THE brutal killing in Pahalgam marked a turning point in Indo-Pak relations, altering the existing patterns of bilateral politics, military postures and public opinion.
In the immediate aftermath, India swiftly blamed Pakistan without presenting any evidence.
An FIR was lodged, alleging that the attackers had links across the border.
Pakistan categorically denied involvement, called for a joint investigation and criticized India’s accusations as hasty and politically driven.
India’s refusal to cooperate led to a rapid escalation: diplomatic ties were strained, military preparedness intensified and the Indus Waters Treaty was suspended.
Airstrikes followed, bringing the two nations to the brink of open conflict.
Pakistan responded with precision, leveraging AI, advanced technology, the Air Force and intelligence cooperation with China.
The situation worsened until a ceasefire was brokered through intervention by the US President.
Beneath the surface, the incident revealed deeper political motives.
With waning public support, a weakening Hindutva narrative and growing pressure from upcoming Bihar elections, Prime Minister Modi adopted a hardline stance to consolidate his political position.
In the chaotic political situation of Indo-Pak, the Trump Administration confided and mentored either side to extend relief from public pressures.
The limits of exploitation were explained to both ends.
However, India behaved in a cunning way and breached the given understanding; whereas, the Pakistani defence forces were compelled to give a strong blow to India.
India approached the mediating mentor and the skirmish ended with a temporary ceasefire of May 10; an evident victory for Pakistan and depressing situation for India.
The Pakistani nation celebrated a victory out of excitement.
May 2025 Indo-Pak clashes have been marked by distinct and unprecedented dynamics.
The sacrifices of both civilians and soldiers have, in some cases, been instrumentalized to advance regime narratives.
These developments also revealed the shared human sentiments among ordinary citizens on both sides.
Political and military leaderships employed religious and ideological themes to mobilize public support, with Pakistan emerging in a strategically favourable position.
Religious motivation was invoked through a call for Jihad, which proved to be a unifying force.
If approached constructively, this moment holds potential for broader national cohesion and a meaningful nation-building.
The recent Indo-Pak confrontations offer several takeaways:
∙The scuffle distinctly bifurcated the geopolitical alignments.
The countries like China, Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Afghanistan stood for Pakistan.
On the other hand, Israel, France, Australia and Japan with Indo-Pacific interest supported Indian stance.
∙The role of United States was instrumental, especially in ceasefire, which exposed India and added strength to Pakistan in public perception.
∙The leadership on both ends utilized the event to provoke nationalist sentiments.
In India, misinformation was propagated to build public opinion without any credible ground, while declaring it a traditional term as operation Sindoor; on the other hand, religious sentiments were aroused to achieve a unanimous opinion in Pakistan.
The military leadership of Pakistan branded the whole event as a Battle for Truth (Marka-e-Haq) and operation Solid Resistance (Bunyan-un-Marsoos).
∙The supremacy of Chinese military equipment and highest degree of training/professionalism of Pakistani Army, especially the Air Force was established against the inferior defensive parameters of India.
∙The two nuclear rivals used missiles for the first time; India used BrahMos and SCALP-EG Russian type missiles and Pakistan used Fateh-I and Fateh-II missiles.
∙The scuffle proved to be taking a new tactical move far away from conventional warfare, as both the States used drones for attacking each other.
∙Pakistan also engaged/defended its diplomatic fronts and met success.
∙Pakistani media and youth played a vibrant role for tackling the Indian allegations including jamming of Indian electronic systems.
It helped strategically as well as kept the morale of the Nation high.
∙The role of Pakistan Army Air Defence and ISPR was also praise-worthy and responsible.
∙The confrontation exposed gaps in India’s military preparedness compared to Pakistan with superior electronic warfare tactics.
∙The falsehood and tall claims of Indian media were exposed bitterly and instead of defending Indian narrative, it made mockery out of it.
∙This event redefines traditional concepts of warfare underscoring the rising significance of artificial intelligence, cyber capabilities and real time surveillance in military strategy.
The four-day Indo-Pak scuffle has unfolded as more than a military standoff; it reflected a deeper shift in national consciousness.
In this conflict of two rivals, advanced warfare and military discipline were evident, it was the spontaneous public solidarity and moral resolve that stood out.
In a time of political disillusionment, the people’s alignment with the defence forces revealed a collective aspiration for unity and national coherence.
Religious symbolism, when grounded in values like justice, transparency, rule of law and accountability may offer a unifying narrative, capable of transcending integrity.
Drawing from historical lessons and present resolve, this moment presents a rare opportunity to redefine Pakistan’s direction through inclusive governance and moral clarity.
If met with visionary leadership, this juncture may well be remembered as A Turning Moment.
—The writer is contributing columnist. (ranamudassar.hd@gmail.com)
