INTRODUCTION

On April 22, 2025, the serene Baisaran Valley in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, also known as ‘mini-Switzerland’, was shattered by a brutal terrorist attack. Five armed militants from the Resistance Front (TRF), an offshoot of the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), opened fire on a group of tourists. 26 civilians were killed. The militants primarily targeted Hindu tourists, although a Christian tourist and a local Muslim were also killed, which highlighted the indiscriminate nature of the violence.

The attackers, armed with M4 carbines and AK-47s, entered the tourist spot in Baisaran meadow, surrounded by dense pine forests. This incident is being treated as the deadliest attack on civilians in India since the 2008 Mumbai attacks.

India responded with decisive military actions, including missile strikes on terror infrastructure in Pakistan and PoK (Pakistan-occupied Kashmir). Pakistan, in turn, issued stern warnings and accused India of escalating hostilities.

Given these, a few concerns now arise among the residents of both nations. These concerns again raise the questions:

1. Whose fault was it?
2. Is nationalism and religion above humanity? And most importantly,
3. Is war truly the answer?

To understand and formulate opinions regarding these queries, we must visit the day of the massacre, and what ensued after that event. But not only the present will suffice, we have to take a trip down history and take a proper look at its multifaceted aspects and understand why it is what it is today.

WHAT REALLY HAPPENED ON APRIL 22, 2025, IN PAHALGAM AND HOW INDIA REACTED TO IT?

A. THE ATTACK

The Resistance Front (TRF), which is believed to be an offshoot of Pakistan-based, UN-designated, Islamist terrorist group Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), initially claimed responsibility for the attack. TRF released a statement that the attack was in opposition to non-local settlement in the region, resulting from the abolition of the special status of Kashmir.

Now, what is the “abolition of the special status of Kashmir”? Let's see.

• Revocation of the special status of Jammu and Kashmir: On 5 August, 2019, the government of India revoked the special status or autonomy, granted under Article 370 of the Indian Constitution to Jammu and Kashmir— a region administered by India as a state which consists of the larger part of Kashmir which has been the subject of dispute among India, Pakistan and China since 1947.

Nonetheless, TRF later denied involvement in the attack and blamed Indian cyber-intelligence for earlier reports that it claimed responsibility.

The militants singled out the men and asked for their religion before shooting the Hindu and Christian tourists. The attackers also asked some tourists to recite the Islamic ‘kalima’, which translates to a Muslim declaration of faith, to identify non-Muslims. Of the 26 people killed, 25 were tourists and one was a local Muslim pony ride operator who attempted to wrestle a gun from the attackers. The tourists included several newlywed couples, and the men were shot point-blank in front of their wives.

B. HOW INDIA RESPONDED AND WHY PAKISTAN DECLARES HIGH ALERT ALONG THE LINE OF CONTROL.

• Central Government's response

After Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his ministers vowed appropriate actions against the perpetrators, Pakistan's move came in anticipation of retaliatory action from India.

Pakistan, fearing retaliation from India over the grotesque Pahalgam terror attack, on Wednesday declared a high alert on its side of the Line of Control (LoC). They took a cue from the 2019 Balakot strikes after the Pulwama terror attack and the 2016 surgical strikes in response to the Uri terror attack.

The attack came just days after Pakistani Army Chief Aseem Munir's provocative speech on Kashmir at the Convention for Overseas Pakistanis on Wednesday.

The speech was as follows:

“Our stance is absolutely clear, it (Kashmir) was our jugular vein, it will be our jugular vein. We will not forget it. We will not leave our Kashmiri brothers in their heroic struggle.”

The aforementioned speech received lots of criticism from Delhi.

As per intelligence inputs, 42 terrorist launch pads are active in the Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir (POK) near the LoC. Around 110-130 terrorists are suspected to be present in these launch pads, and 70-75 terrorists are active in the Kashmir Valley alone. Almost 60-65 of them are active in Jammu, Rajouri and Poonch. About 115 of these are Pakistani terrorists.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Union Home Minister Amit Shah vowed appropriate actions against the perpetrators on Tuesday and remarked that those behind the attack would be brought to justice. On Wednesday, Defence Minister Rajnath Singh promised a “befitting reply” in the coming days.

Albeit in a face-saving move, Pakistan reacted to the Pahalgam attack and asserted it was ‘concerned’ at the loss of tourists’ lives.

