided proof that it actually hit terrorists.
Questions: So, in short, what reasons are there for India not providing proof? Has they stated any reasons as to why they do not provide proof? Has any member of the international community stated that it requires proof?
For what it's worth (probably not much), Pakistan claim that India's attack hit nothing but a few trees.