The Pahalgam entanglement

The recent attack on tourists in Pahalgam’s Baisaran Valley has had serious repercussions across India. On April 22, 2025, five armed militants reportedly carried out a brutal assault, killing 26 people, mostly Hindus, and injuring over 20 others. Indian sources accused attackers of being linked to the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba group. Pakistan denies this claim saying that the LET is not operational any longer. However, the attackers seemed armed with deadly automatic weapons when they targeted victims.

The unfamiliar ‘Resistance Front (TRF)’, believed to be an offshoot of the Pakistan-based UN-designated terrorist group Lashkar-e-Taiba, initially claimed responsibility, stating that the attack was in opposition to Indian government policy of allowing Indian citizens to live and work in Kashmir, that resulted in non-local settlement in the region. Four days later, they abruptly and oddly retracted their claim. That leaves the origin of the attack now dangling in the air.

India has threatened Pakistan with all-out war. It has sent out what it claims to its version of facts of the story to countries around the world. It did not make frontpage news anywhere in the world except for the media in India sparked interest. Right now, it seems like a war already begun with the Indian media in the frontlines. There was support for India’s claims and the UN Security Council was prompted to approve a unanimous resolution that unitedly condemned the Pahalgam attack in the strongest terms, calling it a “reprehensible act of terrorism”. The council’s press statement emphasized the need to hold the perpetrators, organizers, financiers, and sponsors accountable and bring them to justice. The council stressed the need to hold the perpetrators, organizers, financiers, and sponsors accountable and bring them to justice and urged all states to cooperate actively with relevant authorities to combat terrorism. The council expressed deep sympathy to the families of the victims and wished a speedy recovery to those injured. The UNSC reaffirmed that terrorism in all its forms and manifestations constitutes one of the most serious threats to international peace and security. This UNSC resolution does not point fingers at Pakistan or at any specific group. It is a just a press release and does not reflect any stance or policy.  

The attack has been widely condemned by several countries around the world, notably the USA, UK, and Saudi Arabia. The reactions have shown only mild interest in contrast to the hype within India’s Foreign Ministry hubs. The United States urged both India and Pakistan to work towards what it terms a “responsible solution” as tensions escalate between the neighbouring countries. Coinciding, as it did, with US Vice President’s official visit to India, the US seemed to lean in India’s favour:  The US stands with India and strongly condemns the terrorist attack. Yet, the US has never been invited to a mediatory role. Russia has firmly backed India in the wake of the Pahalgam terror attack, emerging as one of the first nations to condemn the strike and express unconditional support for India’s war on terrorism.

The attack has intensified tensions between India and Pakistan, leading to a somewhat low-intensity diplomatic crisis. But this could be progress into a full-blown conflagration. India has launched fresh accusations of Pakistan supporting cross-border terrorism and suspended the Indus Waters Treaty, expelled Pakistani diplomats, and closed borders. Pakistan denied India’s accusations and retaliated by suspending the Simla Agreement, restricting trade, and closing airspace. Border skirmishes between Indian and Pakistani forces began along the Line of Control on 24 April. Pakistan has denied any links to the attacks and retaliated by expelling Indian diplomats from Islamabad, closing its airspace to Indian-owned and Indian-operated airlines, and suspending the limited trade between the nations.

For the keen political observer, threats from India and Pakistan action may appear to posturing and geared to the gallery. After all, the incident took place in Baisaran Valley, a popular tourist destination near Pahalgam. After the abrogation of Article 370 by India’s Parliament, India had all its reasons to present the picture of a Kashmir-turned-normal. Tourism had returned to Kashmir and what other proof did anyone need to trust India’s point that Kashmir had returned to normalcy? There exists deep bitterness in India that the peace they had so carefully taken steps to construct has been pulled out from under the rug. This bitterness could cause dangerous circumstances. Two nuclear-armed neighbours could be a deadly cocktail of death and destruction.    

