he long-standing rivalry between India and Pakistan has once again been reignited following the recent attack in Pahalgam in Indian-administered Kashmir. The attack, which also resulted in the death of several Indian security personnel, has triggered a familiar pattern of accusation and escalation, with India swiftly pointing fingers across the border, invoking the spectre of terrorism and alleging Pakistani involvement through groups like the Lashkar-i-Taiba. However, the situation merits a more nuanced examination, especially in the face of India’s increasingly unilateral actions and its aggressive posturing in the region.

On April 22, armed militants ambushed an Indian army convoy near Pahalgam, a picturesque town in the Union territory of Jammu and Kashmir. The tragic incident saw multiple casualties, heightening security concerns in the already tense region. While no group initially claimed responsibility, Indian authorities were quick to allege the involvement of Lashkar-i-Taiba, a Pakistan-based outfit previously implicated in several attacks in India.

What stands out is the absolute lack of convincing evidence linking Pakistan to this incident. The accusations rest on historical patterns and past associations rather than contemporary proof. No electronic intercepts have been released to the public; no captured suspects have provided testimony linking the attack to handlers across the border; and no forensic or digital trails point clearly to external orchestration. There is, in short, no actionable or verifiable intelligence that substantiates the claim — just a repetition of well-worn narratives that echo more like theatre than testimony.

Indeed, insisting upon Pakistan’s culpability by merely invoking past terror incidents belies the new context, in which Pakistan, for strategic reasons, has been shifting its security calculus westward, increasingly focusing on the volatile situation in Afghanistan and its own internal insurgencies.

This pivot undercuts the notion of a Pakistan proactively engineering chaos in Kashmir at this moment, raising doubts about the timing, motive and beneficiary of the Pahalgam assault. As Graham Greene once wrote, “Innocence is a kind of insanity.” — In this case, it is perhaps not innocence but convenience masquerading as certainty.

In a swift and predictable response, Indian Home Minister Amit Shah, flanked by Defence Minister Rajnath Singh and Prime Minister Narendra Modi, launched a barrage of accusatory rhetoric, labelling Pakistan as the mastermind behind the violence. Yet, despite the serious allegations, India has not presented any substantive evidence to support its claims, leaving observers sceptical about the credibility and intent behind the charges.

These gaps raise legitimate questions about whether the allegations serve strategic purposes beyond national security — namely, domestic political gain and the continued suppression of Kashmiri dissent.

India’s reaction follows a deeply familiar playbook — one where diplomatic dialogue is supplanted by jingoistic media coverage and politically charged speeches. Television anchors like Arnab Goswami, known for their shrill and inflammatory tone, have dominated the airwaves, vilifying Pakistan with little regard for evidence or consequences. Such platforms rarely provide space for voices urging restraint or advocating peaceful coexistence. Instead, the atmosphere is saturated with hyper-nationalist fervour, feeding a dangerous loop of aggression that leaves little room for reasoned discourse. The situation is similar as to what WH Auden said on September 1, 1939:

“I and the public know/ What all schoolchildren learn,/ Those to whom evil is done/ Do evil in return.”

The broader context of India’s approach reveals a growing trend of unilateralism. Since the revocation of Article 370 in August 2019, New Delhi has moved assertively to alter the demographic and political character of Jammu and Kashmir. These moves have been implemented with consultation neither with the people of Kashmir, nor with Pakistan, a party to the Kashmir dispute as per UN resolutions. India has further compounded tensions by disregarding key bilateral mechanisms like the Indus Waters Treaty and the Simla Agreement, both now effectively held in abeyance as strategic leverage rather than honoured frameworks for cooperation.

These actions reflect a mind-set increasingly shaped by the politics of dominance rather than dialogue. Instead of using statecraft to defuse tensions, India appears committed to portraying itself as a regional hegemon, indifferent to the consequences of alienating a nuclear-armed neighbour. The cost of this posture is not limited to the diplomatic realm; it affects millions of lives caught in the crossfire of cross-border hostility.

Pakistan’s reaction has been relatively measured. For over three years, its civil and military leaders have signalled an openness to dialogue — through backchannel talks, a 2021 ceasefire agreement on the Line of Control and calls for trade normalisation. Despite its own complex internal dynamics, Pakistan has avoided retaliatory rhetoric in response to recent provocations, signalling a desire to avoid escalation. India’s persistent diplomatic cold shoulder undermines these efforts and reinforces a narrative of perpetual hostility. It appears that the Indian leadership, bolstered by a growing chorus of international support, has grown increasingly self-assured — even smug — in its diplomatic posture.

This confidence is underpinned by the widespread global narrative that casts Pakistan as a perennial incubator of terrorism, a portrayal that some influential states have either tacitly accepted or actively endorsed. Pakistan, on the other hand, has invested little effort in cultivating a compelling soft power image on the world stage. Its diplomatic outreach lacks the sophistication and strategic depth needed to challenge entrenched perceptions, in large part because its foreign policy apparatus remains heavily dominated — if not outright controlled — by its security establishment.

What stands out most alarmingly amid these developments is the absence of a credible and influential voice advocating for peaceful coexistence. Neither state has prioritised public messaging aimed at de-escalation. The international community remains largely muted, while domestic actors capable of tempering the discourse — intellectuals, civil society leaders and moderate politicians — are either ignored or drowned out by the noise of televised bravado.

This silence is dangerous. In an era of nuclear capabilities and volatile border skirmishes, the stakes are too high to indulge in media spectacle and populist outrage. Both countries urgently need not just backchannel diplomacy, but also a vocal and visible commitment to peace, supported by mechanisms that check inflammatory rhetoric and restrain the likes of hate-mongering media personalities who profit from division.

The Pahalgam incident must not be weaponised as a political tool. It should instead be treated as a sober reminder of the fragility of regional peace and the urgent need for responsible leadership. Lasting stability cannot emerge from threats or provocations; it requires accountability, mutual respect and an honest commitment to dialogue. Until both nations recognise this, they risk remaining trapped in a loop of suspicion and violence — with no one left to speak for the peace their people desperately deserve. Let’s conclude by quoting from T S Eliot,“The last temptation is the greatest treason: / To do the right deed for the wrong reason.”

Let reason not be a casualty of ambition, nor peace the price of propaganda.

The writer is a professor in the Faculty of Liberal Arts at the Beaconhouse National 

University, Lahore