The specter of terrorism has once again unsettled South Asia and reignited the decades-old hostility between nuclear-armed neighbors India and Pakistan. A recent terrorist attack in Pahalgam, Indian Occupied Kashmir, which claimed the lives of several civilians and security personnel, sent shockwaves across the region.
In its immediate aftermath, India launched a strike inside Pakistan, justifying its actions as retaliation to the Pahalgam attack, for which no investigation was ever carried out and the perpetrators are still unknow.
However, in a recent parliamentary hearing, the current leader of the Indian National Congress (INC) questioned the vulnerability of India’s security apparatus. Despite the shuttle diplomacy effort shown by US President Trump, serious questions are being raised. It is not only about the effectiveness of the strike but also the legitimacy of the narrative used to justify it.
Was the public sold a story tailored to justify a strike already in motion? The murky intelligence and shifting justifications have only fueled suspicion that politics, not principle, drove India’s decision. As the dust settles and facts surface, the continued uncertainty surrounding the aftermath suggests that the situation remains far from resolved, and the long-term implications of this action are still unclear.
India’s Rush to Blame Pakistan
India was quick to blame Pakistan for backing the Kashmiri militants responsible for the attack, a familiar accusation steeped in a history of unresolved distrust. However, this time, New Delhi struggled to present verifiable evidence linking the attackers to Pakistan. In fact, multiple international observers, including some within India’s own strategic community, have pointed out that the attack appeared to be orchestrated by non-state actors operating independently.
Despite this, the Indian military proceeded with Operation Sindoor, claiming it had actionable intelligence. The operation, though hailed by some in Indian media as a decisive act of deterrence, has since been mired in controversy. No major militant infrastructure was conclusively destroyed, no high-value targets were confirmed dead, and Pakistan has presented evidence suggesting the strike may have hit abandoned or empty facilities, if any at all.
Islamabad labeled the act a “reckless provocation based on a false alarm,” and what followed was a direct military confrontation when Pakistan retaliated in the wee hours of May 10, 2025. Even after the ceasefire, the diplomatic temperature between the two countries has surged dangerously high.
Read More: Terrorism and the Ballot: How Modi’s BJP Turns Tragedy Into Triumph
The troubling irony is that both governments appear trapped in a dangerous cycle of assumption and response, where public pressure and nationalist fervor often override caution, evidence, and long-term strategy. India, emboldened by domestic political calculus and a desire to project strength, rushed into military action without international verification.
India will undergo six state elections within a year in Tamil Nadu, Bihar, Assam, Kerala, West Bengal and Puducherry from November 2025 until June 2026. It is critical for Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) , the current party in government, to use Operation Sindoor as its political survival to maintain in power. The party’s vote share came down from 37.36% in 2019 to 36.56% in 2024 and the aggressive posture after Pahalgam makes sense as the heat of upcoming election builds up for BJP.
Toward De-escalation: Facts Over Rhetoric in Kashmir Conflict
What suffers in this spiral is not just diplomacy but regional peace and the lives of ordinary citizens on both sides of the border. For Kashmiris, the ground zero of this geopolitical chess match, the consequences are especially dire. Violence begets more violence, while meaningful political solutions continue to evade the conversation.
There is a sobering lesson here, military strikes may score political points at home, but without transparent evidence and multilateral dialogue, they risk worsening already fragile relations and escalating into uncontrolled conflict. Operation Sindoor underscores how misjudgment, or worse, misrepresentation, can push two nuclear states to the brink over mere assumptions.
The way forward must be rooted in facts, not fiery rhetoric. Independent investigations into the Kashmir attack, monitored by neutral observers, could provide clarity and avoid future missteps. Diplomatic backchannels must be reactivated, and both governments need to recommit to intelligence-sharing mechanisms that were once functional, albeit limited.
Above all, civil society voices, activists, scholars, and citizens who bear the brunt of these tensions must not be drowned out by nationalist drum beats.
Verification and Intelligence Cooperation
To prevent miscommunication and unchecked escalation during crises, India and Pakistan should establish a Joint Crisis Verification Mechanism (JCVM) under international supervision. This mechanism would allow for rapid, neutral verification of incidents through satellite imagery, intelligence sharing, and on-site inspections.
Simultaneously, reviving and strengthening intelligence-sharing agreements is essential. Involving third-party facilitators such as the United Nations (UN) or South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) can ensure transparency and help rebuild trust between the two nuclear-armed neighbors.
This effort will show that a concrete and meaningful discussion guarantees a long lasting peaceful resolution mechanism for both parties.
Hazim Muqri Norrasmi
Hazim Muqri Norrasmi is a final-year Bachelor of International Affairs Management (Hons.) student at Universiti Utara Malaysia, majoring in International Law and Diplomacy. He is a Senior Analyst at the World Order Lab, contributing to research on global security and geopolitical strategy. His interests includes international security, conflict resolution, and global governance.
