The terrorist attack that took place in April 2025 in the Pahalgam region of Jammu and Kashmir, under Indian control, which claimed the lives of 26 tourists, has further complicated the already fragile security situation in the region. The scale of the attack and its targeting of civilians have been regarded as a serious incident by the international community.
The Indian government, without conducting any initial investigation or presenting evidence, claimed that radical armed groups linked to Pakistan were behind the attack.
New Delhi’s hasty conclusions have naturally raised certain questions, and the importance of conducting a broader, independent investigation has been emphasized.
In turn, Pakistan strongly condemned the incident, stated its rejection of any violence directed at human life, and expressed readiness for the event to be investigated with the participation of objective international observers. Islamabad’s call reflects its stance as a responsible partner, emphasizing the use of diplomatic tools for regional stability.
India-Pakistan tensions: A threat to regional peace
Following the recent incident, a new phase of escalation has been observed in India-Pakistan relations. India has declared several Pakistani diplomats "persona non grata" and expelled them from the country. Additionally, India has suspended the existing visa regime between the two nations and announced that the implementation of the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty (an international agreement between India and Pakistan regulating the distribution of water resources of the Indus River and its tributaries) will be reconsidered. While these actions are presented as India's response measures, they pose potential risks in terms of water resources and the humanitarian situation in the region.
In retaliation, Pakistan has closed its airspace to Indian aircraft and initiated a process of reevaluating its commitments under the 1972 Shimla Agreement. Islamabad has stated that these measures are defensive in nature, aimed at protecting the country's sovereignty and national security.
The rising tension between India and Pakistan could have dangerous consequences not only for the two countries but for the entire South Asian region. The harsh rhetoric and reciprocal actions between the two nuclear-armed nations increase the likelihood of a new military confrontation in the region. The resumption of diplomatic talks for resolving the conflict and addressing the Kashmir issue based on the principles of international law is critical to ensuring regional stability and security. It is essential for both parties to prioritize constructive dialogue over emotional and military rhetoric, as this is vital for the well-being of their people and the long-term regional development.
APA has gathered the views of experts from both countries regarding the current tension.
India's Allegations...
Muhammad Asif Noor, Director of the Centre for Central Asia and Eurasian Studies at the Pakistan Institute of Peace and Diplomatic Studies, told APA that the increasing tension between India and Pakistan is accompanied by diplomatic isolation and a rise in war rhetoric, while attempts are being made to remove the Kashmir issue from the international agenda.
“No immediate investigation was conducted after the Pahalgam incident, yet India blamed Pakistan, which indicates deeper objectives. The swift allegations and the absence of any evidence highlight that the incident was immediately integrated into the political framework in New Delhi. This framework attempts to create clarity in a situation of uncertainty. India’s avoidance of forensic transparency and public information demonstrates an intention to form a specific narrative rather than clarify the facts. The current status quo is characterized by mutual distrust, fragmented political positions, and recurring tensions. Although both sides have strong military control and some stability along the Line of Control, this is accompanied by violations of the ceasefire. Later, this factor is either denied by both sides or the scale of the incident is minimized. The cause of these events is particularly attributed to India’s tactical position, which has intensified following the recent incident in Pahalgam. It’s not just about troop movements but also the changes in both sides’ intentions. India, which gives its military more operational freedom, reacts more harshly to this tension. Pakistan, on the other hand, clearly states that it will not initiate any military operations. Official Islamabad also says that India’s termination of the agreement signed on territorial waters is a 'red line' for them. Diplomatic channels remain a sensitive point. This issue also depends on the limited level of mutual dialogue and reliance on third-party statements. The silence in direct talks increases the risk of intensifying the situation without applying crisis management schemes to the incidents. On the diplomatic front, both sides are less active. India’s policy is increasingly based on unilateralism, especially following the revocation of Article 370. Official Delhi links any action to Pakistan’s transborder terrorism. Facing this challenge, Pakistan suggests conducting a neutral investigation through international platforms. Currently, diplomatic dialogue mechanisms with international partners or efforts to strengthen multilateral trust have either collapsed or been completely suspended. The situation is so tense that both sides are now resorting to war rhetoric instead of diplomacy. While India has gained significant support in the West, Pakistan is trying to convince neutral states that its position needs to be discussed. As a long-term outcome, despite increasing humanitarian concerns, there is a possibility that the Kashmir issue will be removed from global discussion platforms. Militarily, although both sides are trying to avoid nuclear threats, the situation is extremely sensitive,” the expert stated.
“The roots of the tension lie in historical and ideological factors...”
Burzine Waghmar, member of the SOAS South Asia Institute, School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), London, also spoke to APA about India's hasty, unsubstantiated accusations. He emphasized a crucial point that is often overlooked: “India’s recent accusations may seem like a direct response, but there is a key aspect that is forgotten here: Pakistan has long been conducting covert operations against India, particularly in the Jammu and Kashmir region. This has been one of the primary objectives of the Pakistani military and its 'deep state.' For instance, the 2008 Mumbai attack was carried out not only to target India’s financial hub but also to take revenge for the situation in Kashmir. This was openly admitted by Ajmal Kasab, the only survivor of the attack, in his confessions. Pakistan, as an ideologically-driven state based on religious nationalism, has long been trying to wrest Kashmir from India. If that is not possible, Pakistan pursues policies that support radicalism and extremism in the region. Kashmir's Islam has never accepted the Salafi Sunni Islam embraced by Pakistan’s military. Pakistan also desires to break away from India and find its own identity, even 80 years later. This is one of the biggest problems facing the country. On one hand, Bangladesh has now been an independent Muslim republic for over 50 years, while Pakistan’s fragmentation after the 1971 war highlights this reality more starkly.”
