In a significant yet short-lived step towards de-escalation, India and Pakistan agreed to a ceasefire following direct communication between their Directors General of Military Operations (DGMOs). The agreement, confirmed by Indian Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri, was to halt all military action across land, sea, and air from 5:00 pm IST on 9 May 2025.

Indian External Affairs Minister Dr S. Jaishankar stated, “India and Pakistan have today worked out an understanding on stoppage of firing and military action,” reaffirming India’s unwavering stance against terrorism in all its forms.

However, just a few hours later, Misri reported that Pakistan had already violated the agreement, undermining the fragile truce.

US President Donald Trump acknowledged the ceasefire on social media, while Secretary of State Marco Rubio confirmed he had been in contact with senior officials from both India and Pakistan to support efforts at de-escalation.

The ceasefire came amid heightened tensions following India’s launch of ‘Operation Sindoor’ on 7 May, in response to the deadly Pahalgam terror attack of 22 April that killed 26 Hindus. This was a chilling instance of a targeted attack, in which Islamist terrorists demanded to know his victims’ religion. Those identified as Muslim were asked to recite the declaration of faith, while anyone who identified as Hindu was shot at point-blank range. Traumatised women spared—seemingly to bear witness and recount the horror.

In retaliation, India targeted nine terror sites linked to UN-designated groups such as Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) and Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), while taking care to avoid civilian or military casualties. Pakistan escalated in retaliation, using artillery and drone strikes.

As India targetted terror infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, the Western response has largely centred on calls for de-escalation—failing, yet again, to distinguish between a democracy fighting terror and a state nurturing it.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt has stated that President Donald Trump seeks a swift de-escalation of tensions between India and Pakistan, with National Security Advisor Marco Rubio maintaining ongoing contact with both sides. Trump expressed hope for restraint and a peaceful resolution, reaffirming America’s commitment to regional stability.

“It’s a shame. We just heard about it as we were walking in the doors of the Oval. Just heard about it. I guess people knew something was going to happen based on a little bit of the past. They’ve been fighting for a long time. They’ve been fighting for many, many decades. And centuries, actually, if you think about it. I hope it ends very quickly.”

While Trump’s remarks may appear neutral on the surface, they reflect a familiar Western tendency to reduce a deeply asymmetric conflict to a vague, age-old feud between “two sides.”

In reality, this is not merely a geopolitical rivalry—it is, as Trump himself acknowledged when he said, “They’ve been fighting for many, many decades. And centuries, actually, if you think about it”—it is a civilisational war for the soul of India.

As I said earlier, at stake is the clash between a democratic, pluralistic India and Pakistan, a state that, for decades, has weaponised Islamist jihadist ideology to destabilise its neighbours, including Afghanistan, while deflecting from its own internal failures.

In fact, India’s Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri, addressing the escalating tensions following the April 22 Pahalgam massacre, delivered a sharp rebuke of Pakistan’s long-standing role in fostering terrorism.

“I don’t need to remind the audience where Bin Laden was found.”

Misri referenced al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden’s safe haven in Abbottabad—just a few kilometres from a major Pakistani military installation—as emblematic of Pakistan’s duplicity. “Pakistan’s reputation as the epicentre of global terrorism is rooted in numerous such instances,” he asserted.

“It is home to a large number of UN-proscribed terrorists—and to those who continue to glorify them as martyrs.”

This is not the first time Indian and American administration acknowledged Pakistan’s duplicity. In 2018, the U.S. military announced the cancellation of $300 million in aid to Pakistan, accusing it of failing to act against militants operating near the Afghan border. Pentagon spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Kone Faulkner cited Pakistan’s “lack of decisive actions” in support of the South Asia Strategy.

Trump had also tweeted that Pakistan had repaid years of American aid with “nothing but lies & deceit.” That decision—along with Congress’s earlier stripping of $500 million in Coalition Support Funds—was a rare but commendable step toward accountability.

Unfortunately, such clarity is short-lived. Vice President J.D. Vance recently summed up America’s current stance on Fox News:

“We’re not going to get involved in the middle of war that’s fundamentally none of our business.”

While US non-interventionism may sound pragmatic, this hands-off attitude reveals a larger problem in the Western mindset—an unwillingness to morally engage when the victims of Islamist violence are not Western, white, or Christian. When bombs go off in Boston or Paris, it’s global news; when tourists are massacred in Kashmir, it’s shrugged off as just another “Indian tourist” dying.

This hypocrisy is amplified by a vocal segment of the Western Left, now mostly compromising of Indian subcontinetal diaspora, that routinely sanitises jihadist violence in South Asia. Rather than confronting Islamist terrorism, they mask it with euphemisms like “militancy,” “student uprising,” or “freedom struggle.” Sanctioned Islamist terror leaders who openly call for the annihilation of Hindus are given ideological cover under the banners of human rights or freedom of expression.

There can be no sweeping Pakistan’s crimes under the carpet—especially after its own Defence Minister, Khawaja Asif, openly admitted on Yalda Hakim’s Sky News programme that his country had carried out the “dirty work” of sponsoring terrorism for nearly three decades. His startling confession even appeared to shock Hakim, the seasoned Afghan-origin Australian journalist known for her incisive reporting.

