On April 22, 2025, the Pahalgam incident took place in Illegally Indian Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IIOJK) — a region long recognized as disputed under international law. It’s a critical moment to revisit the situation in Kashmir, especially in the context of ongoing tension between two nuclear neighbors: India and Pakistan.

This recent incident is yet another reminder that managing conflict is no substitute for resolving it. It has been 77 years since the UN Security Council recognized Kashmiris’ right to self-determination under Resolution 47 (1948). That promise remains unfulfilled. The continued presence of the United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP), deployed since 1949, is a testament to the unresolved nature of the Kashmir dispute. [1]

For those swayed by the narrative that “all is well” in Kashmir — a line heavily pushed by the Modi government — this incident is a reality check. Conflict studies tell us that peace remains elusive when people’s basic needs and identities are denied. In Kashmir, the core grievance is the denial of their right to choose their future — a right promised, but never delivered.

1. The Brahmos Incident

On March 9^th 2022, India fired a BrahMos missile originating from Ambala, Haryana that crossed international borders and crashed into Mian Channu, District Khanewal, Punjab, Pakistan. In violation of the bilateral agreement on pre-notification of flight-testing of ballistic missiles, signed in 2005, which requires each country to notify the other at least three days in advance of any planned flight test of a land or sea-launched surface-to-surface ballistic missile, Indian officials choose not to inform Pakistan Army’s DGMO regarding the BrahMos launch.

The BrahMos missile incident was a blatant violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty and international borders. Yet, rather than resorting to a blame game without evidence, Pakistan exercised caution to maintain the credibility of its claims. The Foreign Office condemned the incident as a breach of international law and airspace sovereignty, and called for a joint investigation to ascertain the facts. Unlike war-mongering rhetoric often used for domestic optics, Pakistan refrained from issuing threats or coercive statements.

Through diplomatic channels, Islamabad labeled India’s internal investigation as inadequate and unsatisfactory, yet did so without escalating tensions. As a responsible actor, Pakistan raised serious concerns about the safety and reliability of India’s command and control systems. Its response reflected mature decision-making—choosing diplomacy over provocation. Pakistan briefed the P-5 nations, engaged European stakeholders, and formally approached the UN Secretary-General and the President of the Security Council, emphasizing the gravity of the incident and its potential consequences for regional security.

From the outset, Pakistan upheld international norms, highlighting that the missile firing not only violated airspace but also breached the UN Charter and global civil aviation protocols. Most significantly, the incident did not lead to any conventional or non-conventional escalation—an outcome that speaks volumes about Pakistan’s strategic restraint and commitment to peace.

1. Indian Response to the Pahalgam Incident

In stark contrast, India’s reaction to the Pahalgam attack was swift, accusatory, and exaggerated. Without waiting for an investigation or providing evidence, India blamed Pakistan. Though the National Investigation Agency (NIA) was tasked with the probe, the political verdict had already been announced. Then a series of bluff followed the sequence apparently to appease domestic vote bank. Their Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) announced five major decisions,[2] outlined by Indian Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri;

I. Suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty (1960) with Pakistan.

II.  Closure of the Attari border crossing between India and Pakistan.

III. Implementation of a travel ban on Pakistani nationals under the SAARC Visa Exemption Scheme.

IV. Cancellation of all previously issued visas to Pakistani citizens.

V. Expulsion of Pakistani military advisers from the High Commission in New Delhi and withdrawal of Indian counterparts from Islamabad.

The above mentioned decisions were followed by certain kinetic measures in IIOJK, given below;

I. The Indian Army, paramilitary forces, and Jammu and Kashmir Police launched joint cordon and search operations in the region.

II. A temporary lockdown was imposed in Pahalgam, and Indian Army helicopters were deployed to track down the militants.

III. Indian forces detained more than 1,500 individuals for questioning and demolished the houses of families of at least 10 alleged        militants.

