In the aftermath of the deadly April 22 terror attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir-which resulted in the deaths of 25 Indian nationals and one Nepali national-tensions between India and Pakistan have sharply escalated. The attack, attributed by India to Pakistan-based terror groups, prompted the Indian government to take a series of stringent diplomatic and strategic measures.

These included suspending the Indus Waters Treaty, closing the Integrated Check Post at Attari, suspending the SAARC Visa Exemption Scheme for Pakistani nationals, ordering Pakistani nationals to return within 40 hours, and reducing diplomatic staff in both countries’ high commissions.

Additionally, India barred Pakistani-registered aircraft from its airspace and blocked several Pakistani YouTube channels accused of spreading misinformation about the attack.

Amid this rapidly deteriorating environment, Pakistan People's Party (PPP) chairman Bilawal Bhutto-Zardari initially responded with aggressive rhetoric. At a public rally in Sukkur, he warned of a united and forceful Pakistani response to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty, invoking national unity against what he termed Indian “aggression”.

However, in a marked shift in tone, Bhutto-Zardari addressed Pakistan’s National Assembly on May 6, 2025, advocating for dialogue and peace with India. He stated, “If India wishes to walk the path of peace, let them come with open hands and not clenched fists. Let them come with facts and not fabrication. Let us sit as neighbours and speak the truth.”

He emphasised that Pakistan’s resolve was to fight for freedom, not conflict, and asserted, “The people of Pakistan are not made to kneel… We fight not because we love conflict, but because we love freedom”.

Bhutto-Zardari also reiterated Pakistan’s stance as a victim, not an exporter, of terrorism, and called for an impartial investigation into the Pahalgam attack, rejecting India’s allegations as baseless and politically motivated.

This conciliatory message came as Pakistan sought to internationalise the issue by requesting an emergency closed-door session at the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). However, during the session, UNSC members posed tough questions to Pakistan regarding the possible involvement of the banned Lashkar-e-Taiba group, widely believed to have links to Pakistan, in the Pahalgam attack.

The Council members broadly condemned the attack, emphasised the need for accountability, and rejected attempts to promote a “false flag” narrative. There was a clear call for restraint, de-escalation, and bilateral dialogue, with several members expressing concerns over Pakistan’s missile tests and nuclear rhetoric as further escalatory factors.

Despite these appeals for peace, the ground reality remains tense, with both nations reinforcing military postures and diplomatic channels strained. Pakistan’s efforts to mobilise international support have largely failed to gain traction, as the UNSC refrained from issuing any statement and advised bilateral resolution of disputes.

Bilawal Bhutto-Zardari’s recent appeal for peace represents a significant rhetorical pivot from earlier threats, reflecting both domestic and international pressures for de-escalation. However, the effectiveness of this shift remains uncertain against the backdrop of hardened positions, mutual distrust, and unresolved allegations of cross-border terrorism.

The situation continues to demand careful diplomatic engagement to prevent further escalation and to explore the possibility of renewed dialogue between the nuclear-armed neighbours.

ANI