India’s Reckless Gambit and Pakistan’s Unwavering Resolve
Watching the recent events unfold in South Asia stirs up a familiar mix of feelings in me – deep concern, yes, but also a solid sense of determination not to be swayed by familiar accusations. News about the violence targeting civilians in Pahalgam, in India-Occupied Jammu & Kashmir (IOJK), is, of course, disturbing. Hurting innocent people is never okay. But honestly, the speed, the almost instant way India started pointing fingers at Pakistan, even before anyone could realistically figure out what truly happened? That’s what feels deeply frustrating, and sadly, so predictable. It feels like we keep seeing this pattern repeat, and to me, it highlights a bigger, persistent problem: this sense that India seems fundamentally unwilling to really look at and deal with the difficult realities happening inside the territory it controls.
We have witnessed this pattern relentlessly. An incident occurs within IOJK, a region simmering with discontent stemming from decades of suppression, and the immediate, almost reflexive, response from New Delhi is to cast blame across the border. The Indian Foreign Secretary’s highlighting of alleged “cross-border linkages” without substantiation feels less like a presentation of evidence and more like the opening act of a well-worn political script designed to externalize internal failings and whip up nationalist sentiment.
Crucially, India continues to look at Kashmir almost exclusively through a security lens, willfully disregarding the legitimate political ambitions and grievances of the Kashmiri people. This myopic approach ignores the root causes of unrest. The heavy-handed system of suppression, the documented accounts of torture, and the climate of fear imposed by Indian authorities in IOJK have not yielded stability; instead, they have demonstrably failed and fired back, fostering deeper alienation and resentment. It is this environment, created by India’s own policies, that is often conveniently ignored when tragedies occur. Voices within IOJK itself, including families of victims in past incidents, have openly questioned the efficacy and actions of Indian forces. Yet New Delhi prefers the simpler, albeit fictitious, narrative of external malevolence.
This tendency extends to the narrative surrounding resistance groups. When India tries to say these newer resistance groups, like the NRF, are simply extensions of older ones like Lashkar-e-Taiba, it feels like they’re missing – or maybe ignoring – a huge part of the story that people here know well. You can’t just talk about these groups without talking about what happened in 2019. The truth is, this kind of resistance really picked up steam after India suddenly threw out Article 370.That wasn’t just a policy decision on paper; it felt like a violation, going against international agreements (UNSC resolutions) and breaking the promises India itself had made to the people of Kashmir. It tore away the limited self-governance the region had, and honestly, that cut deep. It wounded the shared sense of identity and rights that Kashmiris felt. To dismiss subsequent resistance purely as externally sponsored terrorism, rather than acknowledging it, at least in part, as a human response – however regrettable its violent manifestations – to India’s illegal actions and broken promises, is intellectually dishonest.
The subsequent punitive actions taken by the Indian government – the suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), the further downgrading of diplomatic ties, and the closure of the Attari border – represent a dangerous escalation based on these flawed premises. These are not the actions of a responsible regional power seeking truth and stability; they are the actions of a state seemingly manufacturing a crisis, perhaps to divert attention from its own failings in IOJK and increasingly, within India itself.
Let’s be very clear about this Indus Waters Treaty situation because it’s incredibly serious. The whole idea that India thinks it can just tear up or suspend this agreement on its own? That’s not just wrong, it’s genuinely dangerous thinking. It completely ignores international law and the way things have always been understood. You have to remember, this treaty wasn’t just slapped together. The World Bank put a lot of work into brokering it back in 1960. It’s not simply a piece of paper between India and Pakistan – it has the weight of international backing behind it. It comes with guarantees that involve more than just the two countries. It has withstood multiple wars and decades of intense diplomatic strain precisely because it serves as a crucial mechanism for water security and regional stability. Furthermore, India knows very well that despite the rhetoric, the practicalities of physically stopping the flow of these mighty rivers are immensely complex, constrained by geography and the very nature of the Himalayan watershed. The threat itself may be more potent than the actual capability, but its utterance alone constitutes a grave provocation.
As our Federal Minister for Water Resources, Mian Moin Wattoo, rightly asserted, international organizations are party to this treaty. India cannot simply walk away from its obligations. Any attempt to weaponize water would be a flagrant violation of international law and a hostile act with potentially catastrophic consequences, particularly for downstream provinces like Sindh which already grapple with water scarcity. Does India truly believe it can choke Pakistan’s lifeline and expect silence? Honestly, taking a step like that wouldn’t just throw the whole region into turmoil; it’s almost certainly bound to backfire and end up harming India itself because of the fallout that would inevitably follow.
It really feels like we’re watching a familiar pattern here: stir up a crisis, present yourself as the victim to get sympathy from the West, and hope everyone looks away from the real problems brewing at home. And let’s be clear, there are serious problems – like the deeply worrying rise of Hindutva thinking and the way extremist mobs are targeting Muslims and other minorities. That’s something tearing at the very fabric of India’s society and its own internal peace. But frankly, I think the world is getting tired of these kinds of tactics. People are starting to see through it.
Allegations of terrorism and surgical strikes have often crumbled under scrutiny. Pakistan’s position remains clear. We desire peace, but our desire for peace should never be misconstrued as weakness. We offered condolences following the Pahalgam attack, reflecting our principled stance against terrorism. However, we will not succumb to pressure tactics or unfounded accusations. Our forces maintain constant vigilance. Any provocation, any infringement upon our sovereignty or rights under international law, will be met with a firm and befitting response, as history has shown.
It is high time India moved beyond the use of force and security-centric approaches in IOJK. A lasting resolution to the Kashmir dispute is not possible through military dominance or by abrogating established rights. It can only be achieved by genuinely addressing the aspirations of the Kashmiri people, adhering to relevant UN Security Council resolutions, and engaging in meaningful dialogue.
As Pakistan’s National Security Committee convenes, our response will be measured, strategic, and anchored in international law. India must step back from this dangerous brinkmanship. It must abandon the illusion that it can impose its will through coercion or dismantle vital regional frameworks like the IWT. Addressing the core issue of Kashmir respectfully and justly, and managing its own internal ideological conflicts, are the paths to genuine peace and stability – not these reckless gambles that threaten catastrophe for us all.
