The severe confrontation between India and Pakistan, two nuclear-armed nations, has entangled many myths that have been created over the years—about each other’s capabilities and the economic viability of sustaining war. This conflict, with its potential to escalate into a full-scale war, drew the attention of the world, which held its breath and watched the aerial spectacle of missiles, drones, and fighter jets, mostly borrowed from other countries.
It was a performance in the skies and a test of defence technology designed to demonstrate superiority. This display of power also generated profits in stocks and shares of the companies that passed the test. Bravo...
If Indian media were to be believed, it had captured one-third of Pakistan, including its port in Karachi and military installations in Islamabad. Meanwhile, Pakistani media had dismantled the Rafale, the S-400, and the aerial infrastructure of the rival country.
In Jammu and Kashmir, we were mere and mute spectators of the show, counting bodies along the Line of Control.
According to international defence experts, Pakistan’s aerial supremacy was superb. Was it? I cannot comment, as I would face trolls who did not even spare the Indian Army spokesperson, Colonel Sophia Querashi, because of her religion. One of the BJP ministers even called her a "sister of Pakistan".
Not only was she viciously trolled, but she also had to shift her family from their residence, which, as per reports, was attacked by right-wing groups. Another officer and spokesperson, Vikram Misri—though a Hindu—also received a barrage of abuse and threats. Being a Kashmiri Pandit and a competent officer, this was unexpected.
Earlier attempts at politicising institutions did not even spare officials merely tasked with briefing the press about what was unfolding between the two countries. Perhaps the BJP had raised expectations so high that every right-winger’s dreams of dismembering another nuclear power were dashed. The aura of invincibility crumbled, leaving many in tears and tatters.
At the time, the right-wing media transformed itself into a war room, projecting victory over an Islamic nation. Meanwhile, the BJP government strove to present a secular image of the country, particularly through women officers from minority communities. However, this failed to satisfy the hate-driven appetite of its supporters, who had been tasked with promoting the Hindutva philosophy across every platform. It was unexpected.
The scenes of drones and fighter jets crossing paths were unbelievable to both sides of the radical right, though more prominently visible on the Indian side. The portrayal of secularism clashed starkly with the messaging of the BJP brigade. Nevertheless, India—like Pakistan—stood united and prayed for a victory that was, rather unexpectedly, claimed by Donald Trump, when he took credit for the immediate ceasefire.
Those experts in international diplomacy, who had often come to India’s defence as a homogenous and diverse democracy, stayed back this time—allowing the media a free hand to unleash their spectacle of jingoism, fuelled by hate, hubris, and a false notion of invincibility.
The real collapse was not in the aerial dogfight, but in the war studios, which wore the meek faces of lambs the following day—as a country thousands of miles away came to the rescue.
Spectacle and Kashmir
During this spectacle, I would receive calls from Kashmir and various parts of India asking me to convey the truth about the conflict, because, as usual, they were only hearing one side of the story. And that side claimed to have captured half of Pakistan, placed Asim Munir in a bunker, and Shahbaz Sharif in a hospital.
Meanwhile, Pakistan’s perceived losses were being felt in heartbeats. It was unbearable. Not because these people wished to be part of Pakistan at this moment, but because they did not want this country to cede even an inch to India. They harboured no ill will towards India, despite longstanding political disputes.
‘We want both countries to be strong, with functional institutions, always moving forward—whether we are part of them or not. A strong Pakistan has become a necessity and a lifeline for millions of Muslims in the subcontinent. That is what this Hindutva wave in India has taught us,” says a journalist named Adil, who lives in Delhi (name changed for security reasons).
“We feel like second-class citizens in our own country, given how our religion has become a target of vendetta. We stayed in a secular India in 1947, but we are no longer treated equally to Hindus in this country. Yet, I stood for my country,” he adds.
Kashmir possesses its own viewpoint—beyond mere grievances.
Indeed, Kashmir has distanced itself from Pakistan following the abrogation of Articles 370 and 35A. The prevailing sentiment was that the Islamic nation, which claims to be a stakeholder in the conflict, failed to take a decisive stance and instead sought international assistance in response to the severe violations endured by a besieged population for months. This deeply disheartened those who had longed to unite with Pakistan.
Following the ousting and imprisonment of former Prime Minister Imran Khan, Kashmiris ceased to mention Pakistan in their political dialogues. Many political analysts believe that the Kashmir narrative has reached its conclusion in the region, largely due to the actions of the Pakistani establishment.
The majority of Kashmiris have always held Imran Khan in high regard as a cricketer, particularly for his advocacy for Kashmir, which favoured diplomatic solutions over military interventions. However, the Army had different plans for him. The military has shaped the situation according to its own interests and has consistently prevented politicians from engaging in Kashmir policy—be it Bhutto, Nawaz, or Imran Khan.
“Had the military and politicians collaborated on this issue, the circumstances might have been different, and both nations would not have remained at odds even after seven decades,” said political scientist Ashraf Majeed.
Moreover, Indian policies in Kashmir have been harsh and deceitful, restricting the populace's freedom; it is the resilience of this nation that has allowed it to survive and maintain its sanity.
“Kashmir has now transformed into a territorial dispute, rather than a struggle for the political rights of its people,” said Majeed.
When Donald Trump mentioned the Kashmir dispute and suggested inviting the leaders of both countries to dinner, it was a refreshing change for Kashmiris—who, after five years of enforced silence, began to speak again. Those who celebrate development or the influx of tourists as signs of normalcy fail to grasp the deeper reality within the Valley.
Disempowered and devoid of hope, Kashmiris were given a renewed sense of optimism for life and livelihood. India is now confronting the reality that its militaristic approach has once again thrust Kashmir into the global spotlight. Simultaneously, Pakistan finds solace in its ability to bring Kashmir into international discussions. Yet, ultimately, it is Kashmir that has endured countless deaths and devastation along the borders during every confrontation.
A Kashmiri boy who took up arms in the 1990s to resist India switched sides in 2002 and entered mainstream politics. Wearing a smirk while discussing the drones hovering above, I asked him why he was unconcerned about the possibility of a drone striking his home. He replied, “Two nuclear powers are battling for me. This illustrates my significance. Why should I worry?”
“The drones come from a friendly nation and know whom to target.” He laughed heartily.
The question of who emerged victorious or defeated in this aerial skirmish is of little consequence. What truly matters now is that it has instilled hope in twenty million Kashmiris across the border—affirming that the narrative of Kashmir, once deemed resolved, is very much alive, and that someone from another continent has acknowledged the dispute.
Have you liked the news article?