TENSION gripped the subcontinent following the Pahalgam incident, but the heart of the crisis wasn’t just found in missile exchanges or military movements.
It pulsed within India’s own borders, in the quiet corridors of power and media ‘war rooms.
’ The confrontation with Pakistan became more than a regional flashpoint—it evolved into a mirror reflecting India’s internal struggles with governance, democratic integrity and foreign policy coherence.
The ruling BJP cunningly orchestrated a domestic strategy with surgical precision.
By casting itself as the lone guardian of national interest, it manoeuvred to silence critics, absorb opposition narratives and dominate the information space.
What looked like a foreign policy response was also a political masterstroke aimed at consolidating power at home.
A telling example came in the form of opposition figure Dr.Shashi Tharoor’s inclusion in global outreach team.
At first glance, it signaled unity across party lines.
But the symbolism quickly unravelled as Congress found itself trapped in a political bind—part of the national effort yet unable to challenge it.
Rahul Gandhi’s campaign questioning the Modi government's handling of national security lost traction, as Tharoor’s participation served to blur the lines between critique and complicity.
Diplomatically, India’s position appeared contradictory.
The government maintained that Kashmir is a bilateral issue per the 1972 Simla Agreement, yet simultaneously lobbied across continents to internationalize its perspective.
This inconsistency confused allies and critics alike.
The foreign ministry’s lack of visibility—particularly the silence of S.
Jaishankar—only reinforced the perception of a fractured approach.
In his absence, unofficial envoys and mixed mes-sages filled the gap, leaving India’s strategy disjointed and reactionary.
Contrary to New Delhi’s intentions, its campaign to isolate Pakistan faltered.
Nations such as Turkey, China and several in Central Asia stood by Pakistan’s call for dialogue.
Western powers urged restraint without fully endorsing India’s position.
President Trump’s revived offer to mediate in Kashmir was a symbolic blow to India’s insistence on bilateralism, revealing a chink in the armour of Indian diplomacy.
Meanwhile, “Godi Media” amplified a narrative of strength and victory.
Newsrooms became echo chambers for speculative triumphs, disconnected from the international narrative and contradicting evidence presented by Pakistan, including footage of targeted Indian military infrastructure.
Misinformation, repeated endlessly, replaced meaningful discourse and reinforced a version of events tailored for domestic consumption.
In stark contrast, Pakistan responded with measured precision.
When strikes came, they were targeted, documented and backed with verifiable proof.
Pakistan gained quiet support from an international community weary of escalation.
This crisis is not an isolated episode but part of a broader pattern in India’s recent conduct—marked by growing intolerance of dissent, erosion of minority rights and a foreign policy driven more by domestic optics than strategic sub-stance.
Allegations of cross-border interference, suppression in Kashmir and disregard for refugee rights have dam-aged India’s standing as the world’s largest democracy.
What emerges from the standoff is not a story of triumph but of reckoning.
India’s global image as a responsible power has taken a hit.
Its diplomatic alliances appear strained and its internal contradictions are harder to mask.
For Pakistan, the coming months demand strategic caution, unity and clarity.
The international tide may be turning, but in this high-stakes game, sustained credibility and composure will determine who truly shapes the future of South Asia.
—The writer is an alumnus of QAU, MPhil scholar and a freelance columnist, based in Islamabad. (fa7263125@gmail.com)
