Kondapalli further alleged that Chinese agencies had provided Pakistan with detailed satellite imagery of the Pahalgam region prior to the attack.

A leading Indian academic has alleged that Chinese technology and intelligence support played a role in a deadly militant attack in Kashmir earlier this year, raising questions over Beijing’s commitments to international counter-terrorism pledges.

In an interview with Indian news agency ANI, Professor Srikanth Kondapalli, a Chinese studies expert at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), said evidence recovered from the April 22 attack in Pahalgam pointed to direct Chinese involvement.

He alleged that satellite imagery, communication equipment, and diplomatic shielding at the United Nations Security Council all indicated what he described as Beijing’s support to Pakistan in matters of cross-border militancy.

The claims, if verified, could add a new dimension to the already fraught India-China-Pakistan triangle, where territorial disputes and security tensions have shaped much of South Asia’s geopolitics.

Huawei Device and Satellite Links

Professor Kondapalli said Indian security officials had recovered a Huawei phone from one of the militants killed in the Pahalgam attack. He claimed the device was connected to a Chinese satellite network and had been used to send messages to handlers in Pakistan shortly after the assault.

“On April 22nd, when the Pahalgam incident took place, one of the terrorists was carrying a Huawei phone with Chinese satellite connection. He was messaging back to Pakistan after the Pahalgam attacks. So, there is a Chinese role here,” the JNU scholar told ANI.

According to him, Indian authorities are “in possession of this device,” which he described as proof of direct technological involvement.

Kondapalli further alleged that Chinese agencies had provided Pakistan with detailed satellite imagery of the Pahalgam region prior to the attack. He said as many as 120 to 129 slides were shared, containing GPS coordinates and high-resolution mapping of the area.

“This is another incident where the Chinese were helping the Pakistani side, despite the counter-terrorism pledge with the Indians, also with the international community in the SCO [Shanghai Cooperation Organization],” he said.

The UN Security Council Dimension

Beyond the battlefield, Kondapalli pointed to diplomatic maneuvers at the United Nations Security Council’s 1267 Committee, which deals with global terrorist designations.

He said that Chinese and Pakistani representatives had pushed to delete the name of a militant group called The Resistance Front, which initially claimed responsibility for the Pahalgam attack.

“The fact that they took responsibility first two times indicates their role, and their name has been removed. Instead, the Baluch Liberation Army and the Majid Brigade were mentioned,” he argued.

The professor suggested that these moves undermined international efforts to hold accountable those directly linked to the attack.

He also referred to tensions within multilateral forums, claiming that the Tianjin Declaration—issued after the incident—had included watered-down references to the Pahalgam attacks under pressure from Pakistan, even as Russia had reportedly pushed for their inclusion.

Wider Security Context

Professor Kondapalli’s remarks fit into a broader pattern of accusations and suspicions shaping South Asian security discourse. He referenced earlier instances where China allegedly provided operational support to Pakistan, including during “Operation Sindoor”.

According to him, Beijing supplied military equipment such as JF-17 and J-10 fighter aircraft, Wing Loong drones, and HQ-9 surface-to-air missile systems, which he described as “offensive in nature.”

Following the April 22 incident, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi had called for an “impartial investigation” into the attacks. Kondapalli contrasted this with China’s refusal to allow outside probes into sensitive issues such as unrest in Xinjiang or the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic.

“For India, it is not the time for investigation, it is time for action,” he said, arguing that repeated attacks traced to cross-border militants required decisive measures rather than dialogue.

Fragile Balances in South Asia

The Pahalgam attack and its aftermath highlight the fragile trust deficit between New Delhi, Islamabad, and Beijing.

While India and China are both members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, where counter-terrorism is a stated priority, Indian analysts such as Kondapalli argue that Beijing’s actions suggest parallel alignments with Pakistan that undercut cooperative frameworks.

For New Delhi, the issue strikes at the core of its longstanding concerns about cross-border militancy and the security of Kashmir.

For Beijing, meanwhile, any suggestion of complicity carries international implications, particularly as China seeks to project itself as a responsible global power with a stake in peace and stability.

