By Ertaan Siddiqui
Indian: We will responded with great might… We shall make Pakistan pay for it… We shall find the perpetrators of terrorism, even if it means going to the ends of the earth!
Pakistani: Wait! Wait! What happened?
Indian: Pakistan-sponsored terrorism has struck the valley—26 people dead in the scenic area of Barsan in the Phalgham district of Kashmir.
Pakistani: But how can you blame Pakistan without any credible evidence?
Indian: Actually, Pakistan’s Army Chief, General Asim Munir, has openly declared his intention to take over India. He’s a Hindu-hater!
Pakistani: Really? When did he say that?
Indian: Look at his speech with overseas Pakistanis. He gave a clear signal to Lashkar-e-Taiba to carry out terrorist activities in Kashmir!
Pakistani: Why would he say such a thing in a public gathering?
Indian: Because Pakistan harbors terrorists who carry out attacks in Kashmir!
Pakistani: India is a vast and diverse country. Like any other state, it faces terrorism from various groups. Why then blame Pakistan, and resort to selective military action that is popular at home but unrealistic and dangerous?
Indian: Prime Minister Modi is a strongman! He will teach Pakistan a lesson and make the terrorists and their abettors pay!
This is how a typical conversation might unfold between an Indian and a Pakistani in the wake of recent events. But do these allegations meet any rational criteria? Do they explain what truly happened in Phalgham? More importantly, do they justify the Indian government’s response?
The attitude behind such claims can be termed Flimsy Clumsy — a phrase that captures poorly constructed arguments followed by equally haphazard responses.
India has launched a barrage of allegations against Pakistan, accusing it of sponsoring terrorism. This incendiary narrative is damaging both internally and externally. Domestically, it stokes war hysteria, incites hyper-nationalism, and reduces space for dissent and minorities. Internationally, it risks violating norms and agreements, while dragging the Indian military into politically driven rhetoric, undermining its professional autonomy.
Since Prime Minister Modi’s rise, the military has increasingly been used to meet political goals. Events like Uri, Pulwama, and now Phalgham saw hasty military responses that cost India in assets and credibility. These actions, despite their questionable outcomes, are framed as victories. The most recent escalation brought diplomatic embarrassment, revealing the baselessness of the accusations and pushing tensions dangerously close to nuclear confrontation.
Over the last decade, India’s attempts to portray Pakistan as the epicenter of terrorism have gained little traction globally. Several factors explain this:
- India has failed to produce credible evidence of Pakistan’s direct involvement in such incidents.
- India’s National Security Advisor has admitted to pursuing asymmetric strategies in Balochistan — effectively a tit-for-tat approach.
- India claims to uphold multilateralism but its conduct during the Russia-Ukraine conflict has created friction with Western allies.
- Indian intelligence activities in countries like Canada have come under scrutiny, damaging India’s global image.
- The once-apolitical Indian diaspora is becoming increasingly hyper-nationalistic and disruptive abroad.
As a result, India’s global standing is facing growing skepticism. A key indicator is the choice to escalate militarily after failing to diplomatically implicate Pakistan in the Phalgham attack. Rather than pursuing a legal or diplomatic route, India chose to test the limits of confrontation, with little international support.
This dangerous pattern of provocation between two nuclear-armed states has serious consequences. Global powers increasingly recognize that unresolved issues between India and Pakistan pose a threat to wider regional stability. Ironically, in attempting to isolate Pakistan, India has brought the Kashmir issue back into global focus — after years on the diplomatic periphery.
India’s recent announcement to suspend the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) is another example of hasty, legally questionable action. Neutral legal experts around the world have raised concerns about its conformity with international law.
A Defining Moment for Pakistan
Pakistan now faces a crucial choice. It can either mirror India’s confrontational posture or take the high road — one that fills the diplomatic and moral vacuum left by India. By promoting regional cooperation and global engagement, Pakistan has the chance to reposition itself as a responsible actor in global affairs.
To do so, restraint must prevail over reaction. Rather than complacency after a perceived victory, Pakistan should channel national unity toward strengthening diplomacy, regional integration, and credibility on the world stage.