The consequences of the attack have led to retaliatory actions. A joint cordon and search operation was launched by the Indian Army, paramilitary forces, and Jammu and Kashmir Police to track down the militants. Unfortunately, there have also been reports of Islamophobic and anti-Kashmiri sentiments, with some Kashmiri students and residents facing harassment and violence. At the level of people, protests have erupted across India, with many condemning the attack and expressing anger at Pakistan. In the rest of India, people might have failed to grasp the Kashmiri sentiment. Until the beginning of August 2019, the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly had been granted the sole authority to define “permanent residents” or State subjects, granting them alone eligibility for specific rights and privileges, including the right to own immovable property, jobs, education and scholarship, and importantly, the ability to purchase land. When Article 370 and 35 A were revoked, Jammu and Kashmir’s  lost its semi-autonomous status, a primary concern of the Kashmiri people. Kashmiris argues that the abrogation of Article 370 and would lead to the dilution of the region’s ethnic character and religious map. Demographic change was a real concern. The Kashmiri identity was at stake. The People’s Democratic Party (PDP) legislator reported that that a massive 83,742 domicile certificates had been granted to the non-natives in Jammu and Kashmir in the last two years alone. The Legislative Assembly on April 9, 2025, that around 3,512,184 domicile certificates had been issued in the last two years across Jammu and Kashmir, of which 83,742 were issued to the non-state subjects. Hence, the Kashmiri is uneasy about their unique distinctiveness.

India’s threat that the Indus Waters will be closed to Pakistan might just be highly exaggerated. The suspension of the 64-year-old Indus Waters Treaty raises critical questions for both sides. The question is whether India possesses the infrastructural capacity to divert waters and deprive Pakistan of its lifeline? And an equal pertinent question: Is unilateral suspension of the treaty permissible under international law? The Pakistan Prime Minister’s office retaliated with contempt. He called the threat itself as act of war and announced a series of retaliatory diplomatic measures, including the suspension of the 1972 Simla Agreement. The Hindu (27^th April, 2025) reports that: “Under the treaty, India was granted unrestricted rights over the three eastern rivers — Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej, while Pakistan was given exclusive control over the three western rivers — Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab, which collectively comprise the lion’s share of the basin’s water reserves. Although the western rivers are allocated to Pakistan, India retains limited rights to use their waters for “non-consumptive” purposes, including domestic use, irrigation, and hydroelectric power generation. The treaty establishes a robust institutional framework for cooperation and dispute resolution. Disputes are resolved through a three-tiered process: first, before the Permanent Indus Commission (PIC), comprising a delegation of water experts from both countries; then a World Bank-appointed neutral expert; and eventually, a forum of arbitrators.” If the current threats come into operation, more than 80% of Pakistan’s agriculture and around a third of its hydropower generation which are reliant on the waters of the Indus basin would be under threat. That itself would be yet another perilous and detrimental flash point.  India cannot carry out these ambitions in a jiffy because India lacks the massive storage infrastructure and extensive canal systems needed to withhold tens of billions of cubic metres of water from the western rivers. Even though Pakistan may be eventual loser, that would actually happen a decade (give or take a few years). Hence, no one in Pakistan is fuming and fretting right now over this.  Meanwhile, the World Bank Group today urged India and Pakistan to agree to mediation in order to settle on a mechanism for how the Indus Waters Treaty should be used to resolve issues regarding two dams under construction along the Indus rivers system initiated under the Indus Waters Treaty 1960. The World Bank Group will appoint three umpires to sit on the Court of Arbitration that Pakistan has requested. The World Bank Group also proposed to the two countries the names of three potential candidates for appointment as a Neutral Expert, following India’s request.

If the agreement were to be suspended, it could have significant consequences amidst political tensions. It could escalate tensions and lead to a heightened sense of hostility and mistrust between India and Pakistan, potentially escalating tensions along the Line of Control (LoC) and the International Border (IB). Both sides could increase their military presence along the borders, leading to a higher risk of clashes and skirmishes, and an increase in ceasefire violations, resulting in civilian casualties and damage to infrastructure.

