On April 22, 2025, the town of Pahalgam was shaken by a terrorist attack, attributed to the Kashmir Resistance group with links to Lashkar-e-Taiba. The attack killed 26 and wounded many, mostly local tourists and pilgrims, reigniting tensions between India and Pakistan. In response, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi suspended the Indus Waters Treaty, halted trade, expelled Pakistani diplomats, and closed the Wagah-Attari border. In Islamabad, Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif condemned the attack but denied any involvement, asserting that Pakistan itself was a victim of terrorism. The Pakistani government expelled Indian diplomats, halted visa services, and suspended overflight rights for Indian airlines. This recent flare-up signals a troubling return to instability and both nations once again find themselves on the precipice of conflict.

International relations theory; especially realism, emphasizes an anarchic international system and the constant quest for security predicts that such conflicts between neighboring rivals are almost inevitable without strong deterrence mechanisms. The fresh hostilities, the closure of Pakistani airspace, suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty, and mutual diplomatic expulsions show a classic example of what realists call the security dilemma: as one side attempts to secure itself, the other feels threatened, prompting countermeasures that spiral into greater instability.

Pakistan’s decision to close its airspace to Indian flights is not simply an aviation issue; it is a geopolitical tactic. According to Mackinder’s heartland theory, control over strategic routes (land, air, or sea) equates to strategic advantage. By forcing Indian airlines to reroute, Pakistan aims to economically burden India, symbolically assert control and send a political message to international observers. However, this move also reflects short-termism. While Pakistan inflicts some inconvenience, it simultaneously undermines its own aspirations for international investment and aviation partnerships, a key liberal economic concern under liberal Institutionalism.

When Pakistan’s Foreign Minister termed the Kashmir attackers as “freedom fighters,” (not extremists or not even non-state actors) it revealed deep contradictions in Pakistan’s national narrative. according to constructivism tells us that political realities; like “freedom fighter” vs “terrorist” are socially constructed. Pakistan constructs an internal narrative of heroic resistance, while the international community sees blatant terrorism. This duality enables Pakistan to justify funding, training, and deploying armed groups while seeking plausible deniability.

Additionally, the defense minister, Huaja Af, gave an interview to Sky News. First, he claimed that India staged the whole incident. “The reaction which came from Delhi is not very surprising for us. We could make out that this whole thing is staged to create a crisis in the region,” he said. During the interview, the Sky News reporter also asked the minister about Pakistan’s long history of backing, supporting, training, and funding terrorist organizations. Huaja Af responded candidly: “We have been doing this dirty work for the United States for about three decades for the West, including Britain.” His admission was strikingly frank; something India has been accusing Pakistan of for decades. Is this simply a case of poor diplomacy, or just bad media training?

While economic aid and trade are often seen as tools to encourage peaceful behavior among nations, Pakistan’s consistent misuse of foreign assistance seriously undermines this optimism. Over the decades, billions of dollars that were intended for development and humanitarian purposes have instead been diverted toward sustaining military ambitions and nurturing proxy terror networks. Between 1960 and 2002 alone, Pakistan received an estimated $73 billion in aid; an additional $19 billion was funneled in between 2002 and 2010. In 2025, another $400 million was allocated specifically for F-16 upgrade a controversial move given the country’s military track record.

On the diplomatic front, tensions escalated dramatically when India moved to suspend the Indus Waters Treaty, a long-standing agreement governing the use of shared river systems. Pakistan’s Power Minister issued a fierce warning on April 23, 2025, declaring: “India’s reckless suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty is an act of water warfare (water as a weapon; a cowardly, illegal move. Every drop is ours by right, and we will defend it with full force — legally, politically, and globally.” Simultaneously, concerns about Pakistan’s internal security narrative deepened. Military officials revealed the emergence of a new terror group, described as an offshoot of Lashkar-e-Taiba, a militant organization long known to operate from Pakistani soil. Despite its........

© E-International