“We are concerned about the loss of tourists’ lives in an attack in the Anantnag district. We extend our condolences to the near ones of the deceased and wish the injured a speedy recovery,” said the Pakistan Foreign Office spokesperson.

• Operation Sindoor

On May 7, 2025, India launched ‘Operation Sindoor’, conducting preemptive, precision strikes deep within Pakistan, targeting critical terrorist infrastructure. It involved Rafale jets armed with SCALP missiles and Hammer bombs.

The Operation, launched just past midnight on May 7, marked its most assertive military response yet to cross-border terrorism. The Indian military executed coordinated strikes deep inside Pakistan, hitting high-value terrorist infrastructure.

The response was swift, multi-domain and precise. India used stand-off weapons, including air-launched cruise missiles, loitering munitions, and long-range drones to hit nine locations across Pakistan, including Muridke and Bahawalpur, the symbolic and operational hubs of Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed.

Pakistan made still-debated claims to have shot down Indian aircraft and launched reprisal drone and missile attacks. The violence intensified on May 9 and 10, with effective Indian strikes against key Pakistan Air Force bases and Pakistan launching its counter-offensive, ‘Operation Bunyan Marsoos’, which was hugely thwarted. That uptick drew the concerned diplomatic intervention of the United States before the two countries agreed to a ceasefire on May 10.

Significantly, Operation Sindoor is the first time since 1971 that India struck across the International boundary (IB) or the settled and accepted border between India and Pakistan.

Indian foreign secretary Vikram Misri shed light on a press briefing on the morning of May 7, the airstrikes were designed to ‘deter’ and ‘preempt’ more cross-border attacks that Indian intelligence considered ‘impending.’ With this in mind, the objective of the air strikes was focused on ‘dismantling the terrorist infrastructure and disabling terrorists likely to be sent across to India.’

Misri also said in his briefing,

“The calculation, presumably, was that harming growth and development in the Union Territory would help keep it backwards and create fertile ground for continued cross-border terrorism from Pakistan.”

Further, the Indian Foreign Secretary underlined that the attack was intended to disturb Hindu-Muslim harmony.

• Technological escalation and strategic lessons

The conflict saw the first time engagement of drone warfare between Indian and Pakistan, indicating a possible new era of technological conflict in the region. This conflict underscores the need for heightened international attention to South Asia more broadly, not only during a crisis, as tensions over the LoC occur even during relative peacetime.

In recent weeks, both countries conducted missile tests and shows of force. Pakistan conducted a test of the Fatah and Abdali surface-to-surface missiles. Hours before the strikes, India also announced nationwide civil defence drills to prepare for a potential military conflict. India announced aerial drills, including the Rafales and Sukhois, between May 7 and May 8.

At UN Security Council meetings, Pakistan called for an independent investigation into the terrorist attack in Pahalgam, stressing that India did not provide ‘sufficient evidence’ regarding Pakistan's involvement.

Additionally, Pakistan's ambassador to Russia stated that Pakistan will use ‘both conventional and nuclear’ weapons if India were to escalate or cut off water supplies. A Pakistani minister warned India that its 130 missiles were “kept for India” and if India halts water supply, it should prepare for war.

A New York Times article reported that when the Indian military struck Pakistan's Nur Khan military base, Pakistan's fear was the decapitation of the National Command Authority (NCA), the highest-ranking authority on nuclear and missile policy in Pakistan. Despite statements by officials on convening the NCA, Pakistan denied that the meeting had taken place.

Recently, the Indian Defence Minister called for oversight into Pakistan's nuclear weapons program from the International Atomic Energy Agency, which Pakistanis strongly criticised.

Disinformation tactics pertain to be prominent in the India-Pakistan feud, even in the nuclear rhetoric. These include reports of a nuclear radiation leak in Pakistan with fabricated memos, as well as a supposed Indian attack on Kinara Hills in Pakistan, a nuclear storage facility, which India denied.

And most importantly, the deployment of capabilities by third-party actors has cascading effects on broader geopolitical dynamics.

Apart from that, India has declared a No First Use (NFU) coupled with a doctrine of massive retaliation. However, post-2019 political rhetoric has cast doubt on the credibility of its NFU commitment.

