Introduction
On a cold morning in 2025, the serene valley of Pahalgam, known more for its breathtaking beauty and spiritual calm, was shaken by a brutal terror attack. The incident, quickly dubbed "Pahalgam 2025" by national media, left the nation stunned. For many Indians, it evoked grim memories of the Pulwama attack in 2019, and earlier assaults that have punctuated the recent history of India-Pakistan relations. Within hours, political leaders issued strong statements, television channels shifted into hyper-nationalist overdrive, and the hashtag #RevengeForPahalgam trended across social platforms. Yet, amid the fury and heartbreak, a familiar question arose: Are we trapped in a never-ending loop of violence, provocation, and reaction?
India and Pakistan have long been entangled in a cycle where one provocation is met with retaliation, often military, but rarely strategic. From Kargil to Uri, from Mumbai to Pulwama, the events follow a disturbingly similar script—acts of terror followed by escalated military rhetoric, temporary global attention, and then a quiet return to status quo. The question is not just whether another Pulwama will happen, but whether we, as a region, have learned anything at all.
This article explores the recurring nature of India-Pakistan tensions, particularly in the wake of terror incidents. It examines how political rhetoric, media narratives, and historical grievances all contribute to a dangerous cycle that threatens to engulf not only the two nations, but an entire region yearning for peace.
The Historical Pattern of Provocation and Retaliation
To understand the loop, one must look at the timeline of past incidents. From the 2001 Indian Parliament attack to the devastating 2008 Mumbai terror strikes, from the 2016 Uri attack to the Pulwama bombing in 2019, each act of violence has provoked sharp Indian retaliation and spiralling tensions.
In 2001, armed gunmen stormed the Indian Parliament, an audacious move that brought the two nuclear-armed neighbours to the brink of war. Operation Parakram, India’s military mobilization, followed, but ultimately, war was averted. In 2008, ten heavily armed Pakistani terrorists infiltrated Mumbai, leading to a 60-hour siege that left over 170 people dead. Once again, outrage and condemnation were followed by international diplomacy and short-term de-escalation.
More recently, the 2016 Uri attack saw India respond with "surgical strikes"—a term that quickly became embedded in the national lexicon. In 2019, the Pulwama suicide bombing killed 40 CRPF personnel and led to the Balakot airstrikes, marking the first air engagement between India and Pakistan since 1971. Each event showed a pattern:
- Provocation through a high-casualty attack, often attributed to Pakistan-based terror groups.
- Outrage and hyper-nationalism, inflamed by media and political rhetoric.
- Military or diplomatic retaliation, such as strikes or revocation of bilateral agreements.
- Temporary international attention, followed by an eventual return to the pre-conflict status quo.
This repetitive pattern has created a situation where real, sustainable policy initiatives are overshadowed by performative nationalism and retaliatory optics.
The Kashmir Factor: Always in the Middle
Kashmir, the crown jewel of India, also remains its most volatile fault line. Since 1947, the region has been a bone of contention between India and Pakistan, with both claiming it in full but controlling it in part. The people of Kashmir, however, are often reduced to pawns in the larger geopolitical chessboard.
After every attack, Kashmiris face a dual burden: living in fear of more violence and enduring the suspicion of being complicit. The valley becomes heavily militarized, checkpoints increase, internet services are suspended, and curfews are imposed. For the youth, this instability breeds resentment, and for some, even radicalization. The cycle becomes self-fulfilling.
Cross-border propaganda further complicates the situation. Pakistan often portrays Kashmiri militants as freedom fighters, while India paints them as terrorists. The truth, as always, lies in the grey—where poor governance, lack of opportunity, and perpetual insecurity fuel discontent.
What is missing is a human-centric approach that goes beyond military suppression and focuses on engagement, development, and healing. Without addressing the root causes in Kashmir, India and Pakistan will continue to be caught in a loop that uses the valley as both battlefield and bargaining chip.
Media and Public Opinion: The War of Narratives
In today’s digital age, war is not just fought with guns and bombs, but with hashtags, headlines, and primetime debates. The role of media in shaping public opinion during Indo-Pak conflicts cannot be overstated. It has evolved from a medium of information to a battlefield of narratives.
Every terror attack now follows a media playbook:
- Wall-to-wall coverage, often with sensationalist headlines.
- Panel discussions featuring retired generals, loud spokespersons, and little nuance.
- Hashtags like #SurgicalStrike2 or #BadlaLo trending within hours.
- Social media outrage, including fake news and doctored videos.
The result is a public sphere inflamed with anger, nationalism, and often, misinformed outrage. In such an atmosphere, any voice calling for restraint or diplomacy is drowned out or branded as unpatriotic. Meanwhile, political parties find a convenient vehicle to consolidate their base, leveraging media-created outrage for electoral gain.
Even worse, the media rarely follows up after the initial sensationalism dies down. Stories of victims, the long-term impact on soldiers' families, or the diplomatic fallout are seldom covered. The cycle continues: provoke, inflame, forget.
