Politics: the brink of war

By Richard North - April 26, 2025

After a slow start, following the news reports of last Tuesday’s terrorist attack in Indian-held Kashmir, the British media seems to be waking up to the enormity of the events and some of the implications.

The Times, for instance, is running an editorial headed: “Terrorism in Kashmir is pushing India and Pakistan to the brink of war”, accusing both governments of “reckless responses” that are “extremely dangerous”, with India accusing Pakistan of backing the terrorists.

But, with no evidence to support any conclusion as to who, or which organisation was behind the slaughter, The Times deems it “likely” that Pakistan has allowed extremist groups such as Lashkar-e-Taiba to plot atrocities with little fear of arrest.

In that event, the paper says, Islamabad has only itself to blame for India’s furious reaction. Both countries are nuclear powers, and both have stood on the nuclear brink in earlier crises. But, it adds, “Pakistan is clearly now the weaker power. And even its close ties with China would not help it in full-blown conflict or protect it from retaliatory Indian bombings of militant training camps”.

Elsewhere, the inference is much the same, that this was a Pakistani-supported attack on Indian-held territory, although it is intriguing to note a comment by George Galloway on Twitter, posted yesterday.

For all my profound alienation from their government and military leadership, he wrote, “I stand with Pakistan in the impending conflict with India”, declaring: “It is foolish naivety to believe that Pakistan forces infiltrated the most densely militarised territory in the world to murder 17 Muslims and 9 Hindus in Kashmir”.

From where Galloway gets his information about the religious breakdown of the victims, I have no idea. The most comprehensive account seems to come from India Today, which doesn’t identify the religions, although from the names given, it seems that most were Hindu.

What is certain though is that all the 26 victims were male, specifically targeted with women and children, even in family groups, left unharmed. More than one witness attests to the gunmen asking their victims whether they were Hindu or Muslim.

That aside, Galloway has a point, underscored by The Times recording that, of the two countries, Pakistan is militarily the weaker. By any rational assessment, it would indeed be “foolish naivety” for it to support an attack of this nature.

It is perhaps significant that Starmer, in a telephone call with prime minister Modi, stopped short of expressing direct support for India, not least because the New York Times has Pakistan’s defence minister declaring his country’s innocence, and calling for an investigation conducted by international inspectors, with which there was a readiness to cooperate.

Referring back to my piece yesterday it would be extremely unwise to draw any conclusions about the responsibility for the attack, having regard to the well-documented convoluted nature of the politics in the region.

Without having to dwell in the realm of conspiracy theories, there are at least four credible directions which could be profitably explored in the search for culprits.

The first is that most obvious and widely aired is the idea of a Pakistani-supported terrorist group, which is the thesis that the Indian government is keen to represent, as Modi seeks to manage public sentiment.

However, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that this was a “false flag” operation initiated by India’s RAW, possibly with the support of Israel’s Mossad, both of which organisations have a keen interest in destabilising Pakistan – although Modi may not have been in the loop.

On the other hand, there is a possibility that the attack was inspired and planned by Kashmiri separatist groups outside the country, without the knowledge of either of the regional powers – either a group seeking complete independence, or one which is seeking a unified Kashmir within Pakistan.

Al Qaeda attacks were often externally planned; the same could apply here with actors – some even based within the Kashmiri communities in the UK – deliberately fomenting tensions to pursue their political ends.

Looking at the possibility of Indian involvement, its intelligence services are known to use proxies in Afghanistan, Baluchistan and Kashmir to provoke the Pakistani government, or to legitimise clampdowns on Muslim communities in its own version of sectarian politics.

The pattern to look for, therefore, is an absence of direct confrontation and a series of provocative actions by known proxies but with no overt Indian links. That way, as with this current slaughter, Pakistan’s response can be held up as unwarranted aggression, ceding India the moral high ground.

Something of that might have been present in the mass protests which erupted in the city of Khuzdar yesterday, strengthening the ongoing insurgency, which has been gaining momentum.

In line with that is a more direct example that might point to deliberate attempts to escalate tension. This occurred yesterday when the Baloch Liberation Army (BLA) – known to be supported by India – mounted an ambush on a convoy of what it calls the “occupying Pakistani Army”, driving through Quetta, the capital of Baluchistan..

Although casualty figures vary, a Washington Post report putting the deaths at four, with three injured after their vehicle was hit by an IED, other reports put the figure as high as ten.

Interestingly, Pakistan’s former high commissioner to India, Abdul Basit, had foreseen the likelihood of more terror attacks in Baluchistan, so even if any linkage with India is denied, Pakistan will remain convinced that Indian fingerprints are on the attacks.

Oddly enough, both The Times and Telegraph see the suspension of the Indus water treaty as the main provocation, but they are probably misreading the situation.

Basit sees it as “largely symbolic”, noting that India’s current lack of infrastructure prevents it from diverting the western rivers so that, “At this stage, India cannot stop the flow of water”, a position with which the BBC largely concurs.

Rather, it is the accumulation of terrorist attacks, some false flag on India assets, attributed to Pakistan, and some directed at Pakistan, which seem to be having the greatest effect on souring relations, bringing the two powers to the brink of war.

It is too early to say whether we have passed the tipping point or whether the antagonists can pull back and avoid war. Much will depend on whether India retaliates against Pakistan and, if it does, what action Pakistan takes.

As we wait to find out, the Telegraph has suddenly noticed that “War in Kashmir will explode onto Britain’s streets”, something we’ve been warning about for months, if not years.

In July last year I was writing that fighting in Kashmir “could have a devastating effect on mixed communities in places such as Leicester but could also trigger major riots in Muslim-dominated cities such as Bradford”.

Already, though, we are seeing heated protests in Birmingham and London, although this does not yet amount to the level of street violence that is feared. As the situation develops, we expect to see more intense displays.