An Echo of Past Tensions
On April 22, 2025, the idyllic town of Pahalgam, located in Jammu and Kashmir’s valley and long idealized for its breathtaking views and tourist reputation, was brought into global headlines. A group of unknown gunmen ambushed a group of visiting tourists on a tour with a brutal rampage, killing 26 unarmed civilians and injuring dozens more. What might have been a serene day in one of South Asia’s most stunning vistas turned into a nightmare of bloodshed and horror.
The Indian government moved swiftly, accusing Pakistan-based militant groups—primarily Jaish-e-Mohammed—without producing definitive forensic or intelligence evidence. The strike rekindled one of the most dangerous rivalries of the modern age: that between nuclear-armed neighbors India and Pakistan. India launched Operation Sindoor on May 7, 2025, a series of airstrikes that were purportedly utilized to incapacitate militant bases in Pakistan-ruled Kashmir along the Line of Control (LoC). Pakistan, for its part, denounced the operation as a grave violation of its sovereignty and promised a retaliatory strike, again pushing the region to the edge of War.
This gruesome chain of events has placed South Asia on another risky cycle of brinkmanship similar to the overt traumas of the 1999 Kargil war, the 2001 Indian Parliament strike, and the recent Pulwama-Balakot confrontation of 2019. But unlike in the past, here is the catch: independent analysts and whistleblowers have rightly questioned the official Indian narrative and speculated that the Pahalgam attack might have been an internally directed, organized act by insurgent elements within India rather than originate from groups based in Pakistan. If proven, the implications are earth-shattering—not just for India-Pakistan relations but for truth, accountability, and regional peace.
As the late John F. Kennedy once warned, “Mankind must put an end to war—or war will put an end to mankind.” In a region already strained by unresolved border conflicts, political polarization, and a volatile arms race, the gulf between rhetoric and destruction becomes alarmingly thin.
This article critically examines the unfolding Pahalgam crisis: it questions the government’s narrative legitimacy, charts the militarization and geopolitics that have followed, and weighs larger implications for South Asian diplomacy, disinformation, and regional security. Most importantly, it seeks to chart other paths—sustained by truth, self-constraint, and cooperation—which can potentially pull the region back from the edge and towards a future driven by hope and not fear.
The Pahalgam Attack: Tragedy, Disinformation, and Manufactured Consent
The April 2025 attack on Pahalgam, a peaceful tourist resort nestled in the Lidder Valley of Jammu and Kashmir, occurred against the backdrop of mounting unrest. Weeks of street demonstrations by residents had been held against the acquisition of land, the prolonged shutdowns of the internet, and continued human rights violations. The atmosphere was already tense with an augmented deployment of Indian paramilitary soldiers marching down civilian streets. When the men in arms opened fire on a tour convoy, killing 26 and injuring dozens, the nation went into mourning—and political overdrive at once.
Witnesses in Pahalgam described a grim scene. The attackers, various local sources reported, wore uniforms that are usually reserved for Indian security forces, and their familiarity with the terrain raised eyebrows. Speculation soon began to circulate about the possibility of a false flag—a sinister scenario in which state or proxy forces orchestrate an attack to legitimize political or military action. But even before any forensic evidence was presented or an investigation conducted, the Indian government was quick to accuse Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), a Pakistan-based terror group sanctioned by the UN.
This hasty task was copied almost identically by the country’s mainstream media, now commonly derogatorily referred to as “Godi media.” Independent journalist Ravish Kumar popularized the term to describe media outlets that sit in the government’s lap in silence, mindlessly parroting official propaganda without criticism. The term has come to symbolize a sycophantic and sensationalist press that repeatedly reproduces the ruling BJP’s talking points, particularly those stoking nationalist frenzy.
The Pahalgam narrative, as with the 2019 Pulwama attack, went by a familiar script: tragedy, immediate Pakistan blame, and a tidal wave of nationalist rhetoric. In both cases, opposition voices questioning the official narrative were silenced, and social media was abuzz with choreographed campaigns calling for vengeance. The government used the Pulwama event in 2019 to justify air strikes on Balakot, and the subsequent War had a significant impact on the national mood right before the general elections. The same pattern appears to be followed with Pahalgam—exploiting tragedy for political gain.