I am not surprised that much of the Western media, paralysed by the fear of being labelled Islamophobic, has either expressed shock or failed to scrutinise the glaring double standards: Pakistan is not a victim of terrorism—it is a sponsor of it as India has been highlighting for decades on international platforms.

Dr Shashi Tharoor, renowned Indian author and Chairman of the External Affairs Committee, has underscored the uncomfortable truth that the West often denounces Islamist terrorism only when it poses a direct threat to its own security. He pointed out that India has endured three decades of Pakistani-backed terrorism with remarkable self-restraint—far more than what any other nation, including the United States, would likely have shown. Yet, despite this restraint, India continues to face relentless attacks.

To put into perspective, India has been the victim of a relentless and well-documented campaign of Pakistan-backed terrorism for over three decades. These include the 1993 Mumbai bomb blasts that killed over 250 people; the 2001 Indian Parliament attack that nearly brought both nations to war; the 2008 Mumbai terror siege by Lashkar-e-Taiba that left 166 people dead, including foreigners; the 2016 Pathankot airbase attack; the 2016 Uri attack on an army base; and the 2019 Pulwama suicide bombing that killed 40 CRPF personnel. The most recent Pahalgam massacre on April 22, 2025, in which 26 Hindus were gunned down by Islamist extremists after asking their religion, fits into this tragic continuum. Each attack has followed the same pattern: jihadist operatives radicalised, trained, and armed on Pakistani soil, operating with impunity under the protection of the state or its intelligence proxies.

India’s External Affairs Minister, Dr S. Jaishankar, aptly highlighted the apathy of Western and European elites during the GLOBSEC Bratislava Forum:

“Europe has to grow out of the mindset that Europe’s problems are the world’s problems, but the world’s problems are not Europe’s problems.”

Most recently, Dr Jaishankar again criticised Europe for its inability to adapt to the shifting global power dynamics, asserting that New Delhi sought “partners, not preachers” in the evolving multipolar world. This time his comments came after EU High Representative Kaja Kallas called for restraint from both India and Pakistan.

Dr Jaishankar argued that such statements failed to recognise Pakistan’s role in cross-border terrorism, drawing a false equivalence between victim and aggressor. He remarked,

“When we look at the world, we look for partners, we don’t look for preachers. Particularly, preachers who don’t practice at home what they preach abroad.”

He further noted that Europe was struggling to adjust to the realities of a multipolar world, while the US had become more self-sufficient, and China was maintaining its stance.

In fact, I would argue that this mindset goes beyond Europe, reflecting the selective empathy and geopolitical arrogance of the Western establishment, particularly among its ruling elites and institutions.

If the international community truly seeks peace in the Indian subcontinent, it must start by holding Pakistan accountable—not by pressuring India to “de-escalate” or, worse, providing Pakistan with IMF bailouts despite its long-standing support for terrorism.

The IMF’s approval of a $1 billion bailout for Pakistan, raising the total disbursements to $2.1 billion, has sparked concern, particularly from India, which warned that the funds could be misused. Despite these objections, the IMF proceeded with the disbursement. Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif welcomed the decision, dismissing India’s protests, while the Pakistani military escalated tensions by launching weapon-carrying drones and missiles at Indian cities and military targets for the third consecutive night.

Omar Abdullah, Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir, rightly criticises the international community’s approach to the escalating tensions in the subcontinent. He raises a valid concern about the prospects of peace when the IMF effectively finances Pakistan’s military actions. Abdullah pointed out,

“I’m not sure how the ‘International Community’ thinks the current tension in the subcontinent will be de-escalated when the IMF essentially reimburses Pakistan for all the ordnance it is using to devastate Poonch, Rajouri, Uri, Tangdhar & so many other places.”

Dr Tharoor has on Western media interviews patiently explained that India has shown restraint in the face of rising tensions, stating that the country “is not anxious” to escalate the situation. He has criticized Pakistan for its “bigotry, chauvinism, and irresponsibility,” arguing that these factors had “initiated a problem that did not need to start.”

By now, the world recognises—echoing the words of Trump—that this conflict could have been resolved decades ago had there been a genuine commitment to justice. Peace that ignores justice merely delays future violence. In the face of terrorism, calls for neutrality risk enabling impunity.

The Bhagavad Gita speaks to the moral complexity of peace and conflict, affirming that standing up against injustice is not only justified but a moral duty. In this context, confronting terrorism—particularly in regions like Pakistan where it has long found safe haven—is not a call to war, but a principled stand for peace through justice. It is a necessary step to prevent future tragedies like Pahalgam, where innocent people are targeted and killed simply for being Hindu.

Support our Journalism

No-nonsense journalism. No paywalls. Whether you’re in Australia, the UK, Canada, the USA, or India, you can support The Australia Today by taking a paid subscription via Patreon or donating via PayPal — and help keep honest, fearless journalism alive.