C. INFLAMMATION OF INDIA-PAKISTAN TENSIONS

Since the terrorist attack by the ‘Kashmiri Resistance’, an offshoot of the Pakistani Islamist jihadi group, Lashkar-e-Taiba, India has:

1. Cancelled all visas for Pakistanis
2. Suspended the Indus Waters Treaty
3. Closed the Wagah border crossing
4. Recalled all Indian diplomatic personnel from missions in Pakistan
5. Declared all Pakistani military advisors stationed in India ‘persona non grata’ and ordered them to leave the country

Whereas Pakistan responded on 24 April by halting all trade with India, closing airspace to Indian carriers, revoking visas for Indian nationals and declaring any Indian interference with water supply to Pakistan as an act of war.

The Indus Waters Treaty of 1960 is considered one of the most successful water distribution agreements in history, and withdrawal from the Treaty by India is supposed to convey a strong message. As the Indus River and its tributaries supply around 75% of Pakistan's water demand, Pakistan views diversion as an act of war.

While India has many levers it can pull as far as a response; Indian commando raids, cruise missile strikes on terrorist camps inside Pakistan, drone swarms and covert assassinations to name some, it chose to call Pakistan's bluff by diverting water flow first.

The forecast remained unclear, however. India and Pakistan, both nuclear powers, were climbing the escalation ladder. Neither as of now wants a full-blown war, but PM Modi found himself in a ‘commitment trap’, whereby if he does not act, he loses domestic political support and undermines deterrence gained from the 2016 and 2019 strikes in Pakistan.

As of now, both nations have agreed to hold a ceasefire. But is that the solution, either? Let us see

D. THE INDIA-PAKISTAN CEASEFIRE AND WHY IT COULD END UP BURNING WASHINGTON?

The ceasefire, sparked after the savage murder of tourists in the Pahalgam valley of Kashmir on April 22, has been held for nearly a week. Pakistan has thanked the US President Donald Trump for mediating a miraculous way out after its most vital military installations were cratered by Indian missile strikes.

India, regarded by a succession of US presidents as an indispensable democratic partner against China, maintains that it halted hostilities in response to direct pleas from Pakistan.

The LeT, which earlier assumed accountability, is part of the extensive terror network erected by Pakistan's military intelligence cabal, which, unable to beat India in conventional war, assembled a series of armed proxies to bleed it in Kashmir.

But the root cause of this conflict is not merely Kashmir. It is Pakistan's ‘obsession with Kashmir’. The obsession is a product of the identity crisis that has plagued the country since its birth. Pakistan has waged war after war to wrest Kashmir from India, but the experience of defeat led Islamabad to adopt a policy of training terrorist organisations.

This fixation has not only shed Indian blood. It has also corrupted and crippled Pakistan itself. Its armed forces, citing an existential threat from ‘Hindu India’, have long appropriated a major portion of the country's coffers.

Days before the April atrocity in Kashmir, as already once mentioned, Pakistan's Military Chief, Asim Munir, renewed the pledge to wrest Kashmir and exhorted the country's lawmakers to mobilise the young by reminding them that Muslims “are different from the Hindus in every possible aspect of life.”

Following his pledge to act, Modi ordered military strikes. On May 7, Indian missiles destroyed nine sites housing what New Delhi called ‘terrorist infrastructure.’

When Pakistani generals were seen mourning at the funerals of men designated terrorists by the United Nations, it fueled the fire of the conflict. India struck multiple military installations deep inside the country. One of its targets was an airbase 25 kilometres from Pakistan's military Headquarters. Soon after this, Pakistan urged India to a ceasefire.

New Delhi insisted that it did not negotiate via the Americans. And Indians who have championed closer ties with the US are taken aback by the gratuitous manner in which Donald Trump, eagerly and absurdly collecting credit for apparently averting nuclear war, has equated the victim India with its aggressor, Pakistan.

His ignorance is seemingly matched only by his conceit that he can truly resolve it.

Now that we have had the picture of the incidents in a somewhat chronological manner, our attention next is immediately fettered to one of the very pertinent mentions— Pakistan's ‘obsession with Kashmir’. Therefore, what is the original history behind this obsession? Let's dive into history now.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND: THE GENESIS OF THE KASHMIR CONFLICT

A. HOW THE 1947 INDIAN PARTITION LED TO THE STRIFE OVER KASHMIR TODAY

The roots of the Kashmir conflict trace back to the partition of British India in 1947. The princely state of Jammu and Kashmir, with a Muslim majority population but a Hindu ruler, Maharaja Hari Singh, became a contentious region.

