Rising tensions resurface Pakistan’s credibility problem– and India’s backfiring policy on Kashmir

The Pahalgam terror attack has returned Kashmir to the international agenda. But a history of flawed policy means neither country can claim moral authority on the region.

Expert comment Published 9 May 2025 4 minute READ

Dr Farzana Shaikh

Associate Fellow, Asia-Pacific Programme

Tensions between India and Pakistan are fast escalating, following the terrorist attack that killed 26 Indian tourists near Pahalgam in India-administered Kashmir on 22 April – and subsequent military action by India against alleged terror camps in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir on 7 May. But two stark realities have emerged as hostilities have grown, exposing the limits of each party’s ability to gain leverage over its rival.  

The first pertains to Pakistan’s enduring credibility problem created by allegations that the country has historic connections with acts of terrorism abroad, especially in Indian-administered Kashmir. The second relates to India’s frustrated attempts to ‘marginalize’ Pakistan internationally and – as an extension of that policy – to revoke Kashmir’s special status and de-list it as a disputed territory. Both issues have resurfaced as hostilities have gained momentum.

Within hours of the attack, India announced – without evidence – that the gunmen had ‘cross-border’ links to Pakistan and threatened retaliation. India also suspended its water-sharing agreement with Pakistan under the 1960 Indus Water Treaty (IWT), downgraded its diplomatic representation in Pakistan, revoked Indian visas for Pakistani nationals, and sealed off all border crossings.  

The measures triggered strong condemnation in Pakistan, which angrily rejected India’s allegations of involvement in the terrorist attack. Islamabad announced that it was withdrawing from the 1972 Simla Agreement with India, which committed both parties to the bilateral settlement of all outstanding issues, including the Kashmir dispute.

But in a move that was clearly intended to defuse tension, Pakistan subsequently offered to participate in ‘any neutral, transparent and credible investigation’ into the attack at Pahalgam – a proposal that appears to be supported by the United States. 

Credibility

However, the gesture was rejected as a ‘ploy’ by India. New Delhi cited the fate of earlier investigations, notably into the 2008 Mumbai attacks. India believes it provided ‘irrefutable evidence’ of Pakistani involvement to that investigation, only for the findings to be buried and the perpetrators offered protection by Islamabad. Pakistan strongly denied any state involvement in the attack. 

But Indian claims that Pakistan has been reluctant to pursue terrorist groups and their leaders operating beyond its borders may have some foundation. Previous links with terror groups have been acknowledged by Pakistani officials:

Speculation about Pakistan’s use of terrorist groups as instruments of state policy…significantly compounds Islamabad’s credibility problem.

In an interview with Sky News, Pakistan’s Defence Minister, Khawaja Asif, while insisting that no collusion exists with the group that carried out the Pahalgam attacks, appeared to concede that Pakistan had harboured links to terrorist groups over many decades in the past – albeit in the service of doing the West’s ‘dirty work’.  

The senior opposition leader from the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), Bilawal Bhutto, has also acknowledged that Pakistan ‘has a past as far as extremist groups are concerned’.  

Whatever the veracity of claims in relation to Pakistan’s past and present policies, there is no doubt that they continue to fuel speculation about Pakistan’s use of terrorist groups as instruments of state policy against its adversaries – significantly compounding Islamabad’s credibility problem. It should come as no surprise that these questions have resurfaced in the wake of the attacks.

Backfiring Indian foreign policy

India has made efforts to harness these doubts in the service of a carefully honed policy to erode Pakistan’s regional and global standing and, by extension, marginalize the issue of Kashmir. But this has proved to be less than successful and now looks set to backfire.

For what Pahalgam has ensured – at a terrible cost – is the reinstatement of the Kashmir dispute to the international agenda.

While concerns over the conflict may not yet match those raised by Israel’s war in Gaza or Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, a fierce conflict between two nuclear-armed powers has triggered widespread international consternation.

The development is a blow to India. New Delhi has worked hard to normalize conditions in India-administered Kashmir since its unilateral revocation of Article 370 of the Indian Constitution in 2019 – an act which stripped Kashmir of its semi-autonomous status.  

Legislative elections held in the region in September 2024 resulted in a categorical rejection of that decision. But Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government still promoted the elections as evidence of a return to stability after months of popular unrest and the imposition of draconian laws.

India has been keen to downplay the region’s internationally contested status, describing it as a domestic issue. But the attacks promise to encourage fresh global scrutiny.

A key index of this normality was held to be the return of tourism to Kashmir – a region long famed for its natural beauty. As a calculated move to puncture Indian claims of having restored peace to the Kashmir Valley, nothing could be more devastating than an attack on innocent tourists.

India has been keen to downplay the region’s internationally contested status, describing it as a domestic issue. But the attacks promise to encourage fresh global scrutiny of the dispute.

With conflict still raging, Pakistan and India must now take steps to review policies that have been shown to be bankrupt. But before that both countries must de-escalate and allow mediation to help restore calm. There are some signs that both recognize the risks of not doing so.  

Pakistan cannot afford a drawn-out conflict with India – its economy is under severe stress and its sensitive border regions of Balochistan and Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa are dogged by separatist and religious violence. Pakistan has every reason to respond positively to international calls for restraint.

Nor should India spurn such appeals for de-escalation. For ultimately India’s ambitions to be recognized as a global power can only be secured if it builds on the foundations of a stable and peaceful regional neighbourhood.

India’s defence minister has declared that India is ‘in favour of resolving problems through dialogue’. Pakistan’s foreign minister meanwhile has confirmed that national security advisers from both sides have resumed contact.

The indications are that sense could still prevail.