Public opinion reacted to India’s terror, Pakistan’s ‘tight-for-tax’ came through generals

Islamabad: Pakistan’s Tight-for-Tat Response of Penal Diplomatic measures The terrorist attack on tourists in Pahalgam in Jammu and Kashmir on 22 April highlighted deep structural differences among neighbors.
India’s decision to slap a series of anti -retrenching costs on Pakistan Border terrorism A meeting of elected representatives led by PM Narendra Modi was implicated, showing democratic consensus amid public resentment over the killing of 26 people, but one of them tourists.
Conversely, Pakistan came through reaction National security The committee is dominated by military generals and underlines the external role of the army which will normally have a privilege of an elected government. It comes amidst an increase in political instability, adding to the dicotomy, with Imran Khan, the former-PM of Teriq-e-Insaf, behind bars.
While rejecting allegations of involvement in the attack as “baseless”, Pakistan tried to disregard faults, emphasized its condemnation of violence and expressed condolences to loss of life.
But there is a demand for evidence of Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar, while diplomatic sound, Pakistan lacks credibility given the historical link with militant groups.
The refusal of Islamabad, in association with its claim of “false flag operating” by India, seems more rhetoric than the origin, as it fails to address Delhi’s security concerns or international opinion, condemn the attack with the US and the European Union and align with India.
Pakistan’s suspension of the 1972 Shimla Agreement, which established the Line of Control (LOC) and committed both countries to resolve bilateral disputes, is a bold but risky step. This indicates rejection of the post -1971 situation, which potentially invites the international inquiry on Kashmir, which Pakistan has long sought.
However, it can backfire, as India’s strong global diplouts can inspect the story of Pakistan, especially without concrete evidence to combat Delhi’s allegations to sponsor terrorism across the border.
Pakistan claims that the suspension of the Indus Water Treaty of India was a “war task”, which can be seen as excessive growth, threatening military conflict between the nuclear-host neighbors. The objective of the statement of the statement is to rally India and domestic support, but limits diplomatic flexibility.
The decision to suspend business, shut down airspace and expel Indian diplomats reflect India’s actions, indicating a desire to project strength at the domestic and international levels. However, these measures risk to separate Pakistan economically, which are already stressed by internal challenges.
Closing the Vagah border and the suspension of train services at least disrupted bilateral trade, affecting Pakistan’s small economy. Similarly, preventing Indian airlines from Pakistani airs can cause inconvenience to India, but also separates Pakistan’s aviation sector, potentially prevents foreign investment.
Pakistan’s response, while vocal, lacks strategic depth and is ill to increase risks to increase a crisis. By prioritizing symbolic vengeance on diplomatic engagement, Pakistan has probably reduced its international credibility and economic stability.