This time last week, India and Pakistan, two nuclear powers, were on the brink of a full-scale war, which was ostensibly prevented through a U.S.-mediated ceasefire. The scale and intensity of the conflict led some to believe that even the use of nuclear weapons was being considered, as indicated by the urgency of U.S. involvement, which ultimately forced a deal between the two neighbors.
Since the ceasefire agreement on May 10, both sides have claimed victory and are shaping the narrative to suit their interests. It is difficult to determine who won the last round; however, what is certain is that the real losers are the people on both sides of the border.
In the case of Pakistan, regardless of whether it had any direct involvement in the Pahalgam attack, the reality remains that it has supported proxy groups in Kashmir. What Pakistan perhaps fails to recognize is that its support for Kashmiri-oriented militant groups has never been effective. In fact, it has not only damaged Pakistan’s international reputation but also severely undermined the indigenous nature of Kashmir’s struggle.
The label of “Islamic terrorism” is easily exploited to alarm world powers and garner their support. The existence of these proxies has, in many ways, helped India to delegitimize the Kashmiri cause by reducing it to religious extremism. As a result, the global perception of the Kashmir liberation movement has shifted, and it is now viewed through a lens of religious militancy. This has weakened both Pakistan’s and Kashmir’s position on the international stage.
As for India, the recent conflict serves as a reminder that a populist leader like Narendra Modi poses a grave risk, not only to 1.4 billion Indians but to the entire region. Modi’s delusional vision of an “invincible” India, capable of militarily dominating its neighbor, nearly brought South Asia to the brink of nuclear war.
It is unfortunately true that rival states often support cross-border proxies; this is one of the grim realities of unconventional warfare. However, one cannot justify launching direct strikes on another sovereign nation, especially one with comparable defensive capabilities, over the issue of proxies. The United States and Israel, for instance, regularly accuse Iran of backing proxies in Yemen, Lebanon, and Gaza. Yet, they have largely refrained from attacking Iran directly, aware of the potentially catastrophic regional consequences. Israel’s October 2024 strikes on Iran were a dangerous exception.
Pakistan, by virtue of its nuclear capabilities, arguably holds even greater destructive potential than Iran. Like India, it possesses the capacity to devastate the region. Despite this, Modi proceeded with strikes on Pakistani territory. No matter how precise he claims these strikes were, they still constitute a violation of national sovereignty. Such actions also set a dangerous precedent, one that Pakistan could cite in the future should it choose to retaliate on similar grounds, given its own accusations that India supports proxies that carry out attacks within Pakistan.
One outcome of the recent ceasefire is that it challenges Modi’s delusive sense of invulnerability and regional dominance. Direct military strikes are not the solution when diplomatic and economic tools, such as Financial Action Task Force (FATF) measures, are available to counter Pakistan’s proxy networks. India arguably had the upper hand immediately following the Pahalgam attack. It could have presented its evidence to the United States, Saudi Arabia, and international bodies to push for sanctions or financial restrictions on Pakistan’s already struggling economy. However, that opportunity appears to have been lost in a moment of anger and desperation.
For the people of Pakistan, the root cause of their daily struggles is not India, but their own military establishment. Wars and conflicts benefit only the defense industry. The military, whose popularity had reached a historic low, used this crisis to recover some public support. But while the military is being celebrated as a national savior, many continue to suffer under its rule. In regions such as Balochistan, Gilgit, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, and increasingly in the heartland of Pakistan, people remain victims of military oppression. Parachinar is still under siege, peaceful activists remain imprisoned, and dissent is punished. A symbolic victory over India will not resolve these everyday realities.
The same principle applies to the people of India. They must come to terms with the fact that Kashmiris, like Indians, have the right to determine their own future. The idea of Kashmiri self-determination stems from local aspirations, not foreign conspiracy. The conflict between India and the Kashmiri people cannot be resolved through occupation and repression. India’s policy over the past 70 years has demonstrated that suppression only breeds resistance. There can be no lasting peace in Kashmir or with Pakistan until the Kashmir issue is resolved in line with United Nations resolutions.
During the latest crisis, the Indian right-wing media played a dangerous role in stoking nationalist sentiment, with some voices even calling for Pakistan to be wiped off the map. This kind of rhetoric is both reckless and unrealistic. While hostility toward Pakistan may be understandable, it cannot justify existential threats. Pakistan is a nuclear-armed state and has repeatedly warned it would use its arsenal if its survival is at stake. Any attempt to “eliminate” Pakistan would drag the entire region into catastrophic destruction. The only viable option – though less exciting for television ratings – is coexistence, which could be achieved through diplomatic dialogue, if both sides are willing to come to the table.
If Pakistan truly wants to support the Kashmiri cause, it must stop empowering militant groups and instead allow the people of Kashmir to lead their own struggle. Pakistan must reassess its policy and consider how to avoid further harming the Kashmiri movement.
Finally, it is imperative that opposition parties in India begin to challenge the image Modi has constructed. They must help the Indian public understand that under his leadership, the country is more vulnerable, not stronger.
Both India and Pakistan need new leadership that can think beyond hatred, war posturing, and strategic point-scoring. The people of both nations, who share far more in common than they often realize, deserve dignity, peace, and prosperity.