Neither China nor Pakistan has issued a formal response to Kondapalli’s claims. However, the remarks are likely to intensify debate over the interplay of technology, intelligence sharing, and great power rivalries in one of the world’s most sensitive flashpoints.

Pakistan’s hurried outreach to Washington for a ceasefire underscores how severely it was rattled by India’s swift and precise military campaign.

Washington-based Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) on Thursday has declared India as a rising military and political superpower. Authored by Senior Research Fellow Anna Mahjar-Barducci, the report titled “India Has Emerged As A Military And Political Superpower” highlights India’s growing clout in global geopolitics, citing its successful Operation Sindoor as a pivotal moment in asserting its military might and strategic autonomy.

Operation Sindoor: A Turning Point

The report emphasizes that India’s military success during Operation Sindoor, which began on May 7 and paused temporarily on May 10, marked a seismic shift in South Asia’s strategic balance. The operation was launched in response to the Pakistan-sponsored Pahalgam terror attack, which killed dozens of civilians.

“India managed to bring Pakistan to its knees,” the report claims. “In just a few days, India struck 11 Pakistani airbases and destroyed 25 percent of Pakistan’s air force. This is a remarkable feat, especially considering Pakistan’s nuclear capability.”

According to MEMRI, Pakistan’s hurried outreach to Washington for a ceasefire underscores how severely it was rattled by India’s swift and precise military campaign. Despite diplomatic pressure, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi maintained a firm stance.

“We have just suspended our retaliatory action against Pakistan’s terror and military camps,” PM Modi said in a televised address on May 12. “In the coming days we will measure every step of Pakistan on the criterion that what sort of attitude Pakistan will adopt ahead.”

Political Ascendancy: India’s Battle on Multiple Fronts

Beyond the battlefield, India’s political leadership has taken center stage. MEMRI’s report credits New Delhi with successfully leading a multipronged offensive—not just against state-sponsored terrorism but also against geopolitical actors that enable and support it.

India’s stand against Turkey has been particularly noted. Ankara, under President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, is alleged to have provided Pakistan with Asisguard Songar drones during the conflict. This military assistance has fueled a strong backlash in India.

The “Boycott Turkey” movement, once limited to online activism, has now taken on a life of its own. “From marble yards in Udaipur to fruit markets in Pune, Indian traders and consumers are turning away from Turkish goods,” reported Indian media. The movement reflects India’s new approach: aligning economic decisions with national security interests.

India also faced off with Iran, which drew criticism for sending its deputy foreign minister to Islamabad days before the strikes. Indian media condemned the move, viewing it as a tacit endorsement of Pakistan at a volatile time.

Modi’s Doctrine: No Compromise on Terror

MEMRI’s analysis highlights Prime Minister Modi’s doctrinal shift in India’s foreign policy. By linking trade and diplomacy to a country’s stance on terrorism, Modi has signaled that India will not return to the status quo.

“We will not differentiate between the government sponsoring terrorism and the masterminds of terrorism,” Modi asserted. “Terror and trade cannot go together.” This statement was widely interpreted as a firm response to then-U.S. President Donald Trump’s suggestion that India and Pakistan work out trade deals in exchange for a ceasefire.

According to Mahjar-Barducci, Modi’s unapologetic approach marks a turning point. India has broken free from years of strategic restraint and has adopted a more assertive, self-assured international posture.

A Beacon for the Democratic World

The MEMRI report concludes with a sweeping endorsement of India’s position in the global order. As the world’s largest democracy, India is now seen as a vital counterbalance to authoritarian powers like China and a key player in maintaining regional and global stability.

“All those that believe in liberty and freedom are looking in awe at India,” the report says. “India is the major obstacle to China’s expansionist ambitions in Asia. It is the only country that has openly defied Beijing’s hegemony.”

Mahjar-Barducci argues that India’s rise is not just military or economic, but deeply ideological. It is emerging as the voice of democratic resistance in a time of global uncertainty.

