Indians Rise Up Against Modi's Hate Campaign
Pakistan, April 29 — The recent Pahalgam terror attack brought about deep grief. However, this event also unveiled an underlying tension: starkly contrasting views were expressed—one from the Indian government emphasizing accusations and retaliation, and another from the public advocating for reason, fairness, and solidarity. People across different faiths—Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs—collectively dismissed narratives promoting warfare and intercommunal animosity. Instead, they urged that the incident should be tackled based on its specific circumstances rather than being exploited as fuel for broader regional or religious tensions.
As politicians hurried to intensify hostilities, advocating for increased militarization, severing diplomatic relations, and contemplating the annulment of the Indus Waters Treaty, another perspective emerged from the public sphere and digital platforms: the stance of common citizens. Regular individuals from India and Kashmir voiced their weariness over the politicization of calamities. They emphasized that the incident should be addressed solely as a criminal offense, urging for accountability via thorough investigations and legal proceedings instead of allowing it to spiral into religious or international conflict.
This episode exposed the widening gulf between the Indian government's escalationist approach and the people's yearning for peace. While Modi and his allies chose the path of military threats, diplomatic brinkmanship, and communal rhetoric, ordinary citizens across India-Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs-embraced a vision of unity, compassion, and moral clarity.
Even though the assault was horrifying, it was regular people—not the authorities—who demonstrated genuine patriotism. Throughout Kashmir and the broader region of India, individuals from various religious backgrounds—Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, and Christians—united in support, refusing to embrace the toxic ideology of intercommunal hostility.
In Kashmir, people put themselves at great risk to rescue trapped travelers, transported injured individuals using horses, and provided refuge without questioning religious affiliations. Throughout India, Muslim citizens roundly denounced the assault, with more than 550,000 mosques issuing messages against terrorism and praying for those affected. Candles lit during vigils, citywide closures as signs of grief, and unannounced pleas for harmony showcased the genuine essence of India.
Numerous individuals from India, such as well-known journalists, analysts, and activists, highlighted the stark irony that through fostering hate and retaliatory aggression, the Modi administration was inadvertently furthering the objectives of the terrorists. Social media platforms were flooded with condemnation, noting that the militants sought to spark Hindu-Muslim conflict—yet the government’s statements were aligning perfectly with this strategy.
Although Modi's empty warnings were treated as significant by the Pakistani administration, leading to responses described as "reciprocation of equal measure," the citizens of Pakistan dismissed these threats outright. Far from feeling intimidated by India’s aggressive rhetoric and fearsome declarations about restricting essential resources like water supplies, Pakistanis responded with elation and renewed spirit, recalling India’s embarrassment following the unsuccessful surgical strikes in 2019. Rather than succumbing to fear, the Pakistani populace exhibited steadfastness and assurance, rejecting attempts at intimidation.
Globally as well, although governments denounced the attack in Pahalgam, they deliberately avoided pointing fingers at Pakistan. Consequently, Modi’s calculated effort to leverage this tragedy backfired—aiming to incite nationalistic fervor domestically and pressure Pakistan internationally—it did not succeed and left him isolated on the world stage without accomplishing his goals.
People wondered how an attack was possible in a closely monitored tourist region with around 900,000 Indian soldiers deployed throughout Kashmir. Numerous Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs stressed that the catastrophe required sincere responses and improved security measures for citizens rather than casting blame outwardly or fueling religious divisions.
Accounts from eyewitnesses presented a stark contrast to the official account of the conflict. Survivors who practiced Hinduism shared stories of how Muslims living in Kashmir protected and housed them, kept them hidden from aggressors, provided food, and facilitated their safe journey to airports. A Hindu visitor from Maharashtra stated, “We were cornered and frightened. Families adhering to Islam welcomed us into their houses, nourished us, and bolstered our spirits. Their assistance was life-saving for us.”
A different visitor from Punjab, who practices Sikhism, mentioned, “Our Muslim friends put themselves at great peril to safeguard us. There was one person among them who sustained injuries while attempting to guide us to security. Their assistance has been invaluable.” A resident from Kashmir identified as a follower of Islam clarified, “To us, they were visitors rather than adherents of Hinduism or Sikhism. The extremists sought conflict amongst religious groups; we aimed solely at maintaining harmony.” These compelling narratives circulated widely over social networking platforms yet garnered minimal attention from significant broadcasting companies, which persisted in endorsing responses based on vengeance.
A deeply touching account was shared by a young Hindu boy whose conversation with prominent TV networks and social media platforms became widely circulated. With his voice quivering emotionally, he highlighted the significant lapse in security, mentioning that despite an Indian Army outpost being close to the tourist area, neither a police officer nor a military guard was present during the assault. He observed that the attackers moved about freely, committed their terrible deed, and escaped unchallenged. His statements struck a chord with countless people, underscoring the critical necessity of responsibility instead of attributing fault externally.
An activist encapsulated the sentiment: “While Muslims faced lynchings without causing any diplomatic tensions, now that Hindus are being targeted, it has become an issue of national dignity. True justice should apply equally to everyone; otherwise, it ceases to be just.” This double standard did not escape public notice. Numerous individuals viewed this selective indignation as evidence that communal distinctions served political expediency over genuine moral principles.
One of the most notable aspects of this tragedy was the newfound assertiveness displayed by Kashmiris. They refused to accept collective responsibility and strongly affirmed their Indian identities. A prominent Kashmiri youth leader declared, “We are Indians. We have no connection with Pakistan. This assault is also an offense against our own community. Do not regard us as suspects; see us instead as victims calling for justice.” The residents of Kashmir responded by organizing demonstrations against the incident, coordinating inclusive prayer sessions across different faiths, and aiding trapped visitors impartially. Through these actions, they conveyed a straightforward yet powerful statement: they were Indian nationals who deserved equitable safeguarding and respect.
Following the Pahalgam attack, further despair seemed imminent. However, due to the sagacity of ordinary citizens—Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs—a glimmer of optimism remains. These individuals have shown that terrorism cannot solely be countered through armed forces; rather, solidarity, compassion, and an unwavering resistance against enmity must also play crucial roles. Should those in power neglect these lessons, they risk becoming disconnected from the genuine ethos of their country. The populace has made itself clear: they refuse to serve as instruments for spreading animosity. Instead, they choose to unite.