India’s fixation on blaming Pakistan for every terror incident has become a convenient excuse to stall dialogue and dodge difficult questions of peace. Terrorism is undoubtedly a regional menace, but in South Asia it has also been politically instrumentalized, notably by India against Pakistan. Instead of engaging in meaningful dialogue, successive Indian governments, particularly under Prime Minister Narendra Modi have used terrorism as a pretext to delegitimize Pakistan’s concerns and avoid addressing core issues like Kashmir. High-profile incidents such as the 2001 Indian Parliament attack, the 2008 Mumbai events, the 2019 Pulwama blast and the recetn Pahalgam incident are repeatedly cited by India, even before credible investigations initiate or conclude. Pakistan has consistently denied state involvement and called for joint investigations, but India’s unilateral actions and global lobbying have ignored nuance and fair hearing. This perpetual blaming not only stalls diplomacy but reinforces a one-sided narrative that obstructs regional peace.

Pakistan has made verifiable efforts to combat terrorism, while India uses terror rhetoric to serve domestic political agendas. In recent years, Pakistan has taken significant steps to address militancy on its soil often under immense internal and external pressure. The successful operations like Zarb-e-Azb and Radd-ul-Fasaad dismantled militant infrastructure across tribal areas and urban centers. The FATF acknowledged these reforms, ultimately removing Pakistan from the grey list in 2022 after thorough compliance on anti-terror financing. Yet, India’s narrative remains unchanged. By contrast, India has faced rising internal violence be it Hindutva-inspired lynchings or targeted attacks in Manipur and Kashmir but resists international scrutiny. Instead, it shifts the spotlight outward. After Pulwama, the Indian government ordered a retaliatory airstrike in Balakot without credible international endorsement or proof of damage, timed just ahead of elections. This reveals how terror incidents are manipulated to serve political ends rather than regional stability.

Pakistan has repeatedly called for dialogue, but India rejects talks under the pretext of terror, reinforcing a policy of deliberate disengagement. Islamabad’s calls for uninterrupted and uninterruptible dialogue have been consistent. Even during high tensions, Pakistan took goodwill gestures like opening the Kartarpur Corridor in 2019, allowing Indian Sikh pilgrims visa-free access to one of their holiest sites as well as returning Indian pilot Abhinandan to his home during the same context. This was hailed globally as a bold peace initiative. In return, India not only downgraded diplomatic ties after the revocation of Article 370 in Kashmir but has also refused to engage in any meaningful dialogue since. New Delhi insists that “terror and talks can’t go together,” but refuses to cooperate on joint investigations or counterterrorism frameworks. This rigid posture shows a lack of political will to explore peaceful solutions and an inclination toward a security-centric foreign policy driven by optics.

India’s global influence allows it to shape the terrorism narrative, but that doesn’t make its claims beyond question. India’s rising clout with Western capitals and its positioning as a counterweight to China have allowed it to push a narrative where Pakistan is automatically seen as the villain. Despite India’s growing intolerance, human rights violations in Kashmir, and crackdowns on dissent, it faces little international pushback. Meanwhile, Pakistani concerns such as Indian involvement in Balochistan and links to terror proxies like the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) through Afghanistan, are largely ignored. The arrest of Indian naval officer Kulbhushan Jadhav, caught operating under a false identity in Pakistan and accused of espionage and sabotage, is a strong example of Indian interference. Yet, Western capitals and media downplay such incidents, illustrating a selective approach to terrorism.

Media and propaganda have poisoned public perception, reducing space for peace in both societies. Indian mainstream media has played a particularly aggressive role in fueling public hatred against Pakistan. Sensationalist reporting, jingoistic debates and disinformation campaigns, especially after terror events have shaped public opinion against peace. Indian anchors routinely shout down any moderate voices calling for engagement with Pakistan. In contrast, Pakistani media, though often critical, has shown a greater tendency to promote regional cooperation, peace through cricket diplomacy and people-to-people exchanges. The erosion of cultural ties, student exchanges and joint film productions since 2016 has been largely driven by Indian bans and boycotts.

Pakistan’s economy, though challenged, has prioritized peace dividends, whereas India gains politically from hostility. Despite its economic struggles, Pakistan has repeatedly expressed interest in normalizing trade and commercial ties with India. The potential for bilateral trade is enormous estimated at over $35 billion by the World Bank yet it remains largely untapped. India suspended trade following the revocation of Article 370, while Pakistan later made overtures to restart it on humanitarian grounds, including medicine and food supplies. However, domestic political optics in India deter any such cooperation. The ruling BJP, particularly in electoral cycles, thrives on anti-Pakistan rhetoric. This political dynamic undermines economic pragmatism and regional integration efforts that could uplift millions on both sides of the border.

Regional security requires cooperation, not confrontation so, joint mechanisms are the only path forward. Instead of blaming each other for every incident, India and Pakistan must return to institutional mechanisms that once worked. The revival of the Joint Anti-Terror Mechanism established in 2006 could create a platform for shared intelligence, transparency, and trust-building. Regional organizations like SAARC can serve as neutral platforms to address non-traditional threats like climate change and counterterrorism together. History has shown that even adversaries like the U.S. and Iran or North and South Korea can engage on technical issues while managing larger political differences. For India and Pakistan, the choice is not between amicability and enmity rather it is between sustained dialogue and perpetual insecurity.

Terrorism must be addressed through credible mechanisms and cooperation; not by reducing it to a political slogan. Pakistan has demonstrated a commitment to cleaning its house, often at a great cost. It is now time for India to move beyond political point-scoring and accept that peace is not a gift, it is a responsibility. Normalization is not appeasement; it is a recognition that hostility serves no one but extremists. Both countries must recognize that a peaceful South Asia is not just desirable but necessary.