The fragile peace between two nuclear-armed neighbors, India and Pakistan, was once again put to the test following the Pahalgam attack on April 22, in Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IIOJK). Armed assailants ambushed a group of tourists in Baisaran, resulting in the tragic deaths of 26 civilians. Without any credible evidence, the Indian government swiftly blamed Pakistan, triggering a dangerous political escalation that resembled past patterns of conflict.
India’s accusations were promptly rejected by Islamabad. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif denied any involvement in the attack and offered to cooperate in a neutral international investigation, even proposing that global powers like China or Russia oversee the probe. However, India dismissed Pakistan’s offer as a “diversion tactic” and began preparing for military retaliation.
India’s military aggression seemed driven by more than just the Pahalgam attack—it was intertwined with India’s internal political landscape. With Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s popularity declining ahead of upcoming elections, many analysts speculated that India’s aggressive stance was part of a nationalist strategy to rally public support. The rollout of contentious domestic initiatives, such as a long-pending caste census, immediately following the attack fueled suspicions that the Indian government was using external aggression to divert attention from domestic challenges.
On May 7, India launched Operation Sindoor, a series of airstrikes targeting nine locations across Pakistan and Azad Jammu & Kashmir (AJK). These strikes not only targeted military sites but also hit civilian areas, resulting in significant damage to infrastructure and violating international law. Pakistan’s National Security Committee (NSC) condemned the strikes as unprovoked aggression, citing the violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty.
In a swift response, Pakistan’s air defense systems intercepted Indian jets, including Rafale aircraft, and neutralized several drones. This military action demonstrated Pakistan’s readiness and commitment to restraint despite the provocation. Unlike India’s indiscriminate strikes on civilian zones, Pakistan’s response was focused strictly on military targets, adhering to international norms.
While India escalated tensions, Pakistan’s leadership remained committed to peace and diplomacy. At a military parade after the attack, Pakistan’s commitment to fighting terrorism and willingness to cooperate in a neutral investigation.Pakistan is calling for the involvement of third-party observers to ensure impartiality.
Simultaneously, Pakistan’s diplomatic efforts were underway, including a formal request to convene a UN Security Council session to highlight India’s violations of international law, particularly the unilateral suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty. Pakistan condemned this move as a direct breach of international agreements and trust, adding further fuel to the fire.
Amid growing tensions and international pressure, Pakistan was forced to invoke its right to self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter. On May 10, Pakistan launched Operation Banyan-ul-Marsoos, a highly coordinated military response targeting Indian military and intelligence installations. This precision-based retaliation crippled key Indian communication and surveillance systems, all while sparing civilian lives and infrastructure.
Pakistan’s approach, in stark contrast to India’s actions, was marked by professionalism and adherence to international law. The operation served as a deterrent against further aggression, signaling Pakistan’s readiness to defend its sovereignty while maintaining restraint.
The success of Operation Banyan-ul-Marsoos had immediate diplomatic consequences. India, caught off guard and suffering significant setbacks, came under growing pressure from the United States, Saudi Arabia, China, and the UAE. These global powers called for an immediate ceasefire between the two nations. After internal debates and mounting international pressure, India reluctantly accepted the ceasefire terms proposed by the mediators.
Pakistan, in contrast, emerged as a responsible regional actor, prioritizing peace and stability. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Defense Minister Khawaja Asif both emphasized that Pakistan was committed to peaceful dialogue but would not tolerate aggression. Pakistan’s response was seen as measured and strategic, earning the country praise from the international community for its restraint and commitment to international norms.
Pakistan’s actions during the crisis earned broad diplomatic recognition. At the UN, it highlighted India’s violations of the Simla Accord, repression in IIOJK, and diversionary tactics to mask internal issues. While India hastily blamed without proof, Pakistan maintained restraint and upheld international law. Its diplomatic outreach emphasized a consistent commitment to peace, regional stability, and lawful conduct.
Pakistan won the war not through force, but through diplomacy. While India escalated tensions, Pakistan secured key victories: the IMF loan was cleared, an unconditional ceasefire was accepted by India, and global analysts acknowledged the Rafale shootdown despite Indian denial. No country condemned Pakistan, exposing the failure of India’s propaganda. Most notably, President Trump reignited the Kashmir debate, bringing the core issue back into international focus. In every measure that matters global support, restraint, and strategic outcomes Pakistan emerged as the diplomatic victor.