What differentiates the Pahalgam episode, however, is increasing awareness and skepticism among parts of the Indian citizenry and international watchers. Independent media, human rights activists, and global analysts have begun resisting the narrative of the government, pointing out inconsistencies and the terrifying speed at which Pakistan was being blamed. However, Godi media continues to drown out voices of dissent, often tagging them as “anti-national” and accusing them of being pro-terrorist—practices that have a chilling effect on press freedom and democratic debate.
This information ecosystem, driven by television newsreaders operating more as political reps than reporters, has made sense discourse nigh impossible. The media’s instinctive repetition of government spin has not only escalated public ire but also killed diplomatic space for bringing down the temperature. When news narratives turn into war slogans, diplomacy becomes irrelevant, and citizens lose out.
Moreover, the fact that the Pahalgam attack occurred and was politicized at this juncture also aligns with India’s upcoming general elections—imbuing credibility to suspicions that the attack was staged or, at least, opportunistically politicized to serve political ends. Faced with mounting accusations of economic mismanagement, joblessness, and rising authoritarianism, the Modi administration appears to be using outside scapegoats to divert national attention away from failures at home.
Here, the Pahalgam attack is not merely a tragedy—it is an acid test for Indian democracy and its institutions, including the media. Combining journalism with jingoism, fact with fiction, and grief with political opportunism threatens not only India-Pakistan relations but the very ethos of the founding pillars of truth, accountability, and justice in India itself.
As George Orwell wisely warned, “The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.” Through selective memory, controlled media, and weaponized narratives, the true story of Pahalgam—and those who lost their lives—will be lost to history unless independent investigation, good journalism, and international pressure take the upper hand.
Escalation and Military Posturing: Operation Sindoor and the Brink of Conflagration
India’s reaction to the Pahalgam attack was quick and forceful. In 72 hours of the attack, the Indian Air Force initiated “Operation Sindoor,” a retributive military operation that was allegedly focused on supposed terrorist training camps situated along the Line of Control (LoC) in Pakistan-held Kashmir. The raid, named after the symbolic Indian vermillion that calls to mind sacrifice and nationalism, was described by Indian defense officials as a “measured and precise” counter-terror exercise designed to neutralize the suspected perpetrators of the Pahalgam massacre.
India’s Defence Ministry said the airstrikes targeted four sites suspected of being linked to the outlawed group Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM). However, independent satellite imagery analysts and foreign news reporters cast grave doubt on the scale and accuracy of the bombardments. Several images and descriptions from local sources suggested that among the targets hit were civilian areas and infrastructure where no apparent militant presence existed. This discrepancy increased speculation that the operation could be politically motivated and theatrically hyped to meet domestic needs, particularly after the imminent general elections in India.
Pakistan’s reaction was quick and unambiguous. Pakistan’s government condemned the attacks as a “blatant violation of sovereignty and international law,” attributing the state-sponsored aggression to India aimed at exacerbating regional tensions. Pakistan responded by mobilizing thousands of troops along the eastern border, placed its air defense system on high alert, and conducted low-flying air sorties along key military zones in Punjab and Azad Kashmir.
This was succeeded by a familiar and risky cycle of army bluff. Shelling exchanges flashed on different stretches of the LoC in the Poonch, Rajouri, and Kupwara districts. Scores of soldiers on both sides were killed or injured, and thousands of civilians were displaced from their homes into squalid makeshift camps beyond the firing line. Border schools were closed indefinitely, and internet shutdowns were imposed in sensitive areas in the guise of “national security.”
By early May 2025, diplomatic relations between Islamabad and New Delhi had nearly collapsed. High Commissioners were recalled, visas for business and cultural exchange were suspended, and bilateral trade routes—like the Attari-Wagah border and Srinagar-Muzaffarabad cross-border bus service—were shut down indefinitely. All other communication channels between the two nations, like backdoor diplomatic channels and hotline procedures, were suspended or rendered inoperable.