Major powers' approach to India-Pakistan tension:
Muhammad Asif Noor, commenting on the approach of major powers to the Kashmir issue, highlighted that the United States, China, Gulf countries, and other international players adopt a cautious stance on the matter, each basing their diplomatic positions on their regional interests and political demands. He noted:
“International players like the United States, China, and the Gulf countries take a more cautious approach to the Kashmir issue rather than directly intervening. China’s role in this matter is primarily driven by geographic and regional interests. Beijing evaluates the India-Pakistan tension in the context of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor and the Belt and Road Initiative. China’s diplomatic support for Pakistan is largely linked to the tensions arising from the Ladakh standoff with India. However, China prefers to maintain a quiet stance rather than actively mediating in this issue. Beijing’s main goal is to secure strategic advantages along its western borders. India’s unilateral changes in Kashmir have caused significant concern in Beijing.
The United States, while trying to maintain a balanced policy, effectively considers India’s security concerns as legitimate, which undermines Pakistan’s diplomatic position. The U.S. has openly demonstrated that, unless Pakistan prioritizes its fight against terrorism, it will lean more toward India. Washington’s involvement in the region seems more reactive, responding to tensions between the parties rather than engaging in strategic efforts to reduce long-term regional tension.
Gulf countries, particularly Saudi Arabia and the UAE, focus more on economic diplomacy, diaspora management, and strengthening bilateral ties. However, these countries lack both the political capital and effective leverage to reduce tensions, which renders their efforts ineffective. This situation limits India’s influence in the Gulf. India’s increasing focus on commercial relations has pushed the Kashmir issue to the background. Pakistan, relying on its fraternal ties with other countries, has been unable to achieve diplomatic results. Qatar, in this regard, is an exception.
Russia, due to its arms trade with India and anti-terrorism cooperation with Pakistan, plays a minimal role. Therefore, the current situation remains largely limited to reactive responses, with no concrete steps being taken.”
The Indian-origin analyst Burzine Waghmar also commented on the positions of other states regarding the Kashmir issue, particularly Iran’s involvement. He stated: "After President Pezeshkian's condolence call to Prime Minister Modi, Tehran proposed a mediation role. In my opinion, Tehran is not an unbiased mediator in this matter, as it has consistently shown tacit support for Pakistan on the Kashmir issue, a stance that has continued from the Pahlavi era to today. Both the former Shah and current religious leaders of Iran have maintained this solidarity. While Tehran has maintained friendly relations with New Delhi, it has supported Islamabad in the 1965 and 1971 India-Pakistan wars. Moreover, what happened with the international investigation led by Scotland Yard into the assassination of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto in December 2007? Despite Pakistan’s large declarations about continuing the investigation, no concrete actions were taken. Should I provide a clearer example from more recent history to illustrate this?"
Can the tension escalate into a full-scale war?
Both experts have also responded to the question of whether the tension could escalate into a full-scale war.
The Pakistani political scientist stated that while the risk of a full-scale war is low, the likelihood of continued tension and the use of strategic strikes between the parties remains.
"Although the danger is real, the situation is still under control for now. What makes the situation more dangerous is not the intention of either side to start a war, but rather the removal of previous limitations and the failure to prevent the situation from spiraling out of control. For example, India has suspended the validity of the territorial waters agreement, and additionally, it is using public threats, trying to gain a strategic advantage by giving more freedom to its Armed Forces. All of this suggests that some options are being considered. While the official Islamabad is not inclined to escalate the situation, it is not adopting a passive stance either. Recent developments, including Pakistan's preparedness, its ability to maintain control, and the strengthening of internal unity, confirm this. This demonstrates effective coordination between civilian and military structures. Although the likelihood of a full-scale war is low due to nuclear and economic reasons, the possibility of precise strikes and punitive measures cannot be ruled out. These probabilities are further heightened by the lack of official dialogue and institutional channels between the parties,” emphasized Muhammad Asif Noor.
Indian-origin analyst Burzine Waghmar, on the other hand, believes the parties are not ready for war: "Neither side can afford a full-scale war, especially Pakistan, which has turned to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for help for the 12th time since 1988. Preparing both armies and their weapon stockpiles puts an additional financial burden on the treasury. India's focus is mainly on striking training centers and terrorist camps controlled by Pakistan's intelligence. The Indians have accepted that, if necessary, they must go to war with Pakistan, even facing the threat of nuclear conflict. This is because the state cannot remain inactive in the face of massacres committed against its citizens. It should be noted that Pakistan has been a base that facilitated the spread of Islamist fighters to Uzbekistan and the Xinjiang region. Islamabad has never demanded that China return Uyghurs, nor has it asked for reliable evidence or neutral investigations, as it cannot afford to worsen relations with China."
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi's influence has significantly decreased within the country recently. Currently, Modi is increasing preparations for the 2027 presidential elections, while simultaneously taking steps that are causing internal tensions to rise. This appears to be a repetition of the tactics he used in 2019, when he thought he had gained political advantage with the same strategy.
Modi is using the latest incident to boost his ratings
Burzine Waghmar also clarified the possibility that Modi may be using the latest incident to boost his ratings:
"Modi remains in office not through elections, but through the legal and popular mandate granted by his administration. This is acknowledged by his supporters, and even by critics from India's right wing. I would argue that he is not attempting to capitalize on creating tension with Pakistan. It is not only the airstrikes carried out after 2019 but also the Mumbai attacks (November 2008) that show India fundamentally refuses to engage with Pakistan. Indian foreign policy representatives and scholars claim that Pakistan is trying to draw public attention, and India must take steps to stop this process."
Faig Mahmudov
Farid Azeri
Follow us on Telegram
t.me/apanewsaz
Follow us on Instagram
Follow us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