“India is now a beacon of hope, projecting its power and determination. It is becoming the leader of the democratic world that is ready to fight for its values,” she writes.

The MEMRI report positions India not merely as a regional power, but as a central pillar of a reshaping world order. Operation Sindoor may have been a military operation, but its ripple effects have traveled far beyond the battlefield—into diplomacy, economics, and the very discourse of global power.

As the report ends on a nationalistic note—“Bharat Mata ki Jai” (Victory to Mother India)—it is clear that India’s moment on the world stage has arrived. What remains to be seen is how the world, particularly the West and China, will recalibrate their strategies in response to this rising giant.

The Pakistani military had launched missiles and drones aimed at at least 15 Indian cities, including Jammu, Jaisalmer, and Pathankot. However, India’s robust defense apparatus, including the S-400 missile system and advanced drone countermeasures, successfully intercepted the threats, averting significant damage or casualties.

As a defensive measure, blackouts were imposed in key Indian border cities—Srinagar, Jammu, Rajouri, Amritsar, Jalandhar, and Bhuj—to prevent visibility to enemy drones and safeguard civilians.

In a calibrated response, India deployed kamikaze drones and neutralized a Pakistani air defense system in Lahore, striking deep within Pakistani territory. Other military targets, including air defense radars in Sialkot and Islamabad, were also engaged.

The Indian Ministry of Defence confirmed, “In response to an unprovoked and unsuccessful attack by the Pakistani military, our armed forces have taken precise and measured action to ensure deterrence and defense.”

The confrontation follows Wednesday’s Operation Sindoor, during which India struck nine high-value terror targets across Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK), including in Bahawalpur, a known hub for the Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) terror group. The operation was carried out after a brutal terror attack in Pahalgam killed Indian security personnel and civilians.

Pakistan, for its part, resorted to ceasefire violations along the Line of Control (LoC) in Jammu & Kashmir—a familiar escalation tactic—but Indian border forces responded swiftly and effectively to protect civilian populations.

Analysts warn that while India’s response remains tactical and targeted, the situation remains volatile.

“There is clearly a shift in India’s posture,” said a regional security analyst. “The Indian government is signaling that attacks on its soil will not go unanswered.”

As night fell across the subcontinent, both sides remained on high alert. Yet the scars of recent violence, especially the Pahalgam attack, remain fresh—fueling public support in India for a firm and decisive response.

Whether this marks a turning point in Indo-Pak relations or a dangerous step toward broader conflict, one thing is certain: the region stands at a fragile crossroads, with diplomacy and restraint now more critical than ever.

The logistics of Modi’s schedule further weaken Kharge’s claim. Organizing a high-profile international trip like the Saudi visit requires weeks of preparation, leaving little room for a last-minute Kashmir visit.

In a startling accusation, Mallikarjun Kharge, president of India’s opposition Congress Party, recently claimed that Prime Minister Narendra Modi canceled a planned visit to Kashmir after receiving an intelligence warning three days before the devastating Pahalgam attack on April 22, 2025.

The attack, which killed 26 people, mostly tourists, in the scenic Kashmir valley, sent shockwaves across India and beyond, intensifying regional tensions. Kharge’s allegation, widely shared on platforms like IndiaToday and Beatroot, has ignited controversy, with critics calling it a politically motivated fabrication.

For an international audience seeking clarity, a closer look at the timeline, Modi’s schedule, and the complexities of India’s security landscape reveals a claim that lacks evidence and struggles to hold up.

The Pahalgam Attack: A Brutal Blow

The Pahalgam attack ranks among the deadliest in Jammu and Kashmir in nearly two decades. On April 22, 2025, at 2:30 PM local time, gunmen targeted Hindu tourists in Baisaran meadow, a picturesque spot in the Kashmir valley. The Resistance Front (TRF), a militant group linked to Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba, initially claimed responsibility before retracting its statement due to public backlash.

India accused Pakistan of orchestrating the attack, further straining already tense relations between the nuclear-armed neighbors. The tragedy not only highlighted the fragility of security in Kashmir—a disputed region claimed by both India and Pakistan—but also raised questions about intelligence failures.