The threat of a war between two nuclear nations loomed over South Asia once again. The world responded with shock. The United Nations Secretary-General issued a public call urging both parties to exercise “maximum restraint” and permit unconditional negotiations under UN auspices. The United States, traditionally closer to India in recent years, immediately called for a stop to de-escalation and made it clear that “any military miscalculation in South Asia would have global repercussions.” China, as a strategic ally of Pakistan and with a tense military standoff with India along the LAC, warned against unilateral aggression and emphasized the imperative of regional stability. The European Union also seconded the same request, urging “credible investigations” into the Pahalgam attack and advocating for multilateral action through SAARC or third-party facilitators.
But underlying the geopolitical positions lies a sad reality: Operation Sindoor, in contrast to muting any perceivable militant threat, has fueled the volatile faultlines between two old foes. The operation—while basked in glory at home in Indian media as an emblem of national power—has contributed towards lack of trust, increased militarisation, and narrowed the already limited scope of negotiations.
Up to now, the South Asian subcontinent is precariously poised on the edge of a wider firestorm—one in which history, ideology, and misinformation threaten to overwhelm reason, diplomacy, and shared human security. This is a sobering reminder that in the nuclear age, even symbolic assaults and misjudged rhetoric can have apocalyptic consequences not just for the combatants but for an entire region still hoping for peace.
Geopolitical Changes: China and Turkey Back Pakistan, India Defies Israel
As the India-Pakistan conflict caused by Pahalgam intensifies into a xenophobic and expansive crisis, the consequences are spilling well beyond South Asia, with regional and global actors being attracted whose alignments reflect a rapidly emerging bipolar geopolitics. The epicenter of this fresh rift is China and Turkey, who have openly reaffirmed solidarity with Pakistan, with Israel openly rallying behind India, cementing an already thriving strategic bond.
China: Strategic Patron of Pakistan
China’s friendship with Pakistan, typically referred to as “higher than the mountains, deeper than the oceans,” has once more shown itself unmistakably. In opposition to India’s launch of Operation Sindoor, Beijing’s government issued a sternly worded condemnation of India’s “unilateral use of force” and warned against any military adventurism that could destabilize the region.
China’s support is not only diplomatic. PLA soldiers were reported to have been dispatched in greater numbers along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) in eastern Ladakh—a hot border that has witnessed deadly battles between Indian and Chinese forces over the past two years—after the escalation in the days that followed. Chinese state media also indicated likely combined drills with Pakistani forces, reflecting the scale of the strategic partnership.
Economically, China continues to back Pakistan through the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), a cornerstone of its Belt and Road Initiative. Beijing views Indian belligerency in Kashmir not only as a threat to Pakistani sovereignty but also to that of its own economic infrastructure efforts and strategic interests in the Arabian Sea. In backing Pakistan, China imposes its broader aim of containing Indian power in Asia and projecting its own regional standing.
Turkey: Voice of Islamic Solidarity
Turkey under President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s presidency has been a very outspoken foreign supporter of Pakistan in the global arena over recent years, and particularly regarding Kashmir. The foreign ministry of Turkey recently responded to the most recent escalation by releasing a statement calling India’s air strikes an aggression and renewing “unwavering solidarity with the people of Pakistan and Kashmir.”
President Erdoğan has been a vociferous champion of Muslim causes everywhere in the world for long, and his government has also had a consistently negative stance towards India’s activities in Jammu and Kashmir, especially since the abrogation of Article 370 in 2019. Even during this current crisis, Ankara has also proposed calling an extraordinary session of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) to discuss what it calls “India’s continued violation of international norms in the region.”.
Turkey’s support of Pakistan is a result of both ideological affinity and Ankara’s own need to reclaim its role as a leader of the Muslim world, especially with its growing influence in Central and South Asia.
Israel: India’s Silent but Powerful Ally
On the other side of the divide, Israel has gone further in deepening its strategic alignment with India, offering both political and military support in the aftermath of the Pahalgam attack. If Tel Aviv has not made any provocative public statements, its actions are eloquent.
India and Israel have become extremely close defense partners. Within weeks of Operation Sindoor, Indian media reported Israeli surveillance drones and precision-guided munitions having been deployed in forward locations along the LoC. There are also unconfirmed reports of Israeli assistance in satellite intelligence gathering and counter-insurgency operations.