In August 1947, Britain granted India its independence after a century of direct colonial rule, preceded by another century of control under the British-owned East India Company. In doing so, British administrators split the subcontinent into two countries, namely Hindu-majority India and Muslim-majority Pakistan.

The partition triggered one of the bloodiest upheavals in history.

In dividing the subcontinent, therefore, British administrators chose to leave a princely state known as Jammu and Kashmir independent. The nearly 86,000 square miles at the northernmost borders of India and Pakistan, which were predominantly Muslim, were given the choice to accede to either country.

The fight for the region began almost immediately. The state's Hindu monarch, Hari Singh, tried to retain independence for the region at first. But an uprising in the Jammu area threatened Singh's rule, and his Army responded by carrying out a massacre of thousands of Muslims there, according to Hafsa Kanjwal, a professor of South Asian history at Lafayette College in Easton, Pennsylvania. This led to tribes in the northwest region of Pakistan threatening to invade Kashmir, and Singh agreeing to accede to India in exchange for military assistance.

The first Indo-Pakistani war ended in 1949 after the United Nations brokered and adopted a ceasefire agreement, establishing a border that split the region in two. The U.N.-sponsored plebiscite, which would have allowed Kashmiris to decide whether to be a part of India or Pakistan, was never held.

In the late 1980s, after some Kashmiri opposition leaders commented that India had rigged an election against them, a mass uprising began in the Indian-controlled state. Armed Kashmiri rebel groups received training and assistance from Pakistan, Kanjwal said, while hundreds of thousands of Kashmiris flooded the streets in protest.

Thousands of civilians have been killed in the conflict, with armed Kashmiri militants seeking independence or greater autonomy, at times targeting them in addition to Indian forces. Indian authorities have responded with crackdowns, revoking the region's special autonomy in 2019. Since then, Kashmiris deemed too vocal or too close to separatists have been fired, jailed, or warned to stay silent— reports The Washington Post.

India and Pakistan each continue to claim the territory in full, but an unofficial militarised border was established in 1972, known as the Line of Control. The LoC had divided the region, allowing each country administrative control over just one part. India currently controls the larger territory in the southernmost portion, which it calls Jammu and Kashmir. On the other hand, Pakistan controls what it calls Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan. China, too, occupies a small region called Aksai Chin to the east, which India has also claimed.

B. JINNAH-MOUNTBATTEN TALKS

The Jinnah-Mountbatten talks were bilateral talks held in Lahore between the Governors-General Muhammad Ali Jinnah and Louis Mountbatten of Pakistan and India, to address the Kashmir dispute. Five days after India dispatched its troops to defend the princely state of Kashmir against a tribal invasion on November 1, 1947, these talks were held. In the talks, Mountbatten presented India's offer to hold an impartial plebiscite under the United Nations auspices to decide the accession of Kashmir. Jinnah effectively rejected the offer unless there was a full withdrawal of the Indian forces.

Officially, the talks were to be programmed between the Governors-General and Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan at the state level, focused on the Kashmir dispute in November 1947. The British government originally facilitated the negotiations in New Delhi, but the venue of the meeting was changed to Lahore. Before the negotiations started, Prime Minister Nehru fell ill and his Deputy PM, Vallabhbhai Patel, refused to come to Lahore, stating, “There is nothing to discuss with Pakistan's leadership.”

The talks lasted for three-and-a-half hours, where Mountbatten offered to Jinnah that India would hold a plebiscite in the state of Jammu and Kashmir, provided that Pakistan withdrew its military support for the Azad Kashmir forces and other allies. Mountbatten also stipulated that the Indian Army would remain in the Kashmir Valley. Jinnah opposed the plan and claimed that Kashmir, with its Muslim majority, belonged to Pakistan as an essential element in an incomplete partition process.

C. THE KARGIL WAR

Tensions between India and Pakistan arose in 1947 after British India was partitioned into Hindu-majority India and Muslim-majority Pakistan. The division gave rise to mass migration, communal violence and the deaths of many people. Territorial disputes followed notably over the princely state of Kashmir, a semi-autonomous territory in British India ruled by a local monarch under the suzerainty of the crown. When tribal militias backed by Pakistan attempted to seize Kashmir in 1947, Hari Singh, the Hindu ruler of Muslim majority Kashmir, acceded to India in exchange for military support, sparking the very first India-Pakistan war. Wars in 1965 and 1971 led to the creation of Bangladesh from East Pakistan and to the Shimla Agreement (1972), a peace treaty in which India and Pakistan agreed to mutually respect territorial integrity and the Line of Control established in Kashmir.

