“Pahalgam Attacks: A wake-up call for India and Pakistan to fight against terrorism, not against each other.”
Since 9/11, terrorism has taken center stage in the adversarial ties between India and Pakistan, further intensifying South Asia’s already turbulent geopolitical theatre. In a region where ideology often puts on the mask of nationalism, both countries continue to face internal challenges—ranging from political instability and corruption to poverty, unemployment, inflation, low literacy, and rising religious extremism. In such an environment, wrapping everything in the flag serves as a tool to shape public opinion for political advantage and as a unifying strategy for their governments under the banners of nationalism and patriotism. Incidents of terrorism are framed within the broader context of governance failures and fueled by strained inter-state relations and need to be resolved with trust and impartial mediation.
Pakistan and India underwent the profound powder keg of terrorism since 1999, yet bilateral ties have remained rooted in mistrust, where both sides are more interested in pointing fingers than in establishing a shared commitment to objectively investigate terrorism-related accusations. The deadly attack on April 22, 2025, in Pahalgam—claiming 26 lives—followed a grim pattern: from the 2001 Parliament attack and the 2008 Mumbai carnage to the Pearl Continental bombing in 2009, the 2014 Karachi airport assault, the Peshawar school massacre the same year, and later the Uri, Pathankot, and Pulwama attacks, not to mention the 2025 Jaffar Express train hijacking. This Pahalgam incident has again degenerated the relationship into diplomatic impasses, media disinformation, narrative containment, and military escalation on borders.
Also Read: Combating Extremism in Pakistan: Understanding the Reasons and Legal Framework
These repeated cross-border incidents highlight the enduring threat—how terrorism has saturated the regional climate with fear, suspicion, and a never-ending blame game. This time, it has erupted as a war of narratives initiated by the Indian government and media, making genuine cooperation a tall order.
The old fable of “The Boy Who Cried Wolf” is playing out on the subcontinent’s political stage. Once again, the ruling elite in India are beating the war drums, accusing Pakistan of security breaches after the deadly massacre and stirring fears of cross-border terrorism—without presenting credible evidence. No documentation, no intercepts, no evidence—just a headline repeated until it sounded like proof. This political theater is evident in both countries after any such tragedy. It is less about truth and more about timing, and the media follows suit. When you can’t fix the roof, blame the rain. But when you have a big umbrella like the UN overhead, shifting blame is a poor excuse.
In the 21st century, no conflict stays in its own backyard. The effect of every conflict transcends borders, calls international institutions into question, invites scrutiny over global peace propagators, and imperils human rights. Terrorism and its effects remain an inescapable concern for both nuclear powers, which share a long history of conflict and divergence.
In the aftermath of the deadly Jaffar Express Massacre just a month ago, Pakistan responded with relative restraint, in contrast to India’s reaction to the Pahalgam attacks, which reflected elements of media sensationalism and political posturing. Both countries have failed to uphold the commitments of the Joint Anti-Terrorism Mechanism (JATM), a Confidence Building Measure established in 2006. As a result, events of terrorism are increasingly used as instruments to obscure governance failures and intelligence shortcomings.
With Indian elections on the horizon, scapegoating Pakistan becomes a convenient distraction from internal social issues like unemployment, inflation, and civil unrest. An incident occurs, Pakistan is immediately blamed, and the narrative spreads like wildfire through media channels that seem more aligned with party agendas than journalistic integrity or national interests. This is a demonstration of changing warfare patterns—from conventional conflicts to non-traditional measures where narratives and cyberspace are instrumentalized as weapons of war on both sides of the fence.
However, digital mobilization is something India’s ruling party has spent the past decade perfecting. ‘Indian Chronicles’ stands as a clear testament to that. As George Orwell warned, “Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed. Everything else is public relations.” Media disinformation warfare, biased and baseless accusations with no intercepts, no evidence, banning Pakistani public figures’ social handles in India, censoring independent news channels—these are strategies of narrative containment: let only one version circulate inside the homeland and starve all others. This is not just insensitive; it’s inflammatory.