Mutual interests in defense technology, cybersecurity, and counterterrorism underpin this growing cooperation. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s 2017 visit to Israel—the first by an Indian head of government—cemented a relationship that transcends tactical defense into deep strategic trust.
Israel views its assistance to India as a part of a larger strategic approach to combating Islamic extremism and strengthening its global network of allies, particularly with other leading non-Western democracies. By doing so, India becomes both a significant market for Israeli arms and also a geopolitical partner in countering other rivaling influences such as Iran and Pakistan.
Implications for Regional and Global Stability
These alignments—China and Pakistan with Pakistan, Israel with India—are symptomatic of an emerging Cold War-era polarization throughout the region, with South Asia as a fault line of larger global conflict. The danger is that India-Pakistan tensions, already chaotic in any case, could become an arena for an international power struggle waged through proxies. This would critically complicate efforts at peace and increase the possibility of large-scale regional warfare among multiple players in the states.
Besides, such geopolitical alignments are also driving nationalistic narratives in India and Pakistan, causing public opinion to harden and political space to allow for talk to dwindle. As both countries retreat into powerful allies, the incentive for compromise lessens while the danger of rising actions grows.
In such an environment, calls for mediation by impartial actors like Bangladesh—especially under the globally admired leadership of Nobel Laureate Dr. Muhammad Yunus—become necessary. Regional initiatives like SAARC must be reactivated, and new peace coalitions must be formed before the region embarks on a war that can easily spiral out of control.
While the world watches, the words of John F. Kennedy are eerily relevant: “Mankind must put an end to war, or war will put an end to mankind.” South Asia stands on the edge of such a moment—and must decide wisely.
Regional Impact: South Asia on Edge
The renewed conflict between India and Pakistan has ripple effects that cascade far beyond their shared border:
- Kashmir remains a humanitarian crisis zone. Lockdowns, curfews, and militarization of the land have increased since the Pahalgam event. Civil liberties have been curtailed, access to the media undermined, and opposition ruthlessly cracked down on.
- Afghanistan, which is yet to recover from Taliban instability, suffers further strategic pressure as India and Pakistan redirect military and diplomatic resources towards their bilateral conflict.
- Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, and Sri Lanka were troubled by the destabilization of SAARC (South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation), which remains largely inoperable due to India-Pakistan conflict. Bangladesh’s recent call for mediation, particularly led by Nobel Laureate Dr. Muhammad Yunus, indicates a growing desire among smaller South Asian countries for de-escalation in the region.
- Pakistan’s ally and India’s competitor, China, has increased the numbers of its soldiers along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) in eastern Ladakh. This three-way border standoff could potentially become a larger regional confrontation.
- Economic harm is already evident, with trade corridors blocked, investor confidence shaken, and regional cooperation plans on infrastructure, climate change, and counterterrorism stalled.
Disinformation and the Danger of Narrative Control
Perhaps the most unsettling thing about the Pahalgam strife is the role of disinformation. Indian mainstream media has largely repeated government spin uncritically, while opposition voices have been barred or silenced. Local and international independent investigations have suggested that the assailants were domestically based, but such stories have been overwhelmed by a torrent of nationalist hyperbole.
This narrative management allows the manufacturing of consent to War. Under a democracy, unmanaged release of misinformation not only shatters public trust but also leads to decisions that could fuel conflict without adequate evidence or accountability.
The Path Forward: Diplomacy, Not Demagoguery
The Pahalgam tragedy needs to be prevented from entering into yet another cycle of military reprisal and inured nationalism. Rather, it needs to serve as a wake-up call to India and Pakistan—a moment to realize that escalation is not a strategy, but an indication of greater failure: a failure of dialogue, an erosion of mutual trust, and a negation of regional cooperation frameworks that were put in place very much to prevent such crises.
The South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC)—conceived in 1985 on the promise of generating peace, prosperity, and cooperation among the region’s eight countries—has of late been allowed to lapse into obsolescence due to bilateral tensions, prominently between India and Pakistan. But it is in such moments that SAARC must be brought back not merely but with all the despatch.
