The façade is beginning to crumble. The face of Narendra Modi’s Hindutva-led India, carefully constructed with slogans of progress and global leadership, is once again giving way to its darker underpinnings of hyper-nationalism and communal politics. The latest controversy surrounding the Pahalgam incident has cast a long shadow over India’s international standing, not least because of how hastily and aggressively the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) moved to blame Pakistan—without any real investigation, without evidence, and without pause for dialogue. It is a familiar script, and yet one that is growing thin, even among India’s traditional allies. There was a time when India’s claims would be taken at face value, accepted unquestioningly as the voice of a stable democracy combating threats from across the border.
But that narrative is beginning to wear out. In its reaction to the Pahalgam attack, India didn’t just point fingers—it reached for the nuclear playbook of crisis escalation. Suspending the Indus Waters Treaty and making thinly veiled threats of military action aren’t the responses of a rational actor seeking justice. These are the tools of a government that sees more value in inflaming public sentiment than in preserving regional stability. What makes this episode more revealing is the timing. With state elections looming in Bihar, the Modi government is again resorting to the politics of fear and manufactured enmity. The calculation appears cynical and painfully obvious: rally the electorate through nationalist fervor, conjure up external enemies, and cloak governance failures in the garb of patriotism. The cost, however, is far from domestic. It is regional, and potentially global.
In stark contrast, Pakistan has taken a notably measured approach. Rather than resorting to the same tactics, Islamabad has stepped up its diplomatic game, calling calmly and clearly for an independent, transparent investigation into the Pahalgam incident. That call has found sympathetic ears. Turkey, Switzerland, Greece, and Iraq have all indicated willingness to consider the Pakistani position seriously. Turkish Ambassador Dr Irfan Nezıroğlu didn’t mince words when he expressed support for Pakistan’s stance during a meeting with Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif. Swiss and Greek foreign ministers likewise acknowledged the legitimacy of Pakistan’s demand for a fair probe in discussions with Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar. There’s a sense that the international community is beginning to distinguish between noise and reason.
India, for all its volume, has failed to offer any substantive proof linking Pakistan to the incident. Its claims, shouted from podiums and echoed across its media landscape, are fast resembling empty rhetoric. The irony is sharp. A government that routinely equates dissent with treachery is now being met with growing scepticism abroad, not because of any bias, but because of its own inability to meet the basic standards of accountability and transparency. The European Union’s intervention further demonstrates the shifting winds. Kaja Kallas, the EU’s foreign policy chief, called for restraint and renewed dialogue—an unmistakable cue that inflammatory gestures are being frowned upon. Russia’s Sergey Lavrov was even more forthright, urging both India and Pakistan to resolve tensions under the principles of the Simla Agreement and Lahore Declaration—an approach rooted in diplomacy, not demagoguery.
Lavrov’s willingness to engage with both countries as equals is telling. It signals that New Delhi’s narrative monopoly is no longer guaranteed. The expected visit of Iraq’s foreign minister, who plans to shuttle between the two capitals to reduce tensions, is another sign of growing global engagement. These are not token moves. They stem from real concern. With both nations being nuclear-armed, the risk of conflict, even an accidental one, cannot be taken lightly. And there is increasing international consensus that India’s provocations are not helping. Indeed, what stands out most starkly is India’s refusal to consider an independent investigation. If the BJP leadership truly believed in the strength of its claims, what could it possibly fear from an impartial probe? But instead of embracing transparency, it has clung to threats and unilateralism. This not only erodes India’s credibility—it isolates it.
Pakistan’s approach, by contrast, is slowly shaping an alternative narrative—one that prioritizes reason, dialogue, and evidence. It has refrained from escalating rhetoric and chosen instead to engage the world with clarity and poise. For a country often caricatured as impulsive or unstable, this new diplomatic poise is striking. It reveals the Modi government’s behavior for what it is: a calculated gamble built on public sentiment, but out of step with global expectations. The path forward is not ambiguous. India must return to diplomacy. It must allow facts, not fear, to guide its response. The refusal to do so does not just reflect poorly on the BJP—it endangers the peace of an entire region. No domestic election is worth the risk of regional war, whether rhetorical or real. And it is increasingly clear that the international community will not be a passive bystander to such recklessness.
What is perhaps most sobering is that this entire episode could have been a moment of unity. Both countries share a painful history of conflict, yes—but also moments of cooperation, dialogue, and even camaraderie. The Simla and Lahore agreements are not relics; they are blueprints for peace, still relevant, still valid. But they require political will, not political games. The mask, then, is not just slipping—it is coming off. And what the world sees beneath is not the shining example of modern democracy India once aspired to be, but a government more interested in applause than accountability, more enamored with power than peace. Pakistan, for now, has chosen the more difficult path—one of reason over rage. And the world is beginning to notice. Slowly, but unmistakably, the verdict is shifting. It is not who shouts loudest that commands respect, but who speaks with clarity, truth, and restraint. The test now is whether India is willing to listen.