Pakistan has not gone beyond the lines in rhetoric shaping like India. In a region already prone to communal tensions, such rhetoric-reshaping attempts are like tossing a match into a powder keg. India, the largest democracy in South Asia, is slowly but surely walking the path of religious majoritarianism, often criticized as hallmarks of a democratic façade. The ideology of Hindutva, once fringe, has entered the mainstream, shaping policies, headlines, and even diplomatic stances.
The power nexus of BJP and RAW has unilaterally altered the constitutional and political status of Jammu and Kashmir, abolishing Article 35A and revoking Article 370—measures taken without the consent of regional stakeholders and in defiance of the United Nations Security Council resolutions, which stipulate that the status of Kashmir must be determined bilaterally between India and Pakistan. Thus, this is not in the interest of India but a mere manifestation of strategic and ideological objectives of a political elite—projected and maneuvered under the guise of patriotism and nationalism.
Media, often hailed as the fourth pillar of democracy, now resembles a megaphone for government propaganda. From prime-time debates to breaking news tickers, journalism in India is increasingly becoming an instrument of state power and populist agendas, blurring the line between fact and fiction. Indian media has become a biased tool; propaganda masquerades as news. Unfortunately, much of what is aired today is public relations masquerading as journalism. This has not gone unnoticed internationally.
Independent outlets and human rights organizations have flagged India’s downward trend in press freedom and minority rights. The world is watching, and it is not impressed. The withholding of Pakistani Defense Minister Khawaja Muhammad Asif’s X (formerly Twitter) handle in India is a clear example of silencing dissent and suppressing free speech, highlighting growing restrictions on freedom of expression and information in India.
On the other hand, Pakistan invited neutral investigators, briefed foreign capitals, chose to hit back with a measured hand through diplomatic channels and—most tellingly—did not shut Indian voices out of its information space or use cyberspace to pour fuel on the fire and push the region toward chaos. Indian outlets remained freely accessible in Pakistan; no mirror-image geo-blocking occurred.
Ironically, as India leans on old tactics, the geopolitical chessboard has shifted. The United States, under leaders like Trump, is turning inward. The “America First” doctrine has recalibrated Washington’s priorities, leaving regional players to fend for themselves. What was once a surefire way to grab global attention—crying wolf about Pakistan—now meets a global shrug. The international community, fatigued by unverified accusations and choreographed outrage, is increasingly demanding proof over propaganda.
This geopolitical vacuum offers Pakistan a rare chance: to present itself as the calm in the storm, as it did in the Jaffar Express hijacking incident. Rather than returning fire with fire, Islamabad can choose to be the adult in the room. A strong, clear, and diplomatic response—supported by independent evidence and international investigation—could shift global perceptions.
By emphasizing peace, dialogue, and factual rebuttals, Pakistan can turn India’s shouting match into an international echo prioritizing mediation and diplomatic engagement over military escalation. What’s truly at stake here isn’t just regional peace—it’s the very fabric of the international order. When states like India and Israel weaponize religious identity and nationalist fervor to override diplomacy and pluralism, they undermine the foundations of the modern nation-state. This regression threatens to send the world back to a time before the Geneva Conventions and international norms—back to an era where might made right, and the loudest voice drowned out the most reasonable one.
India’s latest wolf cry may have failed to ignite a fire globally, but it has stoked dangerous flames at home. The consequences of majoritarian propaganda, biased media, and strategic scapegoating can be catastrophic—not just for Indo-Pak relations, but for the stability of the region. Therefore, India must play its foreign policy cards right to avoid being seen as a warmongering state over a conflict that hasn’t been thoroughly investigated.
History has taught us one thing: when politicians play with fire, it’s the people who get burned. It is time for the region to choose statesmanship over showmanship, diplomacy over demagoguery, and truth over tribalism.
“There is no military solution to terrorism; we need regional cooperation and political engagement.”
Dr. Maleeha Lodhi, Former Pakistan Ambassador to the UN
