Reframing the Pahalgam Discourse in South Asia

With tensions brewing up once again before the anniversary of the so-called false flag Pahalgam Incident, the latest words of the Indian Defence Minister Rajnath Singh once again indicate a disturbing trend of rhetorical escalation. His threat to respond with an unprecedented and decisive response in the event of any misadventure by Pakistan is not just diplomatic signalling- it is a continuation of a story constructed on suspicion, exaggeration and strategic deflection.

Defence Minister Khawaja Asif of Pakistan was right in denouncing this strategy as strategic anxiety. The recurrent use of threats with no proven grounds begs a significant question: is India really reacting to the issue of security, or is it creating an atmosphere of fear to gain political and strategic advantages?

The security discourse of India about Pakistan has been based on attribution without transparency. India has seldom been able to offer publicly verifiable, internationally examined evidence that the Pakistani state was directly involved in certain incidents in recent years, despite the frequent accusations. Such lack of evidence is critical during a time when intelligence-sharing systems and international counterterrorism systems require accountability and verification.

Meanwhile, the history of Pakistan in the fight against terrorism is a different story, and one that is usually ignored in the rhetoric of India. The statistics of the Global Terrorism Index indicate that terrorist activities in Pakistan have decreased dramatically in the last ten years. Since its position as one of the most terrorism-impacted countries in the early 2010s, Pakistan has managed to change its status because of consistent military operations and internal security reforms.

The Zarb-e-Azb and Radd-ul-Fasaad operations destroyed militant infrastructure nationwide and killed thousands of terrorists and reestablished state control in areas that had been volatile in the past. The Pakistan Army has documented that more than 80,000 lives, both civilian and military, have been lost in the war against terrorism in the country. These numbers highlight a national focus on eradicating extremism instead of empowering it.

Another argument that can be made in favor of Pakistan is that it is adhering to international financial monitoring standards. Following years of scrutiny, Pakistan was taken off the so-called greylist of the Financial Action Task Force in 2022, having fulfilled a final 34-point action plan to address terror financing and money laundering. This was a milestone that was largely recognized by the world institutions and a great boost in the international status of Pakistan.

Conversely, the Indian policy seems to be less security-oriented than a political drama. The date of such utterances, especially on the occasion of sensitive anniversaries, is indicative of a calculated attempt to tap domestic feeling. There have been times in history when the tension between India and Pakistan has been on the rise with the political consolidation of the nation and this has been a cause of concern that the external threats are being exaggerated to be used internally.

The asymmetry in posture is further brought out by the defence spending figures. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute estimates India to be one of the largest military spenders in the world with an annual military expenditure of over 80 billion dollars annually, more than six times that of Pakistan. This sheer dominance questions the story of weakness that is frequently being sold by Indian officials. A state that has such massive military strength does not pose existential threats to its smaller neighbour; instead, it exercises disproportionate influence over the dynamics of the region.

Such an imbalance makes the aggressive rhetoric of India even more worrying. A militarily dominant nation should not issue threats of decisive retaliation on numerous occasions because it runs the risk of becoming accustomed to the escalation and destabilizing the situation in the region. South Asia is a nuclear armed zone, and a single miscalculation can escalate into a huge crisis.

Pakistan, on the other hand, has always promoted dialogue and restraint. Its leadership has restated the need to resolve disputes peacefully, such as the old Kashmir problem, by diplomatic means. Nevertheless, these overtures are usually marred by the fact that India has continued to frame Pakistan as the default aggressor.

The larger internal context in India is also worth taking into consideration. Increased socio-political tension, economic stress and governance strains have been exacerbated in recent years. Externalisation of threats may also be used as a strategic distraction in such an environment, diverting the focus of the population and strengthening nationalist discourses. In that respect, the statements made by Rajnath Singh can be viewed as less defensive warnings and rather as part of a greater political communication strategy.

The global community should be keen when evaluating such trends. Rhetoric that is escalatory and lacks clear evidence not only weakens bilateral relations but also the validity of the global counterterrorism discourse. Responsible statecraft involves restraint, accountability and de-escalation.

Pakistan is still based on defensive realism. It does not want to confront and it does not gain out of chaos in the area. Nevertheless, it will still question those stories which cannot be substantiated and may lead to the creation of an unwarranted tension. Such rhetoric is foreseeable, as Khawaja Asif correctly noted, and predictability in escalation is possibly the most dangerous of all trends.

Where the stakes are so high, words are not symbolic, but consequential. India should stop the process of blame and intimidation, and start the process of constructive interaction. Up to that point, the strong but restrained reaction of Pakistan will still serve to remind of the dangers inherent in the present Indian strategic position.