Article: The India-Pakistan Standoff: Escalation, Diplomacy, and the Unyielding Kashmir Question
Altaf Hussain Wani
On April 22, 2025, the deadly Pahalgam attack in Indian-occupied Kashmir claimed 26 civilian lives and left 20 others wounded, reigniting fierce tensions between India and Pakistan. In the immediate aftermath, India accused Pakistan of orchestrating the attack, without presenting credible evidence, and escalated its posture by unilaterally suspending its participation in the Indus Waters Treaty of 1960, a longstanding water-sharing accord that had endured even during periods of war. In response, Pakistan took a series of countermeasures, including closing its airspace to Indian-owned or operated airlines, suspending all trade with India, including trade through third countries, and halting the issuance of special South Asian visas to Indian nationals. These measures, while firm, were calculated to demonstrate Pakistan’s resolve without tipping the situation into full-scale confrontation. India’s actions reflect a broader pattern of exploiting violent incidents to internationalize blame while concealing its repressive policies in Kashmir. Such maneuvers deepen mistrust, erode diplomatic channels, and defy established international norms. While the tragedy itself is a grim reminder of the human cost of unresolved disputes, the subsequent diplomatic fallout underscores a deeper crisis: India’s aggressive attempts to weaponize the incident to isolate Pakistan internationally. Without justice for Kashmir and a commitment to genuine dialogue, South Asia risks sliding toward irreversible instability.
The Blame Game and International Fatigue
India’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led government swiftly blamed Pakistan for orchestrating the Pahalgam attack, framing it as part of a broader narrative of “cross-border terrorism.” However, this accusatory stance has been met with skepticism abroad. Key allies, including the United States and European Union, have refrained from endorsing India’s claims, instead urging restraint. U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance, during his visit to India, cautioned against actions that could spark a “broader regional conflict,” while EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas stressed that “escalation helps no one.”
This tepid response reflects a global fatigue with South Asia’s cyclical crises. With wars in Ukraine and Gaza dominating geopolitical bandwidth, the international community has little appetite for another flashpoint. Crucially, India’s failure to produce credible evidence linking Pakistan to the attack—coupled with its refusal to pursue a joint investigation—has weakened its moral authority. The world sees through New Delhi’s playbook: using Pakistan as a scapegoat to deflect from its own domestic failures in Kashmir, where heavy-handed militarization and systemic human rights abuses have fueled resentment.
India’s Isolation Strategy: Petty Diplomacy and Multilateral Manipulation
Undeterred by the lukewarm global reaction, India has doubled down on efforts to diplomatically isolate Pakistan. Beyond suspending bilateral engagements, Indian officials have lobbied multilateral institutions like the IMF to “review” financial support for Pakistan—a move that reeks of opportunism. By exploiting a tragedy to cripple a rival’s economy, India is undermining the very principles of global cooperation. This petty approach, driven by the BJP’s Hindu nationalist ideology, risks destabilizing South Asia further.
Pakistan, meanwhile, has adopted a proactive diplomatic stance. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s outreach to Gulf allies and Foreign Minister / deputy prime Minister Senator Isaq Dar’s engagement with global powers highlight Islamabad’s commitment to de-escalation. Even Pakistan’s military leadership has signaled readiness to respond to Indian aggression, albeit with caution but full preparations. The contrast is stark: one nation seeks dialogue; the other, confrontation.
Kashmir: The Semantic Battle and India’s Frustrations
At the heart of this standoff lies Kashmir—a territory whose disputed status India has sought to erase through constitutional sleight of hand, military repression, and narrative control. For decades Indian military, paramilitary forces, used all military repression, killing nearly hundred thousand people , with enforced disappearnces , torture , arbitrary detentions and mass rape and property destruction used as collective punishment failed to crush the will of people. In August 2019, New Delhi unilaterally revoked Jammu and Kashmir’s autonomy, annexing it into the Indian union. Yet, the international community has refused to legitimize this move. Media outlets like The New York Times, BBC, and Al Jazeera consistently refer to the region as “Indian-administered Kashmir,” a terminology that infuriates Indian policymakers.
India’s frustration stems from its inability to sway global discourse. As noted by an Indian analyst, international media’s use of terms like “militants,” “suspected rebels,” or “alleged militants”—rather than “terrorists”—to describe actors in Kashmir has been deemed a “victory” for Pakistan’s diplomatic outreach. For India, this linguistic resistance undermines its claim of moral superiority in the conflict. The reality, however, is that the world recognizes Kashmir’s contested status, anchored in UN resolutions that mandate a plebiscite—a process India has obstructed for over seven decades.
The UN’s Role and Pathways to De-escalation
With Greece currently chairing the UN Security Council (UNSC), there is growing momentum to address the crisis. Pakistan’s envoy to the UN has called for a session, arguing that India’s warmongering threatens global peace. A UNSC debate could force both nations to present evidence, offering a platform for transparency. India, if confident in its claims, should welcome this—yet its reluctance speaks volumes.
For its part, Pakistan must continue leveraging multilateral forums to highlight Kashmir’s plight. The UN Military Observer Group (UNMOGIP), though routinely dismissed by India, remains a symbol of the dispute’s international dimension. Islamabad should also amplify grassroots Kashmiri voices, whose aspirations for self-determination are drowned out by state violence.
What Lies Ahead?
The risks are immense. India’s combative rhetoric—amplified by hypernationalist media—fuels public pressure for military action, while Pakistan’s calibrated responses could quickly unravel if provoked. Both nations possess nuclear arsenals; a miscalculation could prove catastrophic.
Yet there are off-ramps. India could table its evidence at the UN, inviting independent verification. Pakistan could reinforce its offer of dialogue, building on backchannel talks that have previously averted crises. The international community, particularly the U.S. and China, must mediate actively, recognizing that another South Asian conflict would have ripple effects across trade routes, energy security, and regional stability.
Ultimately, Kashmir cannot be “resolved” through propaganda or brute force. Its status demands a political solution—one that respects UN resolutions, acknowledges Kashmiri agency, and ends the cycle of violence. Until then, the specter of war will loom over the subcontinent.
Conclusion
The Pahalgam tragedy has exposed the fragility of India-Pakistan relations and the international community’s limited tolerance for escalation. While India’s attempts to isolate Pakistan have faltered, Islamabad’s diplomatic agility offers a path to crisis management. However, lasting peace will remain elusive without addressing Kashmir’s core issues. The world must recognize that silencing guns in South Asia requires not just de-escalation today, but justice for Kashmir tomorrow. The alternative—a perpetual cycle of blame and bloodshed—serves no one.
The Author is chairman Kashmir Institute of International Relations (KIIR) and can be reached at saleeemwani@hotmail.com and on. X @sultan1913