By the 1980s and 90s, Kashmir had become a hotbed of insurgency, and in 1998, both countries tested nuclear weapons. In February 1999, the two countries signed the Lahore Declaration to prevent nuclear conflict and resolve their disputes through peaceful means. Despite this agreement, in February 1999, Pakistani troops infiltrated Kargil and covertly occupied strategic areas in the India-administered side of the LoC in Kashmir. On May 3 of the same year, local shepherds reported suspicious activities to the Indian Army. The Indian Army soon detected the infiltration on May 5. On May 10, the Indian military launched Operation Vijay to reclaim occupied areas. The Indian Air Force began Operation Safed Sagar on May 26 to support the army. The Indian military recaptured Tololing peak on June 13. On July 4, the Indian military recaptured Tiger Hill. United States President Bill Clinton met Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in Washington, D.C. on the same date. Pakistan agreed to withdraw troops. On July 11, Pakistani troops ultimately began their withdrawal from Kargil. On July 14, the then Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee declared Operation Vijay a success. On July 26, 1999, the Kargil War officially came to an end.

Taking into consideration all of these, past, present and the occurrences that took place, we now land at our most important question— is war truly the answer to it? Why or why not?

IS WAR THE ULTIMATE ANSWER?

Historically, psychologically, politically, and even personally, the answer could not be any more obvious. Why? Let's take a look.

A. WHAT KASHMIR IS ALREADY GOING THROUGH

Even before delving into the evils of war, we must consider what brunt Kashmir is already bearing, acting as the catharsis of the attack.

• Collapse of the Tourism industry: The Pahalgam attack led to a mass exodus of tourists from Kashmir, devastating the local economy that heavily relied and still relies on tourism. Hotels and houseboats are vacant, and the industry is currently facing an uncertain future.
• Heightened fear and uncertainties: Despite the ceasefire, residents live in a constant state of paranoia. People live in fear of renewed violence, with the region's fragile peace hanging by a loose thread.
• Displacement and civilian casualties: The ensuing military confrontations displaced tens of thousands and resulted in civilian deaths, including children, highlighting the human cost of the conflict.
• Increased militarisation and surveillance: In response to the attack, security measures have intensified, leading to increased militarisation and surveillance in the region, affecting daily life and civil liberties.

These in themselves are unsettling and bring forth distraught, then what would a full-fledged war might cause? The next section tackles that topic.

B. THE TYPICAL ATROCITIES OF WAR

• Civilian casualties and displacement

“I pray this calm lasts.”, said Rina Begum, who returned to find her home in Kashmir, devastated, after a week of fleeing artillery fire from across the border. Glass shards scattered across the floor, mating with the ashes of her daughter's books.

The 45-year-old woman gazed out through a fractured window frame at the looming mountains and uttered, “Hell has been raining down from there.”

Begum lives in a hamlet near Uri, a town 60 miles north-west of Srinagar, the capital of Indian administered Kashmir. The hamlet is perilously close to the LoC, the heavily militarised de facto border dividing Kashmir between India and Pakistan.

Tensions between the nuclear-armed neighbours escalated into open military confrontation after the terrorist attack on 22 April. Soon after, artillery fire erupted across the disputed frontier.

“It felt like my ears would burst from the explosions,” Begum also added. “I thought we wouldn't survive.”

Luckily, she managed to escape to a nearby town with her husband and six-year-old daughter.

“But these countries will never coexist peacefully unless their issues are resolved. It's only a matter of time- weeks, months, or years- before we're caught in the war again,” and not only does Begum feel this persistent impending doom, but many more Kashmiris and observers share similar sentiments.

• Nuclear conflict risks as well as Global environmental impact

Military clashes between nuclear-armed India and Pakistan over the past few weeks have once again raised the sobering question: What would a ‘limited’ nuclear war do to the global climate? The answer is not reassuring. Research over the past decade shows that such a conflict would be capable of causing a catastrophic global nuclear winter, and recent work predicts that over 2 billion people could be killed, with famines and diseases in the aftermath eventually killing hundreds of millions more.