Kharge’s claim centers on a specific assertion: Modi received an intelligence report on April 19, 2025, warning of the attack and promptly canceled a planned Kashmir visit to avoid danger. The accusation paints Modi as prioritizing personal safety over leadership in a crisis. But when examined against verifiable facts, the narrative begins to crumble.

Modi’s Schedule: No Trace of a Kashmir Trip

First, let’s consider Modi’s itinerary. On April 19, 2025—the day Kharge alleges Modi was warned—India’s Ministry of External Affairs announced Modi’s upcoming visit to Saudi Arabia, scheduled for April 22–23. Modi arrived in Jeddah on April 22, where he was set to co-chair the second India-Saudi Arabia Strategic Partnership Council meeting, a key diplomatic engagement to strengthen bilateral ties.

When news of the Pahalgam attack broke, Modi cut his visit short, skipping a formal dinner, and returned to New Delhi on April 23 to convene an emergency meeting with top officials, including Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar and National Security Advisor Ajit Doval. This timeline, corroborated by global media outlets like The Hindu, shows Modi’s focus was on international diplomacy, not a domestic trip to Kashmir.

No evidence suggests a Kashmir visit was ever planned. Modi’s trips to volatile regions like Kashmir are often unannounced for security reasons, but no government statements, media reports, or credible social media sources indicate a scheduled visit in April 2025.

Modi’s last major Kashmir trip was in January 2025, to the resort town of Sonamarg where he inaugurated the 6.5-kilometer tunnel. Kharge’s claim of a cancellation implies a visit was on the table, but without documentation, it appears speculative. Open-source intelligence platforms, found no mention of a planned Kashmir trip in the days before the attack, undermining Kharge’s narrative.

The Intelligence Puzzle

Kharge’s allegation also hinges on the existence of a specific intelligence report warning of the Pahalgam attack. India’s intelligence agencies, such as the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) and the Intelligence Bureau (IB), routinely monitor threats in Kashmir, where militancy remains a persistent challenge.

These reports are highly classified, and specific warnings are rarely made public. This suggests that while general intelligence on militant activity likely existed, a precise warning about the April 22 attack may not have been issued—or was not actionable.

Kharge provides no evidence to support his claim of a specific report. As an opposition leader, his access to classified intelligence would likely come from unofficial channels or leaking buckets, casting doubt on the reliability of his statement. Without corroboration, the claim risks fueling misinformation in a region already fraught with competing narratives.

Modi’s Response: Crisis Management, Not Evasion

Modi’s actions after the attack contrast sharply with Kharge’s portrayal. Upon returning to Delhi, Modi chaired an emergency meeting, condemned the attack as “cowardly,” and vowed to bring the perpetrators to justice, as reported by The Hindu.

His government launched a sweeping response, detaining over 1,500 suspects, demolishing homes of alleged militants, and suspending the Indus Waters Treaty with Pakistan—a 1960 agreement governing shared river resources. Modi even rerouted his return flight to avoid Pakistani airspace, signaling a hardline stance. These measures reflect a leader grappling with a national crisis, not one dodging responsibility by canceling a visit.

The Political Context

To understand Kharge’s claim, it’s crucial to consider India’s domestic politics. The Congress Party has long criticized Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government over its Kashmir policy, particularly the 2019 decision to revoke Article 370, which stripped Jammu and Kashmir of its semi-autonomous status. The BJP touted this move as a path to stability, but the Pahalgam attack challenged that narrative, giving the opposition an opening to question Modi’s leadership.

Kharge’s allegation aligns with this strategy, aiming to portray Modi as detached or negligent. However, without evidence, the claim has drawn backlash, with social media posts on X labeling it “venomous” and accusing Kharge of inadvertently bolstering Pakistan’s narrative—a risky move for Congress’s credibility.

Logistical Realities

The logistics of Modi’s schedule further weaken Kharge’s claim. Organizing a high-profile international trip like the Saudi visit requires weeks of preparation, leaving little room for a last-minute Kashmir visit.

