As the first missile trails vanished into the early morning haze over Kashmir’s Line of Control on May 7, a troubling reality broke into the open: South Asia remains hostage to a cycle of violence, denial and miscalculation, one that promises disaster ahead if not quickly reversed.
India’s airstrikes into Pakistan-administered Kashmir came in response to the April 22 massacre of 26 civilians in Pahalgam, a picturesque hill station in India-administered Kashmir. Within hours of India’s missile strikes, Pakistan retaliated with artillery fire, claiming to have shot down several Indian aircraft, including a prized Rafael fighter.
The framing of events has followed a familiar script. India, citing self-defense, has justified its actions as measured and non-escalatory. Pakistan, for its part, has denied involvement in the Pahalgam massacre and called India’s missile strikes a flagrant violation of its sovereignty while emphasizing the civilian deaths caused by the attack.
What followed was not only an exchange of fire but an exchange of narratives. Narrative supremacy is now as vital as military strength, with each side framing the initial and now subsequent events to win domestic approval and international sympathy.
Yet amid this geopolitical theater, few are asking the harder questions. How did a heavily guarded region like Pahalgam become the site of such a brazen attack? Where was the intelligence apparatus that so often touts its reach?
Reports suggest that the assailants questioned victims before executing them—implying time, control and confidence. This was not a failure from across the border; this was a breakdown from within.
And still, the dominant reaction was externalization. Pakistani culpability was asserted before forensic evidence could surface, echoing India’s 2019 Pulwama response.
Once again, the question of accountability for internal security lapses has been buried beneath patriotic fervor and media amplification. The risk of further escalation through miscalculation or retaliatory strikes remains high, yet critical introspection is apparently politically inconvenient in Delhi.
Washington has responded with caution. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has reportedly spoken with both capitals, and President Trump expressed hope that the situation “ends very quickly.”
But passive diplomacy is not a strategy. This crisis demands more than moral balancing—it demands active engagement to avert a spiral between two nuclear powers. Behind-the-scenes efforts by the United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia and China should complement the US’s public involvement to avoid another prolonged and disastrous confrontation in the region.
The consequences of escalation extend beyond India and Pakistan. The conflict has the potential to paralyze much of South Asia, putting smaller nations in untenable positions.
Bangladesh, still adjusting to a tumultuous political transition, is grappling with rising anti-India sentiment. In Sri Lanka and the Maldives, communal tensions could flare if the Kashmir conflict takes on a religious tone.
Nepal’s careful balancing act between India and China is under new strain, and Bhutan fears that any Indian distraction may trigger heightened Chinese pressure. For these countries, Kashmir is more than a flashpoint—it’s a reminder of how quickly regional equilibrium can unravel when diplomacy gives way to confrontation.
However, this is not just a South Asian problem—it is a global one. A long-term standoff would also act to undermine Washington’s Indo-Pacific ambitions, namely counterbalancing China’s rising influence, including in South Asia.
Perhaps the most troubling aspect is the enduring marginalization of the Kashmiris themselves. In the rush to strike, retaliate and dominate the narrative, the voices of those most affected have, as always, been excluded.
India’s human rights abuses, political disenfranchisement and demographic engineering in Jammu and Kashmir remain unresolved and unaddressed. Until these root causes of conflict are confronted, no missile strike—no matter how surgical—can bring resolution or peace.
To be sure, the Pahalgam attack was horrific and inexcusable. But turning tragedy into a pretext for retaliation without evidence of Pakistani state involvement, without accountability and without honest introspection is not only cynical—it is dangerous.
The path forward must be one of restraint, transparency and dialogue. South Asia has paid the price of denial too often. And this time, with storm clouds gathering of a possible prolonged military conflict, the wider world will suffer the consequenes.
Ishaal Zehra is a freelance Pakistani journalist specializing in South Asia’s geopolitical and economic landscape. Her work focuses on the intersection of regional security and strategic realignments in South Asia, Central Asia and the Indian Ocean region.
