Osman Softić || 18 May 2025

New Delhi’s narrative

The political leadership of Kashmiri Muslims, and that of Muslims in India more broadly, has evidently and uncritically accepted New Delhi’s official narrative and does not dare to question the possibility that Pakistan may not be behind the terrorist attack in Pahalgam.

Muslim political figures in India have expressed support for the Indian government to take any measures against Pakistan it deems appropriate. Farooq Abdullah, the former chief minister of Kashmir, stated that “Pakistan must realize that terrorism devours and destroys Pakistan itself. When Mumbai was attacked, Pakistan claimed it was not involved. It was later established that it was. It was also involved in other similar attacks. The list of attacks in which Pakistan was involved is long. If Pakistan wants friendly relations, it will have to end the scourge of terrorism. But if it wants hostility, the other side is even more prepared,” warned Farooq Abdullah.

When asked about Pakistan’s threat to use nuclear weapons in the event of war, Farooq noted that India possessed nuclear weapons before Pakistan developed them. A.B. Vajpayee, former Indian prime minister of India, said once that India would never use nuclear weapons first against any nation. “We will use them only if we are attacked. India has never attacked any nation first. We adhere to that policy today. But if Pakistan uses them, we reserve the right to retaliate. We are also a nuclear-armed nation. But I want and hope that moment (a nuclear attack) never comes,” Farooq Abdullah recently stated.

Asaduddin Owaisi, an Indian politician and president of the political party The All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) – All India Assembly for Muslim Unity- and a member of the lower house of the Indian parliament from Hyderabad, also sharply condemned Pakistan and what he called “this state’s support for terrorism.” Owaisi called Pakistan a “failed state” that lags 30 years behind India. He urged the Indian government to capitalize on and utilize the spontaneous protests by the people of Kashmir against terrorism “supported by Pakistan.” Owaisi told Indian media that Indian Muslims have rejected the two-nation theory and are loyal to India.

The international dimension

The terrorist attack in Kashmir and its aftermath undoubtedly has a broader international dimension. Despite warnings from international actors, particularly the European Union, whose officials call for de-escalation to avoid a major and destructive war in South Asia and for disputes to be resolved through diplomatic means, a war between two, and potentially three, nuclear powers—if China becomes involved—may be inevitable. The situation facing India and Pakistan today is different from that of six years ago when broader conflict was avoided. The chances of a kinetic conflict today are higher, according to analysts at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in the US.

Indian leader Narendra Modi has made the transformation and stabilization of Kashmir a central pillar of his legacy. After the 2019 attack, Modi occupied and militarized Kashmir and revoked the democratic rights of Muslims in Kashmir. Now, he has an opportunity to retaliate against Pakistan and has already chosen a more aggressive strategy. The circumstances on the ground favor India. India’s direct administration of Kashmir over the past six years has resulted in a highly militarized zone.

The Pakistani side of Kashmir is in disarray, according to CFR assessment. Military and diplomatic communication channels are nearly extinguished. Pakistan has grown significantly closer to China and distanced itself from Washington, giving India, as a close U.S. partner, a considerable advantage. New Delhi has accelerated military modernization in recent years to counter Beijing, with which it has a disputed militarized border, and to prepare for a potential war with China.

India could attempt to demonstrate to Beijing that it can wage war on two fronts. In the past five years, Islamabad has signed several arms transfer agreements with China. Pakistan’s armed forces have become dependent on Chinese weaponry. Pakistan has become a key partner in China’s Belt and Road Initiative, but China is frustrated by Pakistan’s inability to prevent terrorist attacks on Chinese projects and workers, particularly in Balochistan and northern Pakistan, including the Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) region of Gilgit and Baltistan. The U.S. administration supports India and will not act to prevent it from attacking Pakistan.

The decoupling of Pakistan from China

Washington and Islamabad cooperated for decades in the alleged “fight against terrorism” (not precisely that according to the Pakistani current defense minister) and had strong security ties. However, after the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, Pakistan lost its strategic value for Washington.

Pakistani officials reportedly have requested that the Trump administration mediate in the dispute following the terrorist attack. Pakistan’s threats to retaliate with nuclear weapons perhaps best indicate that the Pakistani government is alarmed. However, Trump appears to be giving India a free hand for retaliation. Several members of Trump’s administration have expressed strong support for India, including Vice President J.D. Vance and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. Both have voiced U.S. support for India’s “resolute fight against terrorism”.

It remains to be seen when, how, and to what extent India will respond to the terrorist attack in Pahalgam. If India’s response is robust and uncontrolled, it could provoke a strong Pakistani response and trigger a broader war. The Trump administration might attempt to restrain India’s attack to keep the conflict under control. This would likely involve several precise strikes on military targets in Pakistan-controlled Kashmir. In such a case, Washington would likely provide intelligence to prevent a wider escalation. Trump may seize the opportunity to offer himself to Islamabad as a viable alternative to China in an effort to distance if not completely decouple Pakistan from Beijing.

Is the nuclear war imminent?

Given that both states possess substantial nuclear arsenals, however dangerous, this guarantees that a large-scale war will not occur. It is worth recalling what Eric Margolis has written about the situation. He laments: “as the right-wing Hindu militants dedicated to Hindutva ideology across India now demand reunification of pre-1947 ‘Mother India”, which Narendra Modi often refers to as Bharat, and “both sides nuclear arsenals are on hair-trigger alert and pointed at the subcontinent’s major cities”, surely, they are aware that “the US think tank Rand Corp estimated an India-Pakistan nuclear exchange would kill three million people immediately and injure 100 million in the process of nuclear exchange.

Such damage would additionally pollute most of the region’s major water sources all the way down to Southeast Asia”. However, there is still a hope, since nuclear weapons, potentially dangerous as they are, paradoxically, do remain “weapons of peace”, as they prevent uncontrolled escalation and destruction in the event of a conventional conflict.

As things currently stand, India and Pakistan are both taking steps that indicate an imminent armed conflict. It may be only a matter of time before, not if, it occurs. We may soon witness a new war between two major nuclear powers on the “roof of the world,” underneath which more than three billion people live in hope and with prayers the worst scenario can still be avoided.

Osman Softić is a Research Fellow at the Islamic Renaissance Front. He holds a BA degree in Islamic Studies from the Faculty of Islamic Studies of the University of Sarajevo and has a Master degree in International Relations from the University of New South Wales (UNSW). He contributed commentaries on Middle Eastern and Islamic Affairs for the web portal Al Jazeera Balkans, Online Opinion, Engage and Open Democracy. Osman holds dual Bosnian and Australian citizenship.