Amidst escalating tensions with Pakistan following a deadly gun attack in the Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IIOJK), India is actively pursuing global backing — not to de-escalate the situation, but to reinforce its justification for possible military intervention.
Despite limited concrete evidence directly linking Pakistan to the attack, the prospect of a volatile confrontation between the two nuclear-armed neighbors is becoming increasingly concerning, the New York Times reported.
The NYT report details that Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has urgently contacted over a dozen world leaders in a flurry of diplomatic calls in the aftermath of last week’s brutal attack. Simultaneously, officials report that envoys from 100 foreign missions have been swiftly summoned to the Ministry of External Affairs for high-level briefings.
However, this effort is largely not aimed at garnering support to de-escalate India’s dangerous standoff with Pakistan, which it accuses of having “linkages” to the attack. Instead, according to four diplomatic officials privy to the discussions, New Delhi appears to be constructing a case for military action against its neighbor and arch-rival. In a speech on Thursday, Mr. Modi promised severe punishment and the destruction of terror safe havens, without explicitly naming Pakistan.
Within the occupied region, Indian forces have also initiated a widespread crackdown, arresting hundreds of individuals as their search for the perpetrators continues.
Earlier, India declared its intention to disrupt the flow of water to Pakistan, whose irrigation system is heavily reliant on upstream rivers. It also ordered the immediate departure of certain staff members from Pakistan’s diplomatic mission, as well as Pakistani citizens visiting India.
Islamabad, in response, has stated that it will suspend its participation in bilateral treaties, including one affecting the “line of control” that demarcates the frontier between the two countries in the disputed territories where a ceasefire had been in effect for several years.
Anti-Muslim sentiment within India is also intensifying, with Kashmiri students studying in other Indian cities facing particularly widespread harassment, leading many to feel compelled to return to their homes.
Five days after the terrorist assault, in which gunmen killed 26 civilians, India has not officially identified any group as responsible for the massacre, and it has publicly presented minimal evidence to support its claim of Pakistani involvement. The Pakistani government has denied any role in the attack.
During the briefings to diplomats at the foreign ministry, Indian officials have described Pakistan’s historical patterns of support for “terrorist” groups targeting India, according to diplomatic officials. The Indian officials stated that their investigation is ongoing and made brief references to technical intelligence, including facial recognition data, allegedly linking the perpetrators of last week’s attack to Pakistan.
The lack of substantial evidence presented thus far, analysts and diplomats suggest, points to one of two possibilities: either India requires more time to gather information regarding the terrorist attack before taking action against Pakistan, or — in a period of significant global instability — it feels little obligation to justify its planned actions to anyone.
A military confrontation between India and Pakistan, both possessing nuclear weapons, carries the risk of rapid escalation that could prove difficult to contain. However, India appears largely unconstrained by any global pressure to limit its response and has become quicker to assert its power in recent years as its diplomatic and economic influence has grown.
The governments of Iran and Saudi Arabia have engaged with both sides, and Iran’s foreign minister has publicly offered to mediate. The United Nations and the European Union have called for restraint and dialogue. However, major global powers, including the United States, are preoccupied with other crises, and analysts suggest that India is interpreting the expressions of support from many countries for its pursuit of justice as an implicit approval for any measures it undertakes.
Officials from the Trump administration have previously voiced strong support for India’s fight against terrorism. President Trump has noted his friendly relations with both India and Pakistan, while acknowledging their long-standing disputes.
However, the extent of Washington’s involvement in the current crisis remains unclear. Three months into his term, President Trump has yet to appoint an ambassador to India, indicating South Asia’s ranking in his list of priorities.
Even if the United States or other powers were to attempt to intervene in the conflict, their influence may be limited. India and Pakistan have fought several wars over Kashmir.
Daniel Markey, a senior fellow at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies, noted that Washington’s initial response has been similar to how the first Trump administration handled the last major flare-up over Kashmir in 2019.
That confrontation was triggered by an attack that resulted in the deaths of dozens of Indian security forces. The affiliation of the attackers — a militant group known as Jaish-e-Muhammad — was more clearly established at that time.
During that period, the Trump White House signaled support for India. The administration increased its diplomatic pressure for restraint only after India had taken retaliatory action against Pakistan with a cross-border airstrike.
The damage from the strike was disputed. Subsequently, as Pakistan moved to retaliate, a dogfight ensued, and a Pakistani jet shot down an Indian aircraft, taking the pilot prisoner.
To compensate for that perceivedly fumbled response, all indications this time suggest a desire by India to undertake “something spectacular,” according to Markey. Pakistan has vowed to match and exceed any strike by India.
“The tit-for-tat cycle could move rapidly, and the Indians and Pakistanis have inflated assessments of their own ability to manage escalation,” Markey cautioned.
Unlike the 2019 terrorist attack, the claims of responsibility for last week’s massacre have been unclear, with even the precise number of attackers remaining uncertain.
The lack of clarity may help explain why India has largely focused on Pakistan’s “past patterns,” the report mentioned.
However, this approach, taken before India has even presented its evidence in private diplomatic discussions, has raised concerns given the seriousness of the potential escalation. One diplomat privately questioned: “Do you want to go to war with a nuclear-armed neighbor based just on past patterns?”
