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.

The son of a British couple who were detained by the Taliban nine weeks ago is calling on the US to help secure their release from an Afghan prison.

Peter Reynolds, 79, and wife Barbie, 75, were arrested on 1 February while returning to their home in the central Bamiyan province.

Their son Jonathan called on the White House to intervene after Faye Hall, an American who was detained alongside them, was released last week by the Taliban, which returned to power in Afghanistan in 2021.

He told BBC News the detention of his parents – who have lived in Afghanistan for 18 years and ran education projects – had been “harrowing and exhausting” for their family.

Mr Reynolds said: “Anybody who has the ability to unlock that key and let them out, whether it be the Taliban, whether it be the British government or whether it be the American government, I would ask – do it now, please.

“And if you have the ability to put the pressure on the people who hold that key, do it now, please.”

Ms Hall became the fourth US citizen to be released by the Taliban since January after talks between officials in Kabul – in what the group described as a “goodwill gesture” towards the Trump administration.

That prompted Mr Reynolds to appeal to US President Donald Trump directly to aid in Peter and Barbie’s release, in a video taken outside the White House earlier this week.

Mr Reynolds, a US citizen, told BBC News that his parents had not been formally accused of any crime.

He said: “They’ve been in and out of court, which is infuriating for them because there’s no charges and they are told every single time: yes, they are innocent, it’s just a formality, we’ve made a mistake.”

An Afghan interpreter was also arrested alongside the British couple.

Mr Reynolds said his parents had sought to work with the Taliban and had “been open” about their work in the country.

He said he believes his mother received “the only certificate for a woman to actually teach and train even men”, despite women typically being banned from employment under Taliban rule.

“They deeply love the country,” he added.

The couple married in Kabul in 1970 and later became Afghan citizens. They are being held separately in prison and Peter’s health has deteriorated while detained, Mr Reynolds said.

He said he had been able to speak to his parents via a prison payphone and described the conversations as “excruciatingly painful”.

He continued: “Just to think of your parents, elderly parents and grandparents to my kids – and they’ve got great-grandkids even – and wondering if we’re going to see them again.

“We want to see our parents again, to hug them and hold them.”

Mr Reynolds said securing his parents release was “complex” as they wish to remain in Afghanistan and continue their education work.

He said: “They want to be released from prison because they’ve done nothing wrong, but they want to be released so they can carry on doing the work they’re doing – which just speaks to the character and the stamina and the vision and conviction that they have.”

He said the UK government had been “very supportive” and discussions with he US State Department had been “encouraging”.

A Taliban official told the BBC in February that the group planned to release the couple “as soon as possible”.

The UK shut its embassy in Kabul after the Taliban returned to power. The Foreign Office said this means its ability to help UK nationals in Afghanistan is “extremely limited”.

Taken From BBC News

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckge171pnrvo