The move could lead to a diplomatic fallout, with both countries recalling their ambassadors or high commissioners, and potentially expelling diplomats. The suspension of the Simla Agreement could have far-reaching implications for regional stability, potentially drawing in other countries and affecting the broader geopolitics of the region. The suspension could further distance a peaceful resolution to the core question – The Kashmir issue. Worse, if the conflict were prolonged, a humanitarian crisis, with civilians caught in the crossfire, displaced, or affected by the economic fallout. The increased tensions and potential conflict could have significant economic consequences, including disruptions to trade, tourism, and investment.

If a full-blown war were to break-out, even if came to an abrupt halt with mediation and other geo-political factors, to many people would have died. Both countries with their appalling levels of human poverty and deprivation would face the worst. People will be forced to flee their homes, leaving behind belongings, livelihoods, and loved ones. Innocent civilians, including children, women, and the elderly, are caught in the crossfire, leading to injuries, deaths, and long-term trauma. The stress, fear, and uncertainty of war can cause lasting emotional scars, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) will drastically affect human communities in the and around the arena of war resulting in anxiety and depression. Homes, schools, hospitals, and essential infrastructure would be destroyed, leaving people without access to basic necessities like food, water, shelter, and healthcare. What will the military-political choices be? Will military planners think first about the humanitarian consequences or will they look to assert military force?

In an interview between Karan Thapar of News Wire and a Pakistani journalist, the Pakistani journalist suggested that the levels of stress in Pakistan seemed much lighter. He, in fact, suggested that this is currently a war mainly involving the ‘Godi media’ and Pakistan. Are Pakistani’s miscalculating or underrating Indian intent? The Pakistan street does not even seem to believe that the dark clouds of war are in the skies and they must look up and worry about their lives and their country’s future. The same for India. In India, the sense of urgency is more hardline.  After the Pahalgam terror attack, India may invoke its Cold Start Doctrine—its military strategy to hit back fast without triggering nuclear war. In a report from The Hindu, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, exercising his faith in the Indian armed forces and affirming the resolve to deliver a “crushing blow to terrorism”, held they would have “complete operational freedom to decide on the mode, targets and timing” of the country’s response to the terror attack in Pahalgam. The big decision-makers of the Indian armed forces were present. Pakistani attitude towards a war with India is complex, marked by a blend of cautious scepticism and a readiness to respond to perceived threats. While a full-blown war is considered unlikely by many, a military confrontation remains a possibility, particularly if India’s actions are perceived as infringing on Pakistan’s sovereignty or territorial integrity.  

China, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states are working to prevent conflict from breaking out. Iran has stepped forward with an offer to mediate between the two countries. Citing centuries-old civilizational ties and invoking a Persian poem from the 13th century, Tehran said it is ready to help defuse tensions in the region.  Saudi Arabia has also sought to de-escalate the situation. The Saudi Foreign Ministry, Prince Faisal bin Farhan announced they held separate phone calls with External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar and Pakistani Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar.

While mediation can be a valuable tool in conflict resolution, it’s not necessarily the only or always the most effective way forward for India and Pakistan. The deep-rooted distrust and historical animosity between the two countries, coupled with complex issues like the Kashmir dispute, make a long-term resolution through mediation challenging, although not impossible. The complex geopolitical landscape requires careful navigation to prevent a potential military conflict.

Behind-the scenes, we will never know what chips are being bargained. These chips must consist in justice and mutuality. Citizens can only as far as to ask: Will the risks of war convert from menacing threats to peaceful postures that pre-empt further strains and killings? It is said that the reality of war is death and destruction; while the fruits of peace are prosperity and harmonious co-existence. Despite all said and done, Indians and Pakistanis have a common heritage and, therefore a common destiny. We cannot allow this 76-year conflict to linger forever and destroy peace and development.   

As PM Modi himself said in the context of the Ukraine-Russia war: “This is not the time for war.” War by itself is never going to bring about true peace; it will need addressing the underlying reasons of the conflict in the first place.

“Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that, Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that… Humanity must take a different route directed by knowledge, empathy, and our highest goals if we are to establish lasting peace”
(Martin Luther King)

Ranjan Solomon is a political commentator