This media environment not only prevents meaningful dialogue but also creates a feedback loop where politicians and the public feed off each other’s heightened emotions, leaving little room for rational discourse.
Political Rhetoric and Elections: Nationalism as a Strategy
Terror attacks and cross-border tensions have increasingly become tools in the political arsenal. In a polarized environment, nationalism sells—and nothing stokes nationalism like an external threat.
The Pulwama attack occurred just months before the 2019 general elections in India. The subsequent Balakot airstrikes were hailed as decisive action and became a cornerstone of the incumbent government's campaign. Opposition voices questioning the efficacy or transparency of the strikes were labelled anti-national.
This pattern isn’t unique to one party or one country. In Pakistan too, leaders have used India as a convenient external adversary to divert attention from domestic problems. It’s a playbook that works—especially when media and public sentiment align with chest-thumping patriotism.
Political language becomes militarized: “surgical strike,” “befitting reply,” “zero tolerance.” These terms, while emotionally satisfying, do little to address the root issues of terrorism, intelligence failure, or border management. What they do accomplish is creating a rally-around-the-flag effect, boosting short-term approval ratings and burying dissent.
But using nationalism as a political strategy comes with a cost: it locks governments into hawkish positions, leaving little room for diplomacy. And once the emotional high fades, the ground realities—economic challenges, security loopholes, international pressure—return with renewed intensity.
The Human Cost: Soldiers, Civilians, and Families
Amid the geopolitical games and media spectacles, it is the common soldier and civilian who bear the true cost. Each terror attack leaves behind families broken by grief. Each retaliatory strike invites counter-fire that destroys homes, disrupts lives, and kills innocents.
Border villages face displacement regularly. Schools shut down, farming is disrupted, and fear becomes routine. Soldiers, meanwhile, are lauded as heroes, but their mental health, post-traumatic stress, and the trauma faced by their families receive scant attention.
In both countries, there are countless stories of mothers who lost sons, children who lost fathers, and wives who became widows. Their pain is not political, it’s personal. Yet, these stories seldom become part of national discourse. They don’t trend on Twitter. They don’t make for good TRPs.
Acknowledging this human cost should be central to our policymaking. Peace is not just a diplomatic goal; it is a humanitarian necessity.
The Loop of Revenge: Does Retaliation Work?
Retaliatory strikes may bring momentary satisfaction and send political messages, but do they actually work in breaking the cycle?
Historical evidence suggests otherwise. Despite multiple surgical and air strikes, terror attacks have continued. The problem is not retaliation itself, but its limitation as a standalone strategy. Without addressing intelligence lapses, the ideology behind terrorism, and diplomatic stagnation, retaliation becomes mere theatre.
International examples show us that perpetual conflict does not resolve core issues. The Israel-Palestine conflict is a stark reminder that cycles of revenge only escalate pain. The U.S.-Afghanistan saga showed how military might without long-term strategy ends in futility.
India and Pakistan need to learn that true strength lies in restraint, that long-term peace requires dialogue, and that no amount of firepower can substitute for trust-building.
What Breaks the Cycle? Lessons from the Past and Hope for the Future
Despite the bleakness, there have been moments of hope. Vajpayee’s Lahore Bus Yatra, the Agra Summit, and backchannel talks have shown that diplomacy can work—when it is allowed to.
Track II diplomacy involving former officials, journalists, and artists has often made more headway than formal negotiations. Youth from both countries have connected via online platforms, peace initiatives, and student exchanges. Shared culture—from Bollywood to cricket—shows that people can connect even when politics fails.
To break the cycle, both nations must:
- Reinvest in bilateral diplomacy, especially through neutral backchannels.
- Empower civil society and peace advocacy groups.
- Demilitarize the discourse around Kashmir and promote development and engagement.
- Curb media sensationalism through ethical journalism.
- Shift from reactionary to preventive security strategies.
Conclusion: Are We Ready to Break the Loop?
The question posed at the start—Are we caught in a loop? —finds its answer in grim certainty: yes, we are. But loops, by nature, can be broken. It requires courage—not of the kind found in military arsenals, but of conviction, dialogue, and empathy.
The Pahalgam attack is not just a tragedy—it is a reminder. A reminder that history is repeating itself not because it must, but because we allow it to. The people of India and Pakistan deserve better than recycled pain and repackaged patriotism.
It is time to write a new script—one where reason prevails over rage, and where the future is not held hostage by the past. Peace may be hard, but so is war. The difference is, peace heals. And healing is what the subcontinent desperately needs.
. . .
References:
- https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/pulwama-attack-timeline/article
- https://www.orfonline.org/research/balakot-airstrikes-analysis
- https://www.vifindia.org/Kargil-Review-Report
- https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-47477135
- https://www.epw.in
- https://thewire.in/media/media-nationalism
- https://southasiajournal.net
- https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/asa20/
- https://idsa.in
- https://carnegieendowment.org
- https://www.indianjpsychiatry.org
- https://www.usip.org
- https://foreignpolicy.com
- https://www.cfr.org