In the 1980s and 1990s, a series of scientific papers published by Soviet and Western scientists Carl Sagan, host of the PBS ‘Cosmos’ TV series and Nobel Prize winner Paul Crutzen, laid out the dire consequences to the global climate of a major nuclear exchange between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. The nuclear explosions, they stated, would send massive clouds of dust high into the stratosphere, blocking so much sunlight that a nuclear winter could potentially occur. Global temperatures would plunge 20-40 degrees Celsius for months and remain 2-6 degrees Celsius lower for one to three years. Upto 70% of the Earth's protective ozone layer would be destroyed, allowing huge doses of UV light to reach the surface. This ultraviolet light would kill much of the marine life that forms the basis of the food chain. The cold and dust would create widespread crop failures and global famine, killing billions of people who did not die in the nuclear explosions.

A landmark 2008 paper by Brian Toon of the University of Colorado, Alan Robock of Rutgers University, and Rich Turco of UCLA, Environmental Consequences of Nuclear War, concluded that a war between India and Pakistan using 50 Hiroshima sized with a 15 kiloton yield on each country, exploded on cities, would immediately kill or injure about 45 million people.

Another 2014 paper led by Michael Mills of the National Centre for Atmospheric Research, Multidecadal global cooling and unprecedented ozone loss following a regional nuclear conflict, found that the final toll would be globally and astronomically higher.

• Economic devastation

Wars more often than not lead to significant economic downturns. For instance, the conflict between Russia and Ukraine resulted in substantial GDP declines for both nations, with Ukraine experiencing a dramatic drop before a partial recovery.

A recent paper, The Economic Consequences of War: Estimates using synthetic controls (Chupilkin and Kóczán, 2022) investigated the short and long run economic effects of wars, drawing on a large database of almost 400 wars over the past two centuries. The analysis was motivated by Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. The analysis is most closely related to Abadi and Gardeazabal (2003), who introduced the synthetic control method and applied it to estimate the effects of terrorist conflict in the Basque country, as well as to Saxena and Cerra (2008) who documented the behavior of output following civil wars and financial crises using impulse responses.

The analysis then found that GDP per capita drops are driven by wars on territory, with GDP per capita even increasing relative to that of comparators for some wars off territory. Wars on territory result in a GDP per capita loss of over seven percentage points relative to a synthetic control the year after the war ends. Defeated and non-initiators also see significantly larger drops in GDP per capita than winners and initiators, respectively.

In the context of India and Pakistan, a war could disrupt trade, deter investment, and strain public finances, leading to long-term economic challenges.

• Cyber warfare escalation

Both India and Pakistan possess cyber capabilities, and a war could see escalated cyber attacks affecting critical infrastructure and information systems.

The next war, if any, could involve AI-enabled systems, cyber sabotage of nuclear command chains, or even nuclear tactical use if escalation is not checked early.

• Regional destabilization

Conflicts often have ripple effects, destabilising neighbouring regions. The global refugee crisis exemplifies how wars can lead to mass displacements, creating humanitarian challenges and straining resources in host countries. Refugee and internally displaced populations thus exacerbate concerns about regional destabilisation. For example, the Syrian refugee crisis is deeply entwined with civil and international conflict. Neighbouring host states of Turkey, Jordan, and Lebanon bear the brunt of the crisis, as European states seek to prevent further encroachment by Middle Eastern asylum seekers.

A war between India and Pakistan could simultaneously result in large-scale displacements, affecting regional stability and security.

• Suppression of civil liberties

Historically, wars have always led to the curtailment of civil liberties. During World War-I, the U.S. government enacted laws like the Espionage Act, which imposed harsh restrictions on freedom of speech to suppress dissent.

In times of conflict, governments may implement stringent measures, potentially infringing upon individual rights and freedoms.

• Diplomatic strains

Wars usually strain diplomatic relations, making conflict resolution more challenging. The prolonged conflict in Ukraine has evidenced how diplomatic efforts can falter amidst ongoing hostilities.

A war between India and Pakistan could similarly hinder diplomatic channels, complicating peace efforts and international relations.

• PTSD

According to the NESARC-III survey, which included over 3,100 Veterans among the total participants, the lifetime prevalence of PTSD among Veterans is 7%. Lifetime prevalence was also higher in female Veterans (13%) than in male Veterans (6%).

War has profound psychological impacts on both military personnel and civilians. Studies also indicate that approximately 23% of Veterans using VA services have experienced PTSD.

The trauma from war can lead to long-term mental health issues, affecting the well-being of individuals and communities..

