“When I heard the attack happened, the ground fell from beneath my feet. All the parents started running towards the bus, no-one could understand what was going on,” Nasir Mehmood, a sergeant in Pakistan’s army tells us.

Nasir and I are in the city of Quetta, sitting in the waiting room of the largest military hospital in the province of Balochistan. His 14-year-old son Mohammad Ahmad told him he was flung across the army school bus in a bombing in Khuzdar, a few hours’ drive away.

The bus was carrying around 40 schoolchildren when it exploded at about 07:40 local time (02:40 GMT) on Wednesday.

“I reached the hospital, and there were screams of children everywhere, it was the only thing you could hear,” Nasir said. “My eyes just kept searching for my son.”

Only the most serious cases were airlifted to the Combined Military Hospital. The military have said the death toll has now risen to eight, with six children killed and dozens injured. No group has admitted carrying out the attack.

It is rare for foreign journalists to be allowed to enter the province, south-west of Pakistan, let alone a hospital on the army’s compound. The military said they wanted international media to witness the impact of the attack themselves.

Pakistan alleges India is linked to the attack, though there is no independent evidence – and it is a claim Delhi firmly denies.

India and Pakistan are in the midst of a fragile ceasefire, after a two-week conflict that was their most significant one in decades. It saw them exchange drone attacks, missiles and artillery fire, and left dozens of casualties.

This attack in Balochistan is now in the middle of the tensions, with news channels broadcasting pictures of the children who were killed, most of them girls between the ages of 12 and 16, alongside accusations of an “Indian terror campaign”. Images of scrapped metal, children’s shoes and abandoned backpacks strewn along the scene highlight the tragedy.

As we walked through the intensive care unit, some children lay unconscious on their beds, others thrashed in pain. One young girl kept calling out for her mother as nurses tried to calm her. Doctors told us several children were in critical condition, having suffered extensive trauma, burns and fractured bones. The night before we arrived, another child had died.

Pakistan’s Minister of Information, Attaullah Tarar, says there is a history of Indian proxies operating in Balochistan. In turn, India says that Pakistan has been harbouring militants who wage attacks on Indian-administered Kashmir for years.

The killing of 26 people in April, most of them tourists in Pahalgam, sparked the most recent conflict. Pakistan has called for an open investigation led by an independent party.

However, Tarar denied that such an investigation was necessary in Balochistan.

“Pahalgam was a one-off incident,” he told us. “We are the victims in this case. We have been suffering. There is a history. We have evidence. So what can I say?”

When we asked him what that evidence was, he once again pointed to claims of a history of attacks. He gave us no other details of India’s alleged involvement in this attack.

A turbulent province

Later, an officer drove us through Quetta’s roads in a bus flanked by soldiers carrying rifles and ammunition hanging from their pockets.

Balochistan has experienced decades of militant attacks linked to a nationalist insurgency. It is home to several groups which accuse the government of exploiting its natural resources.

In March, some 21 people, most of them off-duty security personnel, were killed during a train siege in Balochistan’s remote Sibi district.

That attack was carried out by the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA).

Pakistan, as well as several Western countries, including the UK and US, have designated the BLA as a terrorist organisation.

As the military responds to the insurgency, activists in Balochistan accuse Pakistan’s security forces of human rights violations. They say thousands of ethnic Baloch people have been disappeared in the last two decades, and are allegedly detained without due legal process.

The minister of information told us the government believed “faceless courts” might be needed in the province, hiding the identities of the judges and prosecutors in terror cases. Tarar said the courts often fail to convict the accused, because of a fear of retribution from militant groups.

In a press conference, the military spokesperson, Lt Gen Chaudhry, said the school bus attack “had nothing to do with the Baloch identity, rather it was just India’s provocation”.

The government says it is raising the issue “across diplomatic channels” around the world.

The impact on the ceasefire and on the prospect of talks between India and Pakistan remains to be seen.

