While the chance of a nuclear confrontation has diminished, India and Pakistan need to have a nice lunch and chat for a while.

In an age where narratives often overshadow facts, sensationalism has become a potent political tool. The enduring tensions between India and Pakistan provide fertile ground for such narratives, particularly those involving claims of cross-border terrorism. While India has consistently accused Pakistan of sponsoring militant activity across the Line of Control, Islamabad argues that these allegations ignore the country’s substantial counterterrorism efforts dating back to 2017.

The recent Pahalgam incident has raised serious questions about how a large-scale attack could occur in a region saturated with security personnel—reportedly over one million troops. This has led some observers to question whether the incident was a massive security lapse or something more deliberate.

Pakistan, for its part, positions itself as a nation that has borne an immense burden in the global war on terror. Since 2001, it claims to have lost over 83,000 lives to terrorism and conducted thousands of counterterror operations. Notably, Operation Zarb-e-Azb (2014–2016) and Operation Radd-ul-Fasaad have been instrumental in regaining territory from militants and disrupting extremist networks. The country has also provided refuge to more than three million Afghans fleeing violence—an effort that has received acknowledgment from global institutions.

Pakistan’s counterterrorism narrative received a significant boost in October 2022, when it was removed from the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) grey list—a move seen as validation of its anti-terror financing and anti-money laundering reforms. Islamabad argues that it is unfairly targeted in Indian narratives despite a proven commitment to regional security.

Adding to the complexity is the broader geopolitical context, particularly the U.S.-China rivalry. Washington’s efforts to counter Beijing have sparked trade frictions that prompted some global investors to consider shifting their operations from China to India. However, Indian business elites, wary of competition, are reportedly resistant to this transition. According to some accounts, this has led to an alignment between political and economic interests aimed at deterring foreign investment through strategic instability—an allegation that, while speculative, adds a layer of intrigue to the unfolding situation.

The Modi government continues to frame incidents like Uri, Pulwama, and now Pahalgam as acts of cross-border terrorism, reinforcing a hardened posture toward Pakistan. These narratives, however, are increasingly being scrutinized for their political utility rather than their evidentiary foundations. Analysts suggest that such framing is often used to cultivate a sense of existential threat, which in turn bolsters public support for nationalist platforms.

The rise of Hindutva and Akhand Bharat ideologies has undoubtedly reshaped India’s socio-political fabric. While national security remains a legitimate concern, there is a growing need for the Indian public to critically assess official narratives rather than uncritically accept them. Democratic societies thrive not on unquestioned loyalty but on the accountability of their leaders and the integrity of public discourse.

Pakistan, meanwhile, continues to reject allegations of involvement in the Pahalgam attack and has called for an international investigation to verify the facts. It underscores its long record of military and intelligence-led counterterrorism operations as evidence of its seriousness. Islamabad’s appeal for an impartial inquiry is positioned as part of its broader commitment to transparency and regional peace.

In this climate of competing truths, the Pahalgam incident is more than just a tragic event—it is a case study of how conflict narratives are crafted, amplified, and politically instrumentalized. As both nations head into volatile political seasons, the real casualty may be the truth.