Nobel Peace Prize winner and erstwhile Chief Adviser of Bangladesh, Professor Muhammad Yunus, has always believed that South Asia would need to replace confrontation politics with a culture of cooperation. While campaigning earlier for collective economic prosperity, climate exposure, and social innovation as the primary determinants for future regional growth, Professor Yunus has consistently asserted that regional growth will depend on developing people together, not through domination at gunpoint. In recent remarks, Dr. Yunus called for a more powerful, reimagined SAARC—not held captive by bilateral animosities but propelled by shared economic ambition and people-centered diplomacy.
Dr. Yunus’s vision for SAARC is one the region so desperately needs: a platform where common concerns like poverty, public health, trade deficit, young people’s unemployment, and environmental deterioration are confronted by a united effort rather than overwhelmed by militarization. As he rightly identified in a recent conference, “War drains resources; peace multiplies them. South Asia cannot afford another generation held hostage by borders and bullets.”
The path ahead must involve something beyond state-to-state negotiations. Track II diplomacy, involving academics, businesspeople, civil society, and peace activists, must be reactivated to create parallel tracks of engagement and confidence-building. Cultural diplomacy, educational exchange, and cross-border people-to-people contact must be increased, not discontinued.
In essence, any successful reconciliation process has to include the role of impartial facilitators who are universally respected and unbiased—like Dr. Yunus, who internationally towers above in stature and moral standing and can transcend party allegiances. His contribution to advocating nonviolent conflict resolution, shared governance, and social justice makes him uniquely a voice of reason and conciliation for the region.
India and Pakistan must also avoid the constantly tempting call of political expediency. Using conflict for political gain at the polls might bring immediate dividends, but it inflicts long-term damage on regional stability and human lives. Kofi Annan once reminded us, “Peace is never a perfect achievement; it is always a process.” And that process begins not with accusation or aggression but with truth, humility, and the courage to see a different future.
In such a future, SAARC is no sleeping acronym but a living reality led by visionary leaders who choose diplomacy over demagoguery and development over destruction. South Asia’s youth, the world’s largest generation—should have that future. The people of South Asia deserve that peace. The time to choose that trajectory is now.
Conclusion: South Asia at a Defining Crossroads
The Pahalgam raid and its aftermath consequences are not just another verse in the lingering and extensive Indian Pakistani drama. They represent a turning point—a crossing for the entire subregion at which one faces toward possibility from the direction of history, where grudge encounters desire or, more rarely, withdrawal.
At this moment, South Asia must choose with purpose: to stay on the old path of suspicion, vengeance, and nationalism armed to the teeth or to take the more theatrical, more admirable way of reconciliation, dialogue, and reform. It is a choice between two countries and two conceptions of the region—one grounded in confrontation and the other in cooperation.
With the world’s most populous youth population, abundant natural and intellectual capital, and geography of strategic value, South Asia can be a global center of prosperity, innovation, and cultural renaissance. But that fate cannot be fulfilled if its two strongest countries keep being trapped in a cycle of escalation fueled by misinformation, past baggage, and domestic political calculation.
As Martin Luther King Jr. once said, “We must learn to live together as brothers or perish together as fools.” In a nuclearized neighborhood where the margin for error is perilously thin, these words are timelier than ever.
The citizens of India and Pakistan—indeed, all of South Asia—are not starved for War. They are starved for work, education, medicine, fresh air, and hope. They are starved for visionary leaders and courageous leaders who will see beyond short-term political gain and invest in the long curve of peace. That vision must be complemented by action—through recharged diplomacy, regional forums like SAARC, confidence-building measures, and responsible voices like Professor Muhammad Yunus, who can drive mediation efforts with trust and neutrality.
The stakes are too high, the countries too weary, and the future too uncertain to be held hostage to visions of the past. Deceit has to give way to truth-telling. Sabre-rattling has to give way to statesmanship.
The world is waiting. And so are the children of this region—whose futures are not dictated by who “wins” some war of words but by whether peace, prosperity, and dignity are allowed to prevail. At this turning point, South Asia must choose peace and progress. It must be selected tomorrow.