Dr Bilawal Kamran
India’s brazen airstrikes inside Pakistan—killing 26 innocent civilians, including children—represent a dangerous escalation that could tip the region into uncharted and catastrophic territory. These strikes, which targeted mosques in Bahawalpur, Muzaffarabad, Kotli, and Muridke, expose the blatant falsehood of India’s claim that it was attacking so-called “terrorist infrastructure.” Even more alarming was India’s direct hit on the Nauseri Dam, part of the Neelum-Jhelum Hydropower Project, shattering any illusion that its aggression was “measured” or “non-escalatory.” In a region already grappling with severe water shortages, such an act edges dangerously close to all-out war.
By any objective measure, Pakistan’s response has been restrained yet firm—a calibrated exercise of its inherent right to self-defence. Pakistan had repeatedly warned of potential escalation, and when the moment arrived, it responded decisively, downing three of India’s Rafale fighter jets—touted as the crown jewels of its air force—alongside a MiG-29, an SU-series fighter, combat drones, and surveillance quadcopters. This not only exposed the limits of India’s much-hyped military hardware but also demonstrated Pakistan’s preparedness and resolve.
However, the roots of this crisis run deeper than the battlefield. In the wake of the Pahalgam attack, Indian media and political circles descended into a predictable frenzy of jingoism. Fueled by hyper-nationalism, India’s mainstream narrative became a toxic cocktail of anti-Muslim, anti-Kashmiri, and anti-Pakistan sentiment—driven largely by the ideological machinery of Hindutva. The Modi government, notorious for its decade-long hostility toward Pakistan, played straight into this hysteria. Rather than seeking facts or meaningful dialogue, it fanned the flames with incendiary rhetoric and performative nationalism.
This has had two damaging consequences. First, there was a glaring absence of any serious call within India’s own political landscape for proof of Pakistan’s alleged involvement in the Pahalgam incident. Despite the gravity of its accusations, India failed to present even a single piece of credible evidence. Second, no serious introspection followed what was clearly a security lapse within India’s own borders—a telling indictment of its Kashmir policy post-Article 370 revocation. Instead of accountability, the Indian public was fed a steady diet of warmongering propaganda, pushing New Delhi further into a corner of its own making.
Please subscribe to the YouTube channel of republicpolicy.com for quality content:
The most dangerous aspect of this cycle is how predictable—and perilous—it has become. Time and again, a terrorist attack in India, often eerily close to elections (as with Pulwama in 2019 and now Pahalgam), triggers an immediate blame game. Cross-border strikes follow, leading to inevitable retaliation from Pakistan. This cycle of provocation and counter-provocation is a ticking time bomb in a nuclear-armed region, where one miscalculation could spell disaster.
India must confront a sobering question: What is its ultimate objective? It cannot hope to subdue Pakistan through conventional warfare, and the nuclear option remains—and must always remain—unthinkable. Escalating conflict serves no one, least of all the millions of civilians on both sides who have the most to lose. It is imperative that both India and Pakistan step back from the brink, and the international community must act with urgency to de-escalate this volatile situation.
For Pakistan, the moral outrage over the loss of innocent lives is real and justified. However, we must not lose sight of a critical truth: geography binds us to India, whether we like it or not. While India, as the aggressor, bears primary responsibility, the long-term path to stability—however distant it may seem—lies in dialogue and diplomacy. Peace is not a sign of weakness but of wisdom.
That said, Pakistan must also make a critical distinction between advocating peace and being complacent. Declaring peace as a principle is not enough; it must be underpinned by robust preparedness. Water security, now clearly a strategic target, must be elevated to the same level of priority as territorial defence. Moreover, strategic restraint—while commendable—must not morph into institutional inertia. Pakistan faces a multifaceted set of threats: military aggression, economic pressure, diplomatic isolation, and environmental sabotage. Any one of these could ignite a larger crisis if not managed with foresight and precision.
In this precarious moment, Pakistan must navigate a fine balance: remaining calm and clear-eyed, yet firmly vigilant. There may still be a window for de-escalation, but there is no room left for naïveté. This is a time for leadership that is both strategic and empathetic—leadership that protects national interests while keeping the door to peace ajar.
The stakes have never been higher. For the sake of regional stability, and for the future of millions of innocent lives on both sides, Pakistan must continue to advocate peace from a position of strength—and make it unequivocally clear that while we seek peace, we are fully prepared for any eventuality.
