By Qamar Bashir
The recent terrorist attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, has sent shockwaves
through the region and beyond. The attack resulted in the loss of innocent lives, left many
injured, and disrupted the fragile peace that had prevailed along the Line of Control in
recent years. India, in response, has taken an unprecedented series of diplomatic,
economic, and military decisions, signaling a major shift in its regional policy toward
Pakistan.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi chaired an urgent meeting of the Cabinet Committee on
Security at 7, Lok Kalyan Marg, to assess the situation and decide on the country’s
response. The decisions taken were swift and uncompromising. The international border,
including the crucial Atari crossing, is to be sealed. All Pakistani nationals currently in
India have been given 48 hours to leave. The Indus Waters Treaty—one of the longest-
standing water-sharing agreements between the two nations—has been cancelled. The
Pakistani High Commission in New Delhi is being shut down, and Indian forces have
been given a free hand to respond.
These decisions have been taken at a time when India is enhancing its diplomatic and
economic influence globally. Prime Minister Modi’s visit to Saudi Arabia marked a new
chapter in Indo-Gulf relations, culminating in the signing of a $100 billion strategic
partnership covering petrochemicals, green energy, defense cooperation, technology,
infrastructure, and cultural exchange. This was more than a symbolic gesture; it was
structural, showcasing India’s rising global stature.
The timing of the Pahalgam attack is significant. It coincided with multiple high-profile
diplomatic events. The Indian Prime Minister was in Jeddah engaging with Saudi leaders
and cementing an economic alliance that could reshape the Gulf-India axis. At the same
time, U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance was visiting India with his family, reinforcing the
Indo-U.S. strategic partnership. These visits were public affirmations of India’s growing
economic and geopolitical influence. In contrast, the attack appeared to be an attempt to
destabilize India’s narrative of progress, harmony, and international leadership.
Global reaction has been overwhelmingly supportive of India. Countries including Saudi
Arabia, Iran, Nepal, Sweden, and Russia condemned the attack in the strongest terms.
The Saudi Foreign Ministry called it a violation of all humanitarian norms. Iran reiterated
its principled stance against all forms of terrorism. Russia’s President Vladimir Putin
extended his condolences and reaffirmed solidarity with India. These statements
demonstrate a global consensus that terrorism has no justification and that targeting
innocent lives for political or ideological objectives is inexcusable.
On Indian social media platforms, there has been an outpouring of grief, anger, and calls
for justice. Many citizens pointed fingers at Pakistan, reflecting a long-held belief among
Indians that cross-border terrorism is often facilitated or tolerated by elements within
Pakistan’s establishment. The perception that Pakistan is a “terrorist state” is increasingly
gaining ground internationally, especially when such incidents follow provocative
statements by senior Pakistani officials. In this case, the attack followed a strong
statement by Pakistan’s Army Chief General Asim Munir, reiterating Pakistan’s claim
over Kashmir and pledging continued resistance.
In response, India took diplomatic measures that are likely to have lasting consequences.
The expulsion of Pakistani military attachés, withdrawal of Indian officials from
Islamabad, and the suspension of diplomatic channels signal the freezing of bilateral
relations. The cancellation of the Indus Waters Treaty is particularly significant. Signed
in 1960, the treaty has withstood wars and crises. By setting it aside, India has not only
struck at Pakistan’s vital water lifeline but also sent a message that it will no longer
adhere to outdated obligations when its national security is under threat.
The non-kinetic actions, such as border sealing and diplomatic disengagement, have been
paired with military readiness. While there has been no official announcement of kinetic
retaliation, parallels are being drawn with Israel’s response to the October 7 Hamas
attack. A surgical strike or targeted retaliation is within India’s options, although the
scale may be limited given Pakistan’s status as a nuclear power.
The potential reactivation of skirmishes along the Line of Control cannot be ruled out. In
recent years, the border had seen relative calm due to backchannel diplomacy and
ceasefire agreements. But this latest attack may bring back regular cross-border firing,
endangering civilians and further straining relations.
India, due to its robust economy and strong diplomatic alliances, is in a position to
withstand prolonged conflict—military or otherwise. Pakistan, with its fragile economy
and political instability, is in a much weaker position. This asymmetry may deter
Islamabad from escalating the situation but also puts pressure on it to recalibrate its
internal and external policies.
Pakistan, in these circumstances, must act decisively and wisely. It should unequivocally
condemn the attack, offer full cooperation in any investigation, and take concrete steps to
reassure the international community that its territory is not being used to launch attacks
on civilians in neighboring countries. Silence or deflection will only add to its diplomatic
isolation.
Additionally, it is critical for Pakistan to restrain its military and political leaders from
making inflammatory statements. A war of words can escalate into unintended
consequences. Instead, Islamabad should focus on economic recovery and institutional
reform. Only a strong, stable Pakistan can meaningfully advocate its case on Kashmir and
engage in constructive dialogue with India and the international community.
At the same time, India must ensure that the domestic discourse does not descend into
communalism. Violence begets violence, and any targeting of individuals based on
religion will only serve to deepen internal divisions. This is a time for unity, not hatred.
Both Hindus and Muslims in India have suffered from terrorism, and it is essential that
the government lead by example in fostering communal harmony.
In conclusion, the Pahalgam attack is not just a tragedy—it is a test. A test for India’s
democratic resilience, for Pakistan’s credibility, and for the world’s commitment to
combating terrorism. In such trying times, restraint, justice, and diplomacy must prevail.
If both nations choose the path of de-escalation and cooperation, the region may yet
emerge stronger from this crisis. But if sabers continue to rattle, it is the ordinary people
on both sides who will pay the price.
