Cairo: Hani Kamal El-Din
India and Pakistan find themselves at the edge of war after a deadly attack on tourists in the disputed region of Jammu and Kashmir, which claimed the lives of 26 individuals. In response, India has taken a series of severe measures, expelling half of the Pakistani diplomatic staff, revoking visas previously granted to Pakistani nationals, and closing its land border with Pakistan. Islamabad, however, vehemently denies any involvement in the attack, and has mirrored India’s actions. More details in this report by Izvestia.
Tensions Mount
India has declared several members of Pakistan’s embassy staff in New Delhi, including defense, naval, and air force advisers, persona non grata, reducing the diplomatic mission from 55 to 30 personnel. Vikram Misri, India’s Deputy Foreign Minister, stated that the diplomats must leave within a week, and all Pakistani nationals who entered India under a visa waiver program will be deported within 48 hours.
Furthermore, Indian authorities have closed the Attari checkpoint between the two countries. Pakistani citizens who entered India through this point are required to leave by May 1.
The violence erupted on April 22 in the northern region of Jammu and Kashmir, when six militants from the group “Kashmir Resistance,” believed by India to be supported by Pakistan, opened fire on tourists hiking in the Baisaran Valley. Twenty-six people died in the attack, including two foreigners from Nepal and the UAE.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who was visiting Saudi Arabia at the time, abruptly cut his trip short and returned to New Delhi for an emergency meeting with ministers and security officials.
Indicating that India would take decisive action, Modi said, “We will punish every terrorist and their accomplices. Terrorism will not go unpunished. We will do everything in our power to ensure justice prevails.”
In the wake of the attack, tourists in the region rushed to leave.
Indian media report that the attack was the most significant since the 2008 Mumbai shootings. Jammu and Kashmir, a predominantly Muslim region, has long been a hotspot for terrorist attacks. However, the area had seen increasing tourism in recent years, especially after the decline of local insurgent movements. In 2024, over 23 million visitors flocked to the region.
The group “Kashmir Resistance” claimed responsibility for the attack, stating on social media that the victims were “connected to Indian intelligence.” They labeled the massacre as an act of vengeance for what they described as “serious demographic changes” in the region, referring to the settlement of 85,000 Hindu nationals, whom they termed “outsiders.”
Reciprocal Measures
Six years ago, India annulled Article 370 of its constitution, which had granted Jammu and Kashmir special autonomy. This provision had provided local benefits for government positions and restricted non-residents from purchasing property in the region.
In New Delhi, there was growing resentment towards the special privileges of Kashmir, which was the only state in India with its own constitution. Indian authorities criticized the local leadership, accusing them of engaging with pro-Pakistani separatists rather than combating insurgency.
As a result, in 2019, the special status of Jammu and Kashmir was revoked, and the state was restructured into two federally controlled territories, Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh. Indian citizens were also granted the right to buy land and seek employment in the region. This decision led to a perception that the situation in the state was gradually normalizing.
India swiftly accused Pakistan of being complicit in the recent attack, further complicating the already strained relations between the two nations. While Pakistan had previously provided moral and diplomatic support to Kashmiri insurgents, it had denied any direct involvement in the violence.
Pakistan has categorically rejected the accusations, calling India’s actions “unilateral, unjust, politically motivated, and highly irresponsible” and has mirrored India’s diplomatic expulsions and retaliatory measures. In response, Pakistan closed its airspace to India and announced a suspension of trade with New Delhi.
Adding to the tensions, Indian authorities have announced the suspension of the Indus Water Treaty of 1960. Pakistan has warned that any attempt to stop or redirect water from the Indus River would be considered an act of war.
Expert Opinions
Alexey Kupriyanov, head of the South Asia and Indian Ocean region group at the Institute of Oriental Studies (IMEMO), discussed the situation with Izvestia, noting the serious escalation in India-Pakistan relations.
“India has suspended the Indus Water Treaty, expelled a Pakistani military attaché, reduced embassy staff, and canceled certain visas. Pakistan has retaliated in kind and closed its airspace. Both nations are flexing their muscles and demonstrating their readiness to respond to any further aggression. While a nuclear war seems unlikely, a conventional conflict is also improbable. However, localized strikes against militant camps in Pakistani-controlled Kashmir are a real possibility,” the expert stated.
Elena Panina, Director of the Institute for International Political and Economic Strategies (RUSSTRAT), highlighted the gravity of the situation, especially given that both India and Pakistan are nuclear powers.
“The fact that India and Pakistan are nuclear-armed adds a dangerous dimension to the conflict. A conventional armed conflict could escalate into a nuclear exchange under certain conditions,” she warned.
Panina also pointed out the timing of the terrorist attack, which coincided with a visit to India by U.S. Vice President JD Vance. “Is this coincidence? Unlikely. However, the question remains: who among the external players may have played a role in the escalation of tensions? While it’s tempting to point to British colonial legacy, one can’t rule out that the Trump administration might offer a ‘peace plan’ to mediate the situation,” she concluded.
The situation between India and Pakistan remains volatile, and while the prospect of large-scale war is distant, the risk of localized military engagements and further diplomatic confrontations remains high.
