On Tuesday, in the Baisaran Valley near Pahalgam, that should have been filled with the sound of gushing rivers and camera shutters, there was instead gunfire - targeted, brutal and chillingly symbolic. Twenty six people, mostly tourists, were killed and several others injured when a gunmen opened fire. This incident has drawn widespread international condemnation.
Leaders from across the world, including the United States, Russia, Italy, Israel and the European Union, have expressed solidarity with India, denouncing the violence and calling for justice. The handful of statements from global capitals, standard expressions of condemnation, was neatly wrapped in diplomatic courtesy. And then, silence.
Barely days before the Pahalgam bloodbath, Pakistan Army Chief General Asif Munir delivered a speech that, in hindsight, now reads like a strategic green light to terror proxies. In openly invoking the two-nation theory and branding Kashmir as Pakistan’s “jugular vein,” Munir was giving ideological and moral support to groups like The Resistance Front (TRF), an offshoot of Lashkar-e-Taiba, which soon claimed responsibility for the attack. What followed in Pakistan’s official response strengthens this linkage. Instead of unequivocally condemning the targeting of civilians, Islamabad attempted to deflect attention, painting the attack as the act of “locals acting against the government.” It was disingenuous attempt to rebrand terrorism as revolution, violence as activism. Even more so in light of reports that of the four assailants, three were foreigners.
The timing is no coincidence. The attack happened while Prime Minister Modi was visiting Saudi Arabia, marking a deepening partnership in trade and security; which for Pakistan threatens its traditional hold in the Gulf. But this is not 2001. With Pakistan’s economy in a shambles and its diplomatic capital depleting, the state’s old tactics are losing relevance. Gulf nations today are investing in stability, not in failed promises.
Adding to the context was US Vice President JD Vance’s presence in India during the same period. As India and the US move closer strategically, the attack seemed designed to raise doubts, signal unresolved volatility. But the attempt didn’t land, the US administration quickly reaffirmed support for India. With every attack, Pakistan is isolating itself further, and shows how the world is changing, but Islamabad’s narrative isn’t.
Also read: Should we hit LeT HQ Muridke or other similar targets?
The sympathy is appreciated but what the situation demands is action. Just boasting flags of human rights won’t help. “Deeply disturbing news out of Kashmir, The United States stands strong with India against Terrorism. We pray for the souls of those lost, and for the recovery of the injured. Prime Minister Modi, and the incredible people of India, have our full support and deepest sympathies. Our hearts are with you all,” Donald Trump wrote in a post on X.
Each time blood is spilled on Indian soil, global responses follow a familiar script, condemn the violence, express solidarity, and urge restraint. But that script is wearing thin. In today’s geopolitics, symbolic gestures are no longer enough. The world must move beyond the obvious and confront the uncomfortable truth of maintaining warm ties with a state that enables terrorism, while claiming friendship with its victim, is a contradiction that undermines credibility.
Several global leaders have openly identified the permissive environment in Pakistan as a key driver of regional instability. Yet many capitals continue to pursue a balancing act, issuing statements of support for India while keeping channels open with Islamabad, often the guise of strategic necessity. This approach is not just outdated, it is dangerous.
India has drawn its red lines, it has named it’s adversaries. Now, the strategic world must do the same. It’s key allies, from London, Moscow to Paris, must resist the temptation to recycle platitudes or offer diplomatic cover to regimes that shelter and arm non-state actors. Backdoor cooperation, equivocal language and the pursuit of trade at the expense of principle. All erode the moral clarity that democracies claim to champion.
India is not asking others to fight its battles. But the sustained export of terrorism is a grave violation of human rights, one that demands international resolve. It is time for states to confront this global threat with the seriousness it warrants.
By Shyna Gupta