Now that it is abundantly clear what a war could deliver if it erupts, we need to answer another, yet most important, query:

IS NATIONALITY OR RELIGION ABOVE HUMANITY?

In the wake of the devastating Pahalgam terror attack on April 22, the region witnessed not only grief and outrage but profound acts of interfaith solidarity on the other side of the coin. In essence, they illuminated the enduring spirit of unity and humanity that transcends religious and national divides.

A. SYED ADIL HUSSAIN SHAH & NAZAKAT ALI SHAH

Syed Adil Hussain Shah was a pony ride operator from Baisaran Valley. He saved the lives of many tourists in the 2025 Pahalgam attack. Syed died while saving the lives of the tourists. He attempted to disarm the terrorists but was shot by another attacker. Nazakat Ahmad Ali Shah, also known as Nazakat Ali, is a Kashmiri businessman and tourist guide from the same location. He is the cousin of the late Syed Adil Hussain Shah. During the chaos of the attack, Nazakat Ali risked his life to save 11 Hindu tourists, including the daughter of a BJP leader.

B. RAYEES AHMAD

“We saw humans, not religion.”

Ahmad, 35, head of the local association of pony handlers, was at his office when news of the terror attack was revealed to him.

By the time Ahmad reached, the attackers had vanished. “We first stopped the tourists heading towards the meadows and sent them back to safety,” he said, adding that he and his associates assisted nearly a hundred people, preventing them from walking into the ambush. Ahmad and a small group of rescuers used their ponies to guide injured tourists to safety over the rugged terrain.

“We cleaned wounds, gave water, and carried people down. There was no time to think about our lives,” he recalled.

Ahmad remarked, “I did not see anyone's religion that day. I saw humans. We were all human beings trying to save other human beings.”

C. CANDLELIGHT VIGIL

On April 23, Kashmir traders, predominantly Muslims, organised a candlelight vigil in Srinagar to mourn the victims.

People's Conference (PC) President and Handwara MLA Sajad Gani Lone too led a candlelight protest by his party at Polo View to condemn the brutal Pahalgam attack that claimed innocent lives. Addressing the media, Lone described the Pahalgam killings as “profoundly regrettable,” highlighting that “this is the gravest attack on our people in the past thirty years,” reported KNS.

D. MIRWAIZ UMAR FAROOQ'S CONDEMNATION

Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, a prominent Muslim cleric, condemned the attack during his Friday sermon, stating the act of violence as “an act beyond belief” and “totally unacceptable.”

Further, he had added, “People of Jammu and Kashmir observed a complete shutdown and showed an example of solidarity and unity. They have sent a message that they oppose such cowardly acts and stand with the bereaved families,” emphasising shared humanity over religious divisions.

CONCLUSION

And so the heaven weeps— again.

The Pahalgam attack was not an isolated violence; it was a punctuation mark in a long, unfinished sentence of ideological warfare, historical neglect and systemic silence. Kashmir thus remains trapped, swinging between paradise and purgatory.

This incident forces us to confront not only the major uncomfortable questions, but their offspring too— why does the discourse around terrorism still follow a religious binary? Why does accountability die at the altar of political convenience? And if secularism means equal treatment of all religions by the state, then why does silence descend only when Hindus are the victims, but outrage erupts when they are the accused?

If justice is the soul of democracy, then selective justice is its slow decay.

And so we must now ask,

What is justice? And

What has nationalism truly become?

The Pahalgam attack must not be allowed to dissolve into silence. It must be remembered not only as an act of terror, but a mirror held up to nations and their people.

REFERENCES

• https://www.wikipedia.org
• https://indiatoday.in
• https://www.globalgurdian.com
• https://m.economictimes.com
• https://nypost.com
• https://www.ft.com
• https://www.washingtonpost.com
• https://www.aljazeera.com
• https://apnews.com
• https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com
• https://www.csis.org
• https://www.bbc.com
• https://warontherocks.com
• https://carnegieendowment.org
• https://www.reuters.com
• https://www.thegurdian.com
• https://www.ndtv.com
• https://yaleclimateconnections.org
• https://www.belfercenter.org
• https://lansinginstitute.org
• https://cepr.org
• https://www.amacad.org
• https://www.ptsd.va.gov
• https://www.rand.org
• https://www.pib.gov.in
• https://www.hindusforhumanrights.org
• https://www.independent.co.uk
• https://www.charliehealth.com
• https://www.nsf.gov
• https://www.britannica.com 

.    .    .