IV. Offensive military deployment on LOC and International border.

V.  Imposing collective punishment on Kashmiris.[3]

3. Analysis

The responses of both nuclear-armed neighbors to the BrahMos and Pahalgam incidents offer a window into their respective strategic cultures, crisis behavior, and political signaling. Pakistan’s composed and calculated diplomatic posture in response to a serious military provocation stands in stark contrast to India’s hasty and accusatory reaction to the Pahalgam attack. This contrast reflects broader differences in how each state manages escalatory risks, crafts internal narratives, and positions itself before the international community. Understanding these divergent approaches is essential for evaluating the credibility and maturity of crisis management practices in a region where volatility and nuclear capability coexist.

India’s disproportionate response to the Pahalgam incident — especially when compared to its own missile misfire in 2022 — reveals an inconsistency in how it processes threats. This

inconsistency is deeply influenced by Hindutva ideology, which drives an emotional, rather than rational, security policy. Pakistan, in both incidents, called for third-party or joint investigations. India refused. It’s fair to ask: who avoids transparent inquiry if they have nothing to hide? While India sees restraint as weakness, Pakistan has shown it as strength. In response to constant threats and provocations, Pakistan is exercising strategic patience — even as it prepares for any military contingency.

Meanwhile, the Indian leadership continues to struggle with internal unrest — such as the violence in Manipur — yet reacts with disproportionate fury when it comes to Kashmir. Does Hindu Blood Weigh More Than Christian Blood? India’s response to the Pahalgam incident has unearthed a troubling undercurrent — a dilemma in how the state perceives and responds to threats, not through a lens of strategic calculus, but one tinted by ideological bias. When national security decisions are driven by Hindutva ideology rather than grounded strategic thinking, the implications become deeply unsettling, especially in a nuclearized environment. It is this radical lens that equates restraint with weakness and blurs the line between posturing and policy.

In the wake of the Pahalgam incident, Pakistan’s swift military alignment and visible preparedness narrowed India’s room for maneuver and neutralized the element of surprise. Equally unsettling for New Delhi was the response from the Pakistani public — one of clarity and resolve. This national posture is not incidental; it has been shaped by years of provocative rhetoric from the Modi regime — rhetoric that now appears hollow when tested against Pakistan’s unified and measured stance.

The incident also sheds light on the perceptional paradox embedded within India’s strategic thinking — a product of ideological conditioning rather than empirical threat assessment. When response mechanisms are dictated by ideological rigidity, it inevitably results in misinterpretation and miscalculation. And in a region where peace hangs by a thread, this is a perilous trajectory.

What stands out amid this unfolding scenario is the refusal of the Pakistani public and leadership to accept Indian war jingoism as a new normal. The longstanding political card of “occupying Azad Jammu and Kashmir” has not only lost its political utility but has now become a liability — exposing the disconnect between India’s assertive rhetoric and its actual capabilities.

The Pahalgam episode serves as a sobering reminder of how fragile peace in South Asia truly is. It exhibits the urgent need for the global community to pivot from merely managing the Kashmir conflict to genuinely resolving it. This is not just a regional imperative — it is a global one. In a region brimming with nuclear capabilities and historical grievances, missteps are not just dangerous — they are catastrophic. The time for diplomatic complacency is over. What is needed now is principled diplomacy, strategic foresight, and an unflinching commitment to justice.

References:

1. Pahalgam attack: A simple guide to the Kashmir conflict, Al Jazeera,https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/5/2/pahalgam-attack-a-simple-guide-to-the-kashmir-conflict
2. [1] Pahalgam Terror Attack: Vikram Misri Lists 5 Big Cabinet Decisions After Attack Business Today, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFKrQ3FE6tU
3. MP for Srinagar Ruhullah Mehdi says Kashmir is facing “collective punishment” after the state’s former chief minister Mehbooba Mufti says security forces must distinguish between “terrorists” and civilians. (https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2025/4/27/kashmir-attack-live-india-pakistan-troops-exchange-fire-for-third-day )

Author

Dr. Asma Shakir Khawaja is Executive Director of Center for International Strategic Studies, Azad Jammu & Kashmir. A renowned academician of Strategic Studies, Dr. Khawaja has authored “Shaking Hands with Clenched Fists: The Grand Trunk Road to Confidence Building Measures between Pakistan and India.”