At the brink
THE brutal terror attack in Pahalgam, claiming 26 lives, has brought India and Pakistan to a dangerous precipice. Tensions are escalating swiftly, with both nations exchanging sharp rhetoric and bolstering military postures. Against this volatile backdrop, the United Nations has stepped in, urging both sides to exercise “maximum restraint” and “step back from the brink.” UN Secretary-General António Guterres’ intervention and the Security Council’s closed-door consultations underscore international alarm. His warning is not mere diplomatic rhetoric — it is a crucial plea to avert a devastating conflict between two nuclear-armed neighbours. Pakistan, having taken the issue to the UNSC, may have hoped for international censure of India, but the global mood has instead shifted toward de-escalation, not intervention.
India's restrained response so far has helped prevent further deterioration. However, the rising clamour within the country for punitive action puts pressure on New Delhi to consider military options, which could trigger a wider conflagration. The call for restraint, especially after such a brutal terror strike, may seem unjust to the grieving families and an outraged public. Yet the cost of full-scale conflict is unimaginably high. A military showdown would not only engulf the subcontinent but it could also destabilise the region for decades. History has shown that war between India and Pakistan leads only to more casualties, diplomatic isolation and economic setbacks.
It is essential that both countries recommit to backchannel diplomacy and confidence-building measures. The global community, especially the UN and key players like the US and China, must go beyond statements and actively mediate to prevent escalation. A military solution to Kashmir is a dangerous illusion. The only real solution lies in sustained dialogue, addressing root causes of unrest and isolating the terror networks that sabotage peace.