Additional reporting by Malik Mudassir

Paris (Imran Y. CHOUDHRY) :- Former Press Secretary to the President, Former Press Minister to the Embassy of Pakistan to France, Former MD, SRBC Mr. Qamar Bashir analysis : The recent Pahalgam terrorist attack was a moment of immense sorrow. Yet, what followed revealed something even more profound: a sharp disconnect between the Indian government’s rhetoric of blame and revenge and the people’s call for sanity, justice, and unity. Across religions—Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs alike—ordinary citizens rejected the narrative of war and communal hatred. They demanded that the tragedy be addressed within its own local dynamics, not be weaponized into a new wave of regional or religious conflict.
While politicians rushed to escalate tensions, threatening military action, suspending diplomatic ties, and even proposing to abrogate the Indus Waters Treaty, a different voice rose from the streets and social media: the voice of the people. Ordinary Indians and Kashmiris expressed fatigue with political exploitation of tragedies. They insisted that the attack be treated strictly as a criminal act, calling for justice through proper investigation and prosecution, rather than communal or geopolitical confrontation.
This episode exposed the widening gulf between the Indian government’s escalationist approach and the people’s yearning for peace. While Modi and his allies chose the path of military threats, diplomatic brinkmanship, and communal rhetoric, ordinary citizens across India—Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs—embraced a vision of unity, compassion, and moral clarity.
Despite the horror of the attack, it was the ordinary citizens — not the government — who showed true patriotism. Across Kashmir and the rest of India, Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, and Christians came together in solidarity, rejecting the poisonous narrative of communal hatred.
In Kashmir, locals risked their lives to save stranded tourists, carried the wounded on horseback, and offered shelter without asking about religion. Indian Muslims nationwide condemned the attack unequivocally, delivering anti-terror sermons from over 550,000 mosques and praying for the victims. Candlelight marches, shutdowns in mourning, and spontaneous calls for peace reflected the real spirit of India.
Many Indians, including prominent journalists, analysts, and activists, pointed out the bitter irony that by promoting hatred and aggressive retaliation, the Modi government was advancing the very agenda terrorists intended. Social media erupted with criticism, observing that the terrorists had aimed to ignite Hindu-Muslim violence—and official rhetoric was playing directly into that plan.
While Modi’s hollow threats were taken seriously by the Pakistani government, which retaliated with “equal and proportionate” counteractions, the people of Pakistan brushed aside all threats. Contrary to being terrified by Indian war cries and threats to strangulate their population by cutting off water, Pakistanis felt jubilant and galvanized, seeing echoes of India’s humiliation during the failed 2019 surgical strikes. Instead of cowering, the Pakistani population displayed resilience and confidence, refusing to be bullied.
Internationally too, while governments condemned the Pahalgam incident, they notably refrained from blaming Pakistan directly. Thus, Modi’s orchestrated attempt to weaponize the tragedy — to whip up nationalist frenzy at home and intimidate Pakistan abroad — fell flat, achieving none of its objectives and leaving him isolated on the global stage.
Citizens questioned how, despite the presence of nearly 900,000 Indian troops stationed across Kashmir, a heavily patrolled tourist area could have been attacked. Many Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs emphasized that the tragedy demanded honest answers and better protection for civilians, not external blame or religious polarization.
Testimonies from the ground painted a strikingly different picture than the government’s war narrative. Hindu survivors recounted how Muslim villagers in Kashmir rescued and sheltered them, hid them from the attackers, fed them, and ensured their safe passage to airports. One Hindu tourist from Maharashtra said, “We were trapped, terrified. Muslim families opened their homes to us, fed us, and gave us courage. Without them, we would not be alive today.”
Another Sikh tourist from Punjab shared, “Our Muslim brothers risked their lives to shield us. One of them even got injured while trying to get us to safety. We owe them everything.” A local Kashmiri Muslim explained, “We saw them as guests, not Hindus or Sikhs. Terrorists wanted bloodshed between communities. We wanted to protect peace.” These powerful stories spread across social media but were largely ignored by major news outlets, which continued to amplify calls for retaliation.
A particularly moving testimony came from a young Hindu boy, whose interview with major channels and social media went viral. In a voice trembling with emotion, he pointed out the glaring security failure, stating that although the Indian army maintained a base near the tourist spot, not even a police constable or military guard was present when the attack happened. The terrorists, he noted, came freely, carried out their heinous act, and fled without facing any resistance. His words resonated with millions, exposing the urgent need for accountability rather than externalized blame.
One activist summed it up: “When Muslims were lynched, there were no diplomatic crises. Now, when Hindus are attacked, it becomes a matter of national honor? Justice must be the same for all, or it is not justice.” The hypocrisy was not lost on the public. Many saw the selective outrage as proof that communal divisions were politically convenient rather than morally grounded.
Perhaps most strikingly, this tragedy revealed a new assertiveness among Kashmiris. They rejected any collective blame and firmly asserted their Indian identity. A Kashmiri youth leader stated, “We are Indians. We have nothing to do with Pakistan. This attack is a crime against our people too. Don’t treat us as suspects. Treat us as victims demanding justice.” Kashmiris held rallies condemning the attack, organized interfaith prayers, and assisted stranded tourists without discrimination. Their message was clear: they were citizens of India, demanding equal protection and dignity.
The aftermath of the Pahalgam attack could have been a descent into greater darkness. But thanks to the wisdom of the common people—Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs—there is still hope. They have demonstrated that terrorism can be defeated not only by military means but by unity, humanity, and a refusal to surrender to hatred. If political leaders fail to learn from this, they will find themselves increasingly out of touch with the true spirit of the nation. The people have spoken clearly: they will not be pawns in a game of hate. They will stand together.

