Perspectives in Pakistani Editorials on the Pahalgam Terror Attack and Subsequent India-Pakistan Actions

 The terror attack in Pahalgam on April 22, 2025, resulting in the deaths of 26 individuals, predominantly tourists, significantly heightened tensions between India and Pakistan. This event, one of the deadliest in the region in recent years, occurred against the backdrop of a long-standing dispute over Kashmir, a factor that invariably shapes the narratives and interpretations of such incidents in both countries. Pakistani newspaper editorials, reflecting a national perspective, offered distinct viewpoints on the attack itself, India's immediate response, and the subsequent actions taken by Pakistan. This report analyzes these editorial stances to provide a comprehensive understanding of the Pakistani media's portrayal of this critical episode in bilateral relations.  

Pakistani newspapers, including prominent publications like The Nation, The News International, and The Express Tribune, reported on the Pahalgam attack with an initial focus on the tragic loss of life and the subsequent claim of responsibility by a group identified as the "Kashmir resistance" or The Resistance Front (TRF). The Express Tribune, in its editorial coverage, termed the incident a "tragic killing" and a "serious security lapse". This characterization, by emphasizing a failure in security, subtly shifts the focus away from potential external involvement and towards possible internal vulnerabilities within the Indian administration of Kashmir. By highlighting such lapses, these editorials implicitly suggest that the attack might have been preventable, thereby raising questions about the efficacy of India's security measures in the region.  

While expressing condolences for the victims, as noted by Pakistan's extension of sympathy to the bereaved families , Pakistani editorials also presented alternative narratives surrounding the attack's origins and motives. A significant theme that emerged was the suspicion of a "false flag operation," with Pakistan's Defence Minister being quoted as strongly suspecting such a scenario. This narrative reflects a deep-seated mistrust of India's immediate accusations against Pakistan and suggests a belief that the attack might have been deliberately orchestrated for political purposes or to provide justification for specific actions against Pakistan. This perspective aligns with historical patterns of accusation and denial between the two nations, serving to cast doubt on India's claims of Pakistani involvement. Furthermore, the emphasis on "in-house elements" and the "failure of the Indian security apparatus," as highlighted by The Express Tribune, points towards a perspective that the attack could be linked to internal dynamics within Kashmir or India's governance of the region. This viewpoint redirects attention from Pakistan and towards potential domestic issues within Indian-administered Kashmir as the underlying causes of the violence.  

India's response to the Pahalgam terror attack was swift and multifaceted, encompassing diplomatic, economic, and logistical measures. These actions, widely reported and analyzed in Pakistani editorials, included the suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty , a complete ban on imports from Pakistan and restrictions on Pakistani ships , the closure of the Attari land border crossing , the downgrading of diplomatic ties, expulsion of diplomats, and visa cancellations , the closure of Indian airspace for Pakistani aircraft and vice-versa , strong rhetoric from Prime Minister Modi including granting "complete operational freedom" to the armed forces , the deployment of troops and increased security measures , stopping water flow through certain dams , and blocking social media accounts of Pakistani individuals and media outlets.  

Pakistani editorials largely portrayed these actions as disproportionate, aggressive, and based on unsubstantiated allegations against Pakistan. The suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty drew particular criticism, viewed as a serious violation of international agreements and a hostile act with potentially severe consequences for Pakistan's water resources and economy. Given the critical importance of water, this move was likely interpreted as an existential threat. Similarly, the imposition of a complete trade ban was analyzed for its economic impact on both nations, with some editorials suggesting that India would also suffer from the disruption, even if the effect was more pronounced on Pakistan. The closure of the Attari border crossing was seen as a further escalation, hindering cross-border movement and commerce, thereby undermining any prospects for normalizing relations. Diplomatic downgrading and airspace closures were also interpreted as significant escalatory steps, severely impacting bilateral communication and travel. The strong rhetoric from Indian leaders and the granting of operational freedom to the military raised concerns about potential military action and further escalation in the region. Additionally, some editorials likely highlighted the potential for these heavy-handed measures to further alienate the Kashmiri population and exacerbate the underlying issues in the region.  