Why It Matters

The Pahalgam attack underscores the enduring volatility of Jammu and Kashmir, a region at the heart of India-Pakistan tensions for decades. Beyond the human toll, the tragedy highlights the challenges of securing a conflict-prone area while navigating geopolitical rivalries. Kharge’s claim, while attention-grabbing, lacks the evidence needed to hold up under scrutiny.

Modi’s documented schedule, the absence of a confirmed Kashmir visit, and the speculative nature of the intelligence report all point to a narrative driven more by political point-scoring than by facts.

For the international community, this episode serves as a reminder of the complexities of India’s internal and external challenges. The focus should remain on addressing the root causes of violence in Kashmir—enhancing security, fostering dialogue, and ensuring justice for victims.

Unsubstantiated claims like Kharge’s, while sparking debate, risk diverting attention from these critical priorities. In a region where truth is often obscured by competing narratives, facts must guide the path forward.

The backlash from Kashmiris, combined with international sympathy for India, creates a political environment conducive to a strong Indian response.

On April 22, 2025, a horrific terrorist attack shook the serene Baisaran meadow in Pahalgam, Kashmir, claiming the lives of 26 tourists, predominantly Indian male civilians. The assailants, identified as Islamist extremists, executed their victims at point-blank range after determining their targets based on their inability to recite Islamic verses. This brutal act, attributed initially to The Resistance Front (TRF), a Pakistan-based terrorist group closely linked to Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), has escalated tensions between India and Pakistan, prompting expectations of a significant Indian military response.

A recent policy paper by Max Abrahms, a tenured professor of political science at Northeastern University, published by the Pacific Forum in Honolulu on May 2, 2025, provides critical insights into the dynamics of this attack and predicts a robust Indian retaliation.

Abrahms, a leading expert on terrorist group dynamics, begins his analysis by detailing the attack’s immediate aftermath. “Immediately after the mass casualty attack against civilians in Kashmir, the terrorist group known as The Resistance Front (TRF) claimed responsibility on the messaging app Telegram,” he writes. However, TRF later reversed its stance, denying involvement and attributing the initial claim to a “coordinated cyber intrusion” allegedly orchestrated by Indian cyber-intelligence operatives.

This denial, Abrahms argues, aligns with a well-documented pattern among militant groups worldwide. Drawing from his extensive research, he notes, “Many militant groups… have conditioned credit claims on whether the attacks got positive press coverage.” The TRF’s retraction, he suggests, was likely influenced by pressure from Pakistan’s security establishment and widespread protests by Kashmiris condemning the attack.

The TRF, founded in 2019, is described by Abrahms as a “close offshoot—or even just a front—of Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT),” the notorious group responsible for the 2008 Mumbai attacks. An analyst quoted in the paper asserts, “All TRF operations are essentially LeT operations.” This connection underscores the attack’s broader implications for India-Pakistan relations, given LeT’s history of operating with tacit support from elements within Pakistan.

The initial claim and subsequent denial reflect a strategic attempt to mitigate the political fallout from an attack that targeted civilians, a tactic Abrahms has studied extensively. “Statistically, I have found with Justin Conrad that militant groups are significantly more likely to claim organizational responsibility when the targets are military personnel compared [to] civilians like the 26 tourists in Kashmir,” he explains.

Abrahms’ research highlights a global trend where terrorist groups distance themselves from civilian attacks to avoid reputational damage. He cites examples such as the African National Congress’s denial of involvement in 1988 attacks on civilian targets in South Africa, al-Qaeda’s dismissal of civilian casualties in Iraq as “lies concocted by the mainstream media,” and the Taliban’s routine denials of civilian deaths in Afghanistan.

In the case of TRF, Abrahms argues, “The Resistance Front appears to have engaged in a public relations strategy that I have dubbed as ‘Denial of Organizational’ to mitigate the political fallout from the controversial attack.” The group’s attempt to pin blame on Indian operatives mirrors tactics used by other militant organizations to deflect responsibility.

