However, the response, according to Moeed Yusuf, Pakistan’s former national security adviser, has been marked by miscalculation — chief among them Narendra Modi’s apparent gamble that Western capitals would back India’s ‘self-defence’ narrative to justify the escalatory spiral against Islamabad.
“India is very disappointed this time because the playbook said that the world would come and support its right to ‘self-defense’ if it wanted to flex its muscle. Perhaps they were hoping that Trump would come out in their support unequivocally. That hasn’t happened,” Yusuf told The Express Tribune.
As tensions between the nuclear neighbours flared, pushing the region to the brink, US President Donald Trump, was asked about the situation. Brushing aside concerns, Trump said: “There’s great tension between Pakistan and India, but there always has been. They’ll get it figured out one way or the other,” offering a detached response to the fevered sabre-rattling from the Modi administration.
Even as Washington shows little sign of involvement, Yusuf pointed out that historically, both India and Pakistan have relied on external mediation to find an off-ramp during past conflicts. “In a nuclear environment, you don’t wait for action,” he cautioned. “You assume that even the slightest movement from either side could create a dynamic that might escalate very quickly.”
The former national security adviser (NSA) noted that in previous crises, third-party involvement would begin almost immediately, often led by the United States. “Any time there was a trigger – the US would quickly descend on New Delhi and Islamabad, seeking to de-escalate the situation,” he explained. Third parties, regardless of their affiliations, he said, reinforced a consistent message to both Islamabad and New Delhi: step back. That pattern began to shift in 2019, Yusuf argued, when the US, rather than restraining New Delhi, appeared to embolden it – leading India to believe it could justify the Balakot strike as an act of ‘self-defence.’
This time, by contrast, Washington’s apparent reticence may have served as a restraining force. While third-party involvement has been far less visible, Yusuf suggested that the US’s standoffish posture might have actually helped hold India back in the tense hours after the Pahalgam incident.
A treaty in abeyance
In a no-holds-barred interview, Yusuf, who served as a special assistant to the prime minister and national security adviser from 2019 to 2022, described India’s decision to suspend the IWT as largely symbolic — a move he characterised as a misstep born of hubris and New Delhi’s self-appointed status as a regional hegemon, unwilling to recognise Pakistan as an equal party at the negotiating table.
He linked the posture to what he called a “supremacist ideology” grounded in Hindutva – the belief that Hindus should dominate, particularly over Muslims. “The coterie around Modi believes that Pakistani Kashmir, and even Pakistan itself, doesn’t deserve to exist in the form it does,” he said. “Their attitude stems from that ideological conviction.” According to Yusuf, that stance has been emboldened by a Western reluctance to hold India to account, as strategic ties with New Delhi deepen in the broader context of containing China.
On the IWT itself, he noted that India had been toying with the idea of walking away from the accord for some time. “They’ve been trying to figure out a way to do this. They’ve simply seized the current moment to escalate what has historically been a technical dispute into a political and strategic crisis,” he explained. “It’s one of those things – you play the card and, if it doesn’t stick now, you hope it will later. But the intention is clear.”
Pakistan, he argued, has a strong case against India’s move to undermine the treaty. “We should not consider the treaty suspended or abandoned in any way,” Yusuf said. “We should treat it as continuing, because it contains no provision to hold the treaty in abeyance.”
He called on Pakistan to move swiftly to internationalise the issue. “Obviously, we’ll need to raise this and bring the World Bank and others into the picture – but there’s no reason why Islamabad shouldn’t act immediately.” Yusuf, who has written extensively on regional security – including a book on brokering peace in nuclear environments – warned that failing to challenge India’s posture could set a dangerous precedent.
On India’s ability to deprive Pakistan of its water supplies, Yusuf questioned the rationale behind such a move, asking how starving a neighbouring country of 250 million people could lead to greater security, prosperity, or stability, or help achieve strategic objectives. He cautioned that such actions could trigger chaos not just in the region, but potentially across the world.
The shock for India
Since revoking the special status of occupied Kashmir, India has worked to project an image of calm and acceptance – a carefully curated normalcy, reinforced by an extensive military presence and sweeping legal changes. Yet beneath this facade lies a much darker reality. Human rights organisations have raised concerns about an orchestrated demographic shift, driven by policies aimed at diluting the region’s Muslim majority through the settlement of non-local Hindus.
While resistance in Kashmir may be absent from global headlines – a direct consequence of India’s stringent control over information and movement – it is far from extinguished. Advocacy groups, including Genocide Watch, have warned that the valley is edging closer to the advanced stages of persecution.
According to Yusuf, the recent attack in Pahalgam – located miles from Srinagar, where a significant concentration of Indian security personnel is stationed – punctuates the narrative of normalcy that Prime Minister Narendra Modi has cultivated since 2019, when he revoked the region’s semi-autonomous status.
India’s claims of calm in Kashmir, Yusuf argues, are at odds with reality. “This incident shows clearly that all is not well,” he said. “Such an attack can’t take place without deep insider knowledge and local support. Perpetrators can’t disappear without sanctuary. You don’t need to raze houses and conduct constant search operations against Muslims if you’re confident that things have turned around.”
In Yusuf’s view, India’s actions in Kashmir reflect a deeper identity issue that cannot be erased by changing a territory’s status on paper. “Ultimately, this is about more than just political control,” he said. “It’s about addressing the underlying issues of identity and justice that will not simply vanish with legal changes.”