smartcybers786@gmail.com 
#Rhetoric #accusations #regional #tensions #Political #Economy
The long -standing enmity between India and Pakistan has once again been ruled after the recent attack in Pahalgam in Indian -administered Kashmir. The attack has also led to the death of several Indian security personnel, which has given rise to an familiar pattern of allegations and additions, in which India points to cross-border fingers, which has called for terrorist springs and accused of joining Pakistan. However, the situation, especially in India, is capable of more controversial examinations, compared to the growing unilateral actions of India and its aggressive publication in the region.
On April 22, armed militants ambushed a convoy of Indian Army near Pahalgam, a beautiful town in the central area of Jammu and Kashmir. The tragic incident encountered several casualties, which already increased security concerns in the tension region. Although no group initially claimed responsibility, Indian authorities had previously accused Lashkar-e-Taiba, a Pakistani-based organization involved in several attacks in India.
What comes out is a lack of convincing evidence connecting Pakistan with this incident. These allegations remain on historical patterns and past associations rather than modern evidence. No electronic intervention has been issued to the people. No occupied suspects have testified to connect the attack to those who cross across the border. And no forensic or digital trails clearly indicate the external orpoint. In short, there is no viable or verified intelligence that proves this claim-just repetition of the well-worn statement that resonates more than the theater than the testimony.
In fact, just emphasizing the past incidents of terrorism, insisting on Pakistan’s criminalism is related to the new context, in which Pakistan, for strategic reasons, is changing its security calculus towards the West, and rapidly focusing on unstable situation in Afghanistan and its own internal insurgency.
This axis has reached the concept of engineering chaos in Kashmir at this moment, which has raised doubts about the purpose, purpose and beneficiary at the time of the attack. As Graham Green once wrote, “innocence is a kind of madness.” – In this case, it is probably not innocence but a masking as a convenience.
In a sharp and predicted response, Indian Home Minister Amit Shah started a barrage of accusation statements through Defense Minister Rajnath Singh and Prime Minister Narendra Modi, in which Pakistan was declared a mastermind behind violence. Nevertheless, despite serious allegations, India has not provided any specific evidence to support its claims, and observers have left doubts about the credibility and intention behind the allegations.
These spaces raise legitimate questions as to whether these allegations are constantly under pressure from national security, ie domestic political gain and Kashmiri disagreement.
India’s reaction follows a deeply familiar playbox – where diplomatic dialogue is presented by media coverage and politically accusations. Television anchors such as Arnab Goswami, known for their sharp and inflammatory accents, have dominated the airway, and have thwarted Pakistan with little respect for the evidence or consequences. Such platforms rarely provide space for sounds, which are requested to prevent or support peaceful coexistence. Instead, the environment is a hyper nationalist enthusiastically, and a dangerous loop of aggression is fed, which has a slight scope for reasonable conversation. The situation is the same as the Adon said on September 1, 1939:
“I and the public know/ what all school children learn,/ those from whom evil is done/ do evil in return.”
The broader context of India’s point of view reveals the growing trend of unilaterality. Since the cancellation of Article 370 in August 2019, New Delhi has formally shifted to change the population and political role of Jammu and Kashmir. These measures have not been implemented in consultation with the people of Kashmir, nor the party of the Kashmir dispute, according to UN resolutions, with Pakistan. India has further aggravated tension by ignoring the key bilateral mechanisms such as the Indus Waters Agreement and Samla Agreement, both have now been effectively held in Abyss as a strategic leverage rather than a framework for cooperation.
These steps reflect a mind -blowing that is growing from the politics of dominance rather than dialogue. Instead of using the State Craft to eliminate stress, India is committed to presenting itself as a regional hedimon, which is indifferent to the consequences of separating the nuclear armed neighbor. The value of this currency is not limited to the diplomatic circle. This affects millions of lives trapped in a cross -fire cross -border hostility.
Pakistan’s reaction has been relatively measured. For three years, its civil and military leaders have indicated a openness for the dialogue – through back -channel talks, demanding a 2021 ceasefire agreement on the Line of Control and normalizing trade. Despite its complex internal dynamics, Pakistan has avoided retaliation in response to the recent provocation, which indicates a desire to avoid an increase. India’s permanent diplomatic cooling shoulders disrupt these efforts and reinforces the story of permanent enmity. It seems that the Indian leadership, which has been strengthened by the growing curriculum of international support, has automatically increased in its diplomatic currency.
This confidence has been widely attracted to a global story that presents Pakistan as a terrorist incubator, a picture that some influential states have either largely accepted or actively validated. On the other hand, Pakistan has made little effort to cultivate a great soft power globally. Its diplomatic access lacks sophistication and strategic depth, which requires widespread growing impression, as its security establishment has a lot of dominance over its foreign policy apparatus – if not fully controlled.
The thing that is very dangerous between these progress is the absence of a reliable and influential voice for peaceful coexistence. No state has given priority to public messaging, which is aimed at de -coction. The international community is widely silent, while domestic actors are eligible to give the conversation anger – intellectuals, civil society leaders and moderate politicians – are either ignored or sank from television bravery.
This silence is dangerous. In the era of nuclear capabilities and volatility border clashes, media spectators and popularists are at stake to get angry. The two countries do not only need back -channel diplomacy immediately, but also a vocal and visible commitment to peace, which is supported by a mechanism that examines inflammatory rhetoric and prevents the choice of hateful media figures who benefit from partition.
The Pahalgam incident should not be made a weapon as a political device. Instead, it should be considered as a reminder of the fragility of regional peace and the urgent need for responsible leadership. Long -lasting stability cannot be eliminated from risks or provocations. It requires honest commitment to accountability, mutual respect and dialogue. As long as the two countries recognize it, they take the risk of being trapped in a loop of doubts and violence. With regard to ITS Elite, we conclude, “The last temptation is the biggest treachery: / to do the right thing for the wrong reason.”
Because there is no desire for desire, neither peace on the price of propaganda.
Author is a professor at the Faculty of Liberal Arts in the Bacon House National
University, Lahore