The Pahalgam attack’s civilian toll—26 unarmed tourists—makes a forceful Indian response almost inevitable, according to Abrahms’ analysis. “Civilian attacks depress the likelihood of a credit claim for a simple reason—they tend to backfire both politically and organizationally on the perpetrators,” he writes. His statistical studies reveal that governments are “over four-times as likely to employ lethal violence against a group when it attacks civilians compared to military targets.” This pattern suggests that India, already reeling from the loss of its citizens, will not limit its response to diplomatic measures.

Indeed, India has already taken significant steps in retaliation. Abrahms notes that the government has expelled Pakistani nationals, suspended the Indus Waters Treaty, shut down airspace, and engaged in cross-border firing along the Line of Control. However, he predicts a more substantial military operation, drawing a comparison to the 2019 Pulwama attack, which targeted Indian security personnel.

Following Pulwama, India launched Operation Bandar, a precision airstrike on a terrorist camp in Balakot, Pakistan, just 12 days later. “This time the Indian military response will be even more extensive given the target selection of the Islamist extremists regardless of whether they stand behind their heinous attacks,” Abrahms asserts.

The international community has expressed solidarity with India, with widespread condemnation of the attack amplifying pressure on New Delhi to act decisively. The targeting of civilians, coupled with the attackers’ reported use of religious tests, has drawn parallels to other Islamist extremist operations, further isolating Pakistan diplomatically.

Michael Kugelman, director of the South Asia Institute at the Wilson Center, commented on X that the lack of “clarity about the culprit” might temper India’s response. However, Abrahms counters this view, arguing that his research “leaves little doubt that the attack was indeed carried out by the Islamist group that originally claimed organizational credit.”

The Pahalgam attack also reignites concerns about the volatile India-Pakistan relationship, particularly in the context of Kashmir, a long-standing flashpoint. The region has seen intermittent violence, with militant groups exploiting local grievances to justify their actions. TRF’s claim of representing “Kashmir resistance” was undermined by the massive protests across the Valley, which Abrahms attributes to the attack’s indiscriminate nature.

The backlash from Kashmiris, combined with international sympathy for India, creates a political environment conducive to a strong Indian response.

Abrahms’ paper underscores the broader strategic implications of civilian-targeted terrorism. “Compared to attacks against government targets, civilian attacks significantly reduce the odds of government concessions while increasing the odds of the target country employing military force—often, in devastating fashion,” he writes.

This dynamic has been evident in India’s past responses to terrorism, including the 2001 Parliament attack and the 2008 Mumbai attacks, both of which prompted significant policy shifts and military posturing.

As India weighs its options, the specter of escalation looms large. A military strike, while satisfying domestic calls for justice, risks further destabilizing the region. Pakistan’s response to India’s actions—particularly the suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty and airspace restrictions—will be critical. Abrahms’ research suggests that India’s response will be calibrated to signal resolve without triggering a full-scale conflict, though the scale of the Pahalgam attack may push New Delhi toward a more aggressive posture.

In conclusion, the Pahalgam attack represents a tragic escalation in the cycle of violence in Kashmir, with far-reaching consequences for India-Pakistan relations. Max Abrahms’ analysis, grounded in rigorous political science research, offers a sobering prediction: India’s response will be forceful, driven by the civilian nature of the attack and the need to deter future atrocities. As the world watches, the coming days will test India’s strategic calculus and the fragile stability of South Asia.

Now, Kashmir is at a crossroads again. The hard-won calm is in danger, and people are left wondering if the dream of a normal life was always meant to be just that—a dream.

The valley is calm, with only the distant sound of gunfire and the fast footsteps of tourists who want to leave before nightfall. In the grassy areas of Pahalgam, where people used to laugh with the sound of the Lidder River, there is now a red flag waving. This flag is a warning and shows that something is wounded or damaged.