Paris (Imran Y. CHOUDHRY) :- Former Press Secretary to the President, Former Press Minister to the Embassy of Pakistan to France, Former MD, SRBC Mr. Qamar Bashir analysis : The recent terrorist attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, has sent shockwaves through the region and beyond. The attack resulted in the loss of innocent lives, left many injured, and disrupted the fragile peace that had prevailed along the Line of Control in recent years. India, in response, has taken an unprecedented series of diplomatic, economic, and military decisions, signaling a major shift in its regional policy toward Pakistan.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi chaired an urgent meeting of the Cabinet Committee on Security at 7, Lok Kalyan Marg, to assess the situation and decide on the country’s response. The decisions taken were swift and uncompromising. The international border, including the crucial Atari crossing, is to be sealed. All Pakistani nationals currently in India have been given 48 hours to leave. The Indus Waters Treaty—one of the longest-standing water-sharing agreements between the two nations—has been cancelled. The Pakistani High Commission in New Delhi is being shut down, and Indian forces have been given a free hand to respond.
These decisions have been taken at a time when India is enhancing its diplomatic and economic influence globally. Prime Minister Modi’s visit to Saudi Arabia marked a new chapter in Indo-Gulf relations, culminating in the signing of a $100 billion strategic partnership covering petrochemicals, green energy, defense cooperation, technology, infrastructure, and cultural exchange. This was more than a symbolic gesture; it was structural, showcasing India’s rising global stature.
The timing of the Pahalgam attack is significant. It coincided with multiple high-profile diplomatic events. The Indian Prime Minister was in Jeddah engaging with Saudi leaders and cementing an economic alliance that could reshape the Gulf-India axis. At the same time, U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance was visiting India with his family, reinforcing the Indo-U.S. strategic partnership. These visits were public affirmations of India’s growing economic and geopolitical influence. In contrast, the attack appeared to be an attempt to destabilize India’s narrative of progress, harmony, and international leadership.
Global reaction has been overwhelmingly supportive of India. Countries including Saudi Arabia, Iran, Nepal, Sweden, and Russia condemned the attack in the strongest terms. The Saudi Foreign Ministry called it a violation of all humanitarian norms. Iran reiterated its principled stance against all forms of terrorism. Russia’s President Vladimir Putin extended his condolences and reaffirmed solidarity with India. These statements demonstrate a global consensus that terrorism has no justification and that targeting innocent lives for political or ideological objectives is inexcusable.
On Indian social media platforms, there has been an outpouring of grief, anger, and calls for justice. Many citizens pointed fingers at Pakistan, reflecting a long-held belief among Indians that cross-border terrorism is often facilitated or tolerated by elements within Pakistan’s establishment. The perception that Pakistan is a “terrorist state” is increasingly gaining ground internationally, especially when such incidents follow provocative statements by senior Pakistani officials. In this case, the attack followed a strong statement by Pakistan’s Army Chief General Asim Munir, reiterating Pakistan’s claim over Kashmir and pledging continued resistance.
In response, India took diplomatic measures that are likely to have lasting consequences. The expulsion of Pakistani military attachés, withdrawal of Indian officials from Islamabad, and the suspension of diplomatic channels signal the freezing of bilateral relations. The cancellation of the Indus Waters Treaty is particularly significant. Signed in 1960, the treaty has withstood wars and crises. By setting it aside, India has not only struck at Pakistan’s vital water lifeline but also sent a message that it will no longer adhere to outdated obligations when its national security is under threat.
The non-kinetic actions, such as border sealing and diplomatic disengagement, have been paired with military readiness. While there has been no official announcement of kinetic retaliation, parallels are being drawn with Israel’s response to the October 7 Hamas attack. A surgical strike or targeted retaliation is within India’s options, although the scale may be limited given Pakistan’s status as a nuclear power.
The potential reactivation of skirmishes along the Line of Control cannot be ruled out. In recent years, the border had seen relative calm due to backchannel diplomacy and ceasefire agreements. But this latest attack may bring back regular cross-border firing, endangering civilians and further straining relations.
India, due to its robust economy and strong diplomatic alliances, is in a position to withstand prolonged conflict—military or otherwise. Pakistan, with its fragile economy and political instability, is in a much weaker position. This asymmetry may deter Islamabad from escalating the situation but also puts pressure on it to recalibrate its internal and external policies.
Pakistan, in these circumstances, must act decisively and wisely. It should unequivocally condemn the attack, offer full cooperation in any investigation, and take concrete steps to reassure the international community that its territory is not being used to launch attacks on civilians in neighboring countries. Silence or deflection will only add to its diplomatic isolation.
Additionally, it is critical for Pakistan to restrain its military and political leaders from making inflammatory statements. A war of words can escalate into unintended consequences. Instead, Islamabad should focus on economic recovery and institutional reform. Only a strong, stable Pakistan can meaningfully advocate its case on Kashmir and engage in constructive dialogue with India and the international community.
At the same time, India must ensure that the domestic discourse does not descend into communalism. Violence begets violence, and any targeting of individuals based on religion will only serve to deepen internal divisions. This is a time for unity, not hatred. Both Hindus and Muslims in India have suffered from terrorism, and it is essential that the government lead by example in fostering communal harmony.
In conclusion, the Pahalgam attack is not just a tragedy—it is a test. A test for India’s democratic resilience, for Pakistan’s credibility, and for the world’s commitment to combating terrorism. In such trying times, restraint, justice, and diplomacy must prevail. If both nations choose the path of de-escalation and cooperation, the region may yet emerge stronger from this crisis. But if sabers continue to rattle, it is the ordinary people on both sides who will pay the price.