In response to India's actions, Pakistan also undertook a series of retaliatory measures. These included shutting down ports for Indian ships , suspending all trade with India and barring Indian airlines from using its airspace , test-firing the Abdali ballistic missile , offering to cooperate with a "neutral" investigation into the Pahalgam attack , issuing statements emphasizing a preference for peace while asserting readiness to defend its sovereignty , warning about India's "imminent threat of kinetic action" and vowing a strong response , and the Defense Minister's warning to strike any structures built by India on the Indus River in violation of the treaty.  

Pakistani editorials generally justified these counter-actions as necessary for self-defense, protecting national interests, and responding to India's "provocative" measures. The closure of ports was presented as a reciprocal step following India's restrictions on Pakistani vessels and imports, underscoring Pakistan's commitment to safeguarding its maritime sovereignty and economic interests. Similarly, the suspension of trade and airspace restrictions mirrored India's moves, portrayed as a necessary response to ensure parity and prevent unilateral disadvantage. The test-firing of the Abdali missile was likely presented as a demonstration of Pakistan's military preparedness and a deterrent against potential Indian aggression. The offer for a neutral investigation was highlighted as a sign of Pakistan's willingness to seek the truth and its denial of involvement in the attack, contrasting it with India's immediate accusations. The warnings about potential Indian military action and the vow of a strong response indicated a high level of concern within Pakistan and a determination to defend itself if attacked. The Defense Minister's statement regarding the Indus Waters Treaty underscored the gravity with which Pakistan viewed the treaty's suspension and its potential impact on water security.  

Beyond the immediate events and responses, Pakistani editorials also highlighted broader themes and underlying concerns. The historical context of the Kashmir dispute consistently featured in the analysis, with editorials arguing that lasting peace in the region necessitates addressing the root causes of the conflict. A significant concern was the potential for regional instability and the risk of escalation, especially considering the nuclear capabilities of both nations. The further deterioration of already strained bilateral relations was also a recurring theme, with editorials lamenting the setbacks for future dialogue and normalization. International reactions and calls for de-escalation were noted, potentially viewed as implicit acknowledgments of the dangers of the situation and the need for restraint. Finally, the economic and humanitarian implications of the crisis, particularly for Pakistan given its fragile economic state and the potential for water scarcity, were significant concerns raised in the editorials.  

Table 1: Summary of India's Actions and Likely Pakistani Editorial Reactions

India's Action	Likely Pakistani Editorial Reaction	Relevant Snippet IDs
Suspension of Indus Waters Treaty	Condemnation as a hostile act and violation of international law with severe economic and humanitarian implications.
Complete ban on imports from Pakistan and restrictions on Pakistani ships	Analysis of economic impact on both countries, potentially arguing India will also suffer; framed as an overreaction.
Closure of Attari land border crossing	Seen as further escalation and setback for normalizing relations; highlights impact on cross-border movement.
Downgrading of diplomatic ties, expulsion of diplomats, and visa cancellations	Interpreted as a severe blow to bilateral relations, concern over reduced communication channels.
Closure of Indian airspace for Pakistani aircraft	Significant escalatory step with impact on travel and symbolic implications; reciprocal nature likely noted.
PM Modi's rhetoric and granting "complete operational freedom" to armed forces	Concern over potential military action and further escalation.
Stopping water flow through certain dams	Viewed with serious concern due to direct impact on water availability; framed as a coercive tactic.
Blocking social media accounts of Pakistani individuals and media outlets	Seen as an attempt to control the narrative and suppress Pakistani perspectives, raising concerns about freedom of information.

 

In conclusion, Pakistani newspaper editorials presented a narrative that largely questioned India's accusations of Pakistani involvement in the Pahalgam terror attack, with some suggesting the possibility of a "false flag" operation or internal security failures. India's subsequent response was viewed as aggressive and disproportionate, particularly the suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty, which raised serious concerns about water security. Pakistan's retaliatory measures were generally portrayed as necessary for self-defense and to protect national interests. Underlying these perspectives were broader concerns about the unresolved Kashmir dispute, the risk of regional escalation, the further deterioration of bilateral relations, and the potential economic and humanitarian consequences of the crisis, especially for Pakistan. These editorial viewpoints likely reflect and shape public opinion within Pakistan, potentially influencing government policy and further complicating the already fraught relationship between the two nuclear-armed neighbors. The emphasis on seeking a neutral investigation and the calls for international intervention suggest a desire to de-escalate the crisis, but the deep mistrust and conflicting narratives present significant obstacles to any immediate resolution.