New Mirage in the ancient Valley

For many years, the government talked about growth and peace, calling it “New Kashmir.” They said it was a place ready for business and tourists, with its problems being fixed through development. They pointed to the new train lines, hotels, and the increase in visitors as signs that the region was finally leaving its troubled past behind. But then, in April, when 26 tourists were killed, this carefully built image was destroyed. The hope, promises, and positive stories quickly faded on the bloodied grass of Pahalgam. This attack did more than take innocent lives; it showed the deep questions hiding underneath the government’s positive talk and statistics.

Pahalgam turned into Battleground

For the people in Kashmir, having tourists return meant more than just making money. It brought a spark of hope, offering a chance to show the world that their valley was more than just bad news headlines and conflicts. However, when attackers targeted people by asking their names, their religion, or how they belong to the area, it made a frightening point: in Kashmir, your identity could be relevant. 

Attacking outsiders, particularly Hindus, is not new. This has been allegedly a common tactic since the beginning of the conflict. It is meant to send a message to New Delhi and the world that Kashmir is not as safe as it appears. Some believe the militants are not only trying to control the land but also trying to decide who is accepted there and who isn’t.

Normalcy to Darkness

After Article 370 was removed, Kashmir seemed like it was slowly coming back to normal. Markets were busy again, and Dal Lake was full of boats with tourists from all over India. The well-known meadows echoed with laughter, a sound that was missing for many years. Local elections were held again after ten years, and the economy—which had suffered a lot from conflict—began to recover. In fact, people in Kashmir were earning even more than those in Delhi and Punjab. For the first time in years, Kashmiris started to hope that peace might finally start to grow in a place that had seen much sadness.

However, the Pahalgam attack changed everything, like a sudden storm in spring. Twenty-six people, including tourists and locals, were killed in a meadow that symbolized Kashmir’s return to normal life. This was more than just an act of violence; it was a clear message. It tried to drag the valley back into the darkness, reminding everyone that old problems were not gone. Now, Kashmir is at a crossroads again. The hard-won calm is in danger, and people are left wondering if the dream of a normal life was always meant to be just that—a dream.

The Crisis of a decade

Prime Minister Modi was in Saudi Arabia when he heard about the tragic events. He was in discussions with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman on important subjects like energy and trade. As soon as he realized the seriousness of the situation in Pahalgam, he decided to return to India without delay. His urgent flight back to Delhi highlighted the critical nature of the crisis. Upon arrival, Modi’s motorcade hurried through the rainy streets, and he quickly convened emergency meetings with Air Chief Marshal Amar Preet Singh. The entire nation was attentive, eager to see Modi’s response. In the valley, there was a strong awareness that Delhi’s attention was once again focused on them, bringing both the hope for justice and the risk of further tensions.

Muslim Parliamentarian Asaduddin Owaisi blames Pakistan

Owaisi, known as a great critic of Prime Minister Modi, spoke out strongly against the attack, saying Pakistan acted like ISIS by attacking innocent people in India. He asked what type of faith could justify such violence. He also argued that Pakistan should not claim to be a nuclear power while causing terror in other nations. Owaisi warned that India will not remain silent against these threats. His remarks were very clear, particularly when he blamed powerful groups and terrorist networks in Pakistan for purposely trying to stir up religious tensions in India. He accused them of targeting non-Muslims and trying to create conflicts between Hindus and Muslims.

Pakistan’s former Cricketer blames Pakistan

After the Pahalgam massacre, Danish Kaneria, a former leg spinner from Pakistan, raised his voice when the government in Islamabad remained silent. He questioned, “If Pakistan has no part in the Pahalgam terror attack, why hasn’t Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif publicly condemned the incident? Why have your military forces become suddenly more alert? Deep down, you’re aware that you’re protecting and supporting terrorists. Shame on you.” His early remarks challenged the usual denials and diplomatic confusion. In a region already suffering from violence, his accusation spread like ripples in still water, breaking the silence and drawing attention from across borders.

