One Year After Pahalgam: Why The World Still Avoids Holding Pakistan Accountable For Terror

On 22 April 2025, the terror attack in Pahalgam’s Baisaran Valley in South Kashmir marked yet another moment when the world was forced to confront the same questions it has repeatedly acknowledged but has rarely acted upon. The question of terrorism, accountability and the role of the state of Pakistan that enables such violence has largely been unanswered. The attack that day on tourists visiting the valley was a continuation of a well-established pattern of Pakistan-sponsored terrorism that has shaped the security landscape of Jammu and Kashmir for decades.

Heavily armed terrorists belonging to The Resistance Front, widely recognised as an offshoot of Lashkar-e-Taiba, entered the Baisaran Valley through surrounding forest areas and opened fire on civilians. The nature of the attack reflected a clear intent. The victims were identified on the basis of religion, separated from the rest and then executed at close range. Twenty-six civilians were killed, and more than twenty were injured. It was one of the most severe attacks on civilians in Jammu and Kashmir in over fifteen years.

Investigations by India’s National Investigation Agency (NIA) established linkages that extended across the Line of Control and deep within Pakistan. Communication trails, operational methods and organisational links pointed to networks associated with Lashkar-e-Taiba. These findings were not new, as similar patterns had been documented in earlier attacks, such as the 2008 Mumbai attacks and the 2019 Pulwama attack, where groups operating under different names were traced back to the same terror infrastructure based in Pakistan.

ALSO READ: India Is Ready For Deeper Integration With Global Markets | Opinion

India’s response came through Operation Sindoor on 7th May 2025. The objective was clearly defined as targeting the infrastructure linked to these networks across the border. The response reinforced a policy position that rejects the idea of safe havens for terrorist organisations and holds that such infrastructure, particularly when it operates from within Pakistan, cannot remain beyond the reach of consequences.

The international reaction to the Pahalgam attack was immediate and, on the surface, appeared consistent. Governments across regions issued statements condemning the attack and expressing solidarity with India. The European Union described it as a heinous act of terrorism and reiterated that such violence cannot be justified. Leaders such as Ursula von der Leyen and Kaja Kallas expressed support for India and condemned the targeting of civilians.

Other European leaders echoed similar positions. French President Emmanuel Macron described it as a serious act of terrorism. Olaf Scholz and Keir Starmer also condemned the attack and reaffirmed opposition to terrorism in all forms.

ALSO READ: US-Iran Talks: Chronicle Of A Failure Foretold | Opinion

The United States under Donald Trump stated that it stood with India and emphasised accountability. Russia’s Vladimir Putin and Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu issued similar statements by describing the attack as unjustifiable and supporting India’s right to respond.

Countries across West Asia and Southeast Asia, including the United Arab Emirates, Oman, Singapore and Japan, also issued condemnations. Multilateral groupings such as BRICS, the Quad and the Commonwealth framed terrorism as a shared global threat requiring coordinated action.

At the diplomatic level, India engaged extensively with foreign governments. More than 45 envoys were briefed by the Ministry of External Affairs and presented with detailed evidence, including the communication intercepts and cross-border linkages that traced back to Pakistan-based networks. These briefings ensured that the international community was not only reacting to the attack but was also aware of the structure behind it.

However, one year later, the limitations of this global response have become evident. There is little disagreement internationally when it comes to condemning terrorism, as the statements issued after the Pahalgam attack reflected a clear and unified position that targeting civilians is unacceptable. Yet this clarity has not translated into a consistent action against the systems that enable such attacks, particularly when those systems are located within Pakistan.

ALSO READ: Iran-US War Sees Collapse Of Law: How India Can Balance Power And Principle To Emerge As Peacemaker | Opinion

The networks identified in the Pahalgam case are part of a long-standing structure that operates with support mechanisms embedded within Pakistan’s territory. These include training facilities, financial channels, recruitment pipelines and ideological backing. These elements have been documented repeatedly across multiple investigations over the years. Despite this, the international responses have largely avoided sustained pressure on Pakistan to dismantle these networks in a verifiable manner.

This gap between acknowledgement and action has created a predictable pattern. Each major attack is followed by strong diplomatic reactions, detailed evidence-sharing and expressions of solidarity. However, these responses rarely lead to long-term measures that alter the conditions enabling such attacks. As a result, the same networks continue to function, often reappearing under different names.

The inconsistency is also visible in the conduct of major powers. Donald Trump, who strongly criticised the Pahalgam attack and supported India’s position at the time, has since recalibrated his approach. His engagement with Pakistan’s military leadership, including outreach towards Field Marshal Asim Munir, reflects a shift where strategic considerations have once again taken precedence over counter-terror accountability. By extending diplomatic support to Pakistan despite its documented links to terror networks, the United States is now reinforcing the same patterns it had earlier condemned.

This is not limited to one country. Many international actors maintain a dual approach. On one hand, they recognise terrorism as a global threat and support victims, while on the other, they avoid direct and sustained pressure on Pakistan due to broader geopolitical considerations. This selective application of principles weakens the overall credibility of the global counter-terror framework.

Alongside official positions, there is also a parallel discourse from rights organisations and policy observers. While these discussions address governance and long-term stability, they often shift attention away from the central issue of state-backed terrorism. This creates a more complex narrative but does not contribute to resolving the core problem of accountability.

ALSO READ: Gulf In Turmoil: Why Iran War Is A Shared Crisis For South Asia | Opinion

The Pahalgam case, therefore, reflects a structural issue in the global response to terrorism. There is clarity in identifying acts of violence and expressing solidarity, but there is hesitation in addressing the sources of that violence when they are linked to the state of Pakistan. This hesitation allows existing networks in Pakistan to adapt and continue operating.

India’s position has been that counter-terrorism must extend beyond immediate responses. It requires sustained efforts to disrupt financial networks, dismantle operational infrastructure and challenge the ideological support systems. Operation Sindoor was presented as part of this broader approach as it was aimed at addressing not just the attackers but the systems behind them.

One year after the attack, the international consensus on condemning terrorism remains unchanged, but what remains unresolved is the absence of sustained and coordinated action against Pakistan, despite repeated evidence of its links to terror networks.

The anniversary of Operation Sindoor, therefore, highlights two parallel realities. One is that there is broad agreement that attacks like Pahalgam are unacceptable. The other, at the same time, clearly reflects that there is continued reluctance among international actors to apply consistent pressure on Pakistan to dismantle the terror networks operating within its territory.

As long as this gap remains, the pattern seen in Pahalgam is likely to continue. The issue is no longer about identifying the problem. It is about whether the international system is prepared to act on what it already recognises or will still keep limiting itself to a mere lip service to the thriving terror networks within Pakistan.

ALSO READ: Iran Under Khomeini And Khamenei: 47 Years Of Repression | Opinion

(Note: The author is an expert on strategic and Islamic affairs. Views are personal.)