Pakistan’s Response and the diplomatic, border war

Islamabad insisted it was not connected to the militants. They called for an independent investigation and accused Indian leaders of using the tragedy as a “false reason” for military action. India reacted strongly. They expelled Pakistani diplomats, suspended the Indus Waters Treaty, and closed their borders and airspace to Pakistani flights. Pakistan responded by closing its ports to Indian ships, shutting its own airspace, and threatening to leave the 1972 Simla Agreement, which is crucial for maintaining the Line of Control in Kashmir. This breakdown in diplomatic communication, suspension of important agreements, and back-and-forth economic and military actions caused tensions to rise quickly. These actions led to fights across the LoC, pushing the two nuclear-armed neighbours into a new border conflict.

What’s Next for Kashmir?

Kashmir, known as “paradise on earth,” is now going through tough times. Its beautiful rivers are witnessing violence and struggle. The United Nations is urging everyone to act carefully and ensure the safety of people. India is at a crucial point where it must decide whether to respond with anger or choose a wiser and more peaceful path. To move forward, India needs to focus on smarter intelligence, advanced surveillance technology, and building strong trust with local communities. This can turn local people from passive onlookers into active partners in maintaining safety. By addressing wounds, restoring dignity, and ensuring the protection of all Kashmiris, India can work towards ending the violence. This approach will help Kashmir regain its peaceful identity, allowing a song of peace to echo through the mountains and reach across the world, rather than a song of sorrow.

Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not reflect Milli Chronicle’s point-of-view.

The statement, issued from the General Secretariat in Makkah, reaffirmed the MWL’s unwavering stance—shared by the broader Islamic world—against all forms of violence and terrorism. It categorically rejected any justification for such acts and strongly opposed the exploitation of religion or culture to legitimize terrorism.

In its message, the MWL emphasized that terrorism has no place in any faith or tradition, and it should not be associated with any race, religion, or community. “Violent extremism must be condemned unequivocally, regardless of its form or manifestation,” the statement declared.

The timing of the statement was significant, coming shortly after a high-profile meeting between MWL Secretary General Dr. Mohammed bin Abdulkarim Al-Issa and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi in Jeddah on Tuesday. The meeting highlighted shared concerns around global terrorism and deepened the dialogue between India and the Islamic world on peacebuilding and counter-extremism efforts.

The MWL’s remarks also referenced a recent joint statement issued during PM Modi’s visit to Saudi Arabia, where both nations reinforced their commitment to combat terrorism and its financing. The MWL praised the “pivotal Saudi-Indian cooperation” and called for dismantling the cross-border terror infrastructure and bringing its perpetrators to justice.

Headquartered in Makkah, the MWL is one of the most prominent Islamic non-governmental organizations, with a global presence aimed at promoting peace, interfaith dialogue, and humanitarian outreach. Under the leadership of Dr. Mohammed Al-Issa, the MWL has taken a progressive stance against extremism, earning international respect for its efforts to build bridges across faiths and cultures.

India’s connection with the MWL has grown in recent years, especially under Prime Minister Modi’s outreach to the Muslim world. Dr. Al-Issa’s public condemnation of terrorism reflects a growing strategic alignment between India and key Islamic institutions in promoting global peace and fighting radical ideologies.

In a heartfelt statement, the National President of the organization, Maulana Asghar Ali Imam Mehdi Salafi, expressed deep condolences to the families of those who lost their lives and conveyed his sympathy to the injured. He emphasized that such acts of violence are not only criminal but a threat to the harmony and security of the country.

Maulana Salafi referenced the harrowing memories of the Pulwama attack, stating, “We cannot forget the tragedy of the most serious terrorist attack in Pulwama, which marked a dark day in the history of our nation.”

He urged the government to take stringent action against the perpetrators, stating that “those responsible must be brought to justice to ensure that no one dares to disrupt the peace and security of this dear country.”

Calling for a responsible and united response, Maulana Salafi appealed to the media and the public to exercise patience and avoid actions that could incite further tensions or undermine communal harmony.

“Maintaining law and order and preserving our collective peace is our moral and civic duty,” he noted.

This statement comes at a time when tensions are high in the region, and calls for justice and peace are echoing from various quarters of civil society. The Markazi Jamiat Ahle Hadees Hind’s message aims to reinforce the importance of unity and resilience in the face of terrorism.