The relationship between Pakistan and India has always been a tightrope walk suspended over a raging fire of historical resentment, ideological clashes, and territorial disputes. But the events following the devastating Pahalgam terrorist attack in April 2025 have cranked the temperature even higher, setting off a rhetorical war that now threatens to turn into something far more dangerous.

While no bullets have officially crossed borders in a full-scale war (yet), words have become missiles — launched, repeated, and amplified through official speeches, media houses, and social media campaigns. In this blog, we dive into how rhetoric has played a central role in escalating tensions during this standstill, and why understanding it matters for peace, politics, and the future of South Asia.

1. The Trigger: Pahalgam Attack and Immediate Reactions

On April 21, 2025, an attack targeting Indian tourists in Pahalgam, Kashmir left 26 dead and scores injured. The Indian government, led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, wasted no time in pointing the finger squarely at Pakistan-backed militants, specifically the Lashkar-e-Taiba.

The rhetoric started immediately:

Modi declared that “Pakistan will pay the price for every drop of blood spilled in Kashmir.”
Indian media channels splashed headlines like "Pakistan Sponsors Bloodshed Yet Again" and "A Nation That Breeds Terror."
On the streets, public anger surged, with protestors chanting "Dushman ka ek jawab — laashon ka tohfa" (One response to the enemy — a gift of corpses).

Pakistan, on the other hand, reacted defensively but with equal verbal aggression:

The Pakistani Foreign Office dismissed Indian accusations as "baseless propaganda to cover internal failures."
Former Foreign Minister Bilawal Bhutto Zardari delivered a chilling soundbite:
"Either water will flow in the Indus or their blood will."

This early exchange set the tone for a zero-sum confrontation: every action and every word now demanded an exaggerated counteraction.

2. The Strategic Language of Victimhood and Aggression

Both nations employed predictable but effective rhetorical strategies:

India:

Victim narrative: India framed itself as the innocent target of terrorism, demanding international sympathy and action.
Moral high ground: Indian officials portrayed the conflict as a fight against global terror, not merely a bilateral issue.
National unity: Modi’s speeches invoked Hindu nationalism and cultural pride, painting any dissent as unpatriotic.

Pakistan:

Defensive counter-narrative: Pakistan insisted it was being framed and was, in fact, a victim of Indian aggression in Kashmir.
Water war threats: By bringing the Indus Waters Treaty into the conversation, Pakistan shifted the conversation from terrorism to existential survival.
Global injustice: Pakistani leaders tried to link Kashmir to broader global issues of colonialism, occupation, and Islamophobia.

Both countries essentially shouted to the world:
"We are right, they are wrong — and we are under attack."

3. Media as a Weapon: Amplification and Echo Chambers

If rhetoric was the bullet, media — especially TV and social media — was the gun.

In India:

Channels like Republic TV and Times Now launched into a frenzy of patriotic, inflammatory coverage.
Panel shows resembled shouting matches, with retired generals and politicians advocating military strikes.
Terms like "Surgical Strike 2.0" and "Final Warning to Pakistan" became hashtags and breaking news banners.

In Pakistan:

Major networks like ARY News and Dunya TV aired documentaries on Indian "atrocities" in Kashmir, stirring public sentiment against India.
Government ministers appeared daily on talk shows, warning that Pakistan's nuclear capabilities were "not for show."
Online spaces swelled with nationalist slogans like "Pakistan Zindabad" and "Modi is a terrorist."

Result: Both nations retreated into digital echo chambers where nuance was dead, and war cries grew louder.

4. Diplomatic Fallout: Rhetoric Turned Into Policy

Rhetoric wasn’t limited to public speeches and media statements — it began shaping official policy:

India revoked visas for Pakistani citizens and expelled Pakistani diplomats.
India also suspended the Indus Waters Treaty, something that had been a rare symbol of cooperation for decades.
Pakistan responded by shutting down airspace for Indian flights and withdrawing from the Simla Agreement, one of the key pillars of peace talks.

These moves made it clear that rhetoric had real-world consequences, turning "standstill" into a slowly tightening noose around diplomatic relations.

5. Historical Context: Rhetoric Has Always Fueled Conflict

Looking back, rhetoric has been a recurring weapon in India-Pakistan conflicts:

1947 Partition: Politicians on both sides used religious and ethnic rhetoric to solidify national identities, resulting in massive violence.
1971 Bangladesh War: Indira Gandhi painted Pakistan as a genocidal regime, while Yahya Khan accused India of colonial ambitions.
Kargil War 1999: Both sides invoked nationalism, betrayal, and divine justice to rally their populations.

Thus, the current war of words fits neatly into a pattern where speech is a precursor to escalation.

6. The Nuclear Factor: Muted Yet Dangerous Rhetoric

Interestingly, while conventional rhetoric has been inflammatory, both sides have avoided explicit nuclear threats — at least publicly.

However, coded language has been used:

Indian analysts spoke of "full-spectrum deterrence."
Pakistani leaders emphasized "unimaginable consequences" if India crossed certain "red lines."

These veiled threats serve as reminders that rhetoric, if pushed too far, could tip into catastrophic action.

7. International Reactions: Calls for Restraint

Global powers, especially the United States, China, and the United Nations, have called for restraint.
Interestingly, the language of international diplomacy has been deliberately neutral — no direct blame, just calls for "both sides" to "exercise maximum restraint."

But behind closed doors, analysts fear that the overheated rhetoric might leave political leaders with no room to de-escalate without losing face — a dangerous psychological trap known as "audience costs."

8. The Way Forward: Why Calming Rhetoric Matters

As history shows, wars often begin with words before weapons.
Thus, de-escalation must start not at the Line of Control, but at the level of language:

Politicians must dial down nationalist rhetoric and engage in measured discourse.
Media must be responsible, prioritizing facts over sensationalism.
Civil society must reclaim the narrative, promoting peacebuilding rather than warmongering.

Without a change in rhetoric, even the best diplomatic efforts could fail under the weight of public anger whipped up by toxic words.

Final Thoughts

The Pakistan-India 2025 standstill teaches us a simple but brutal truth:
Words are not harmless.
In fact, in the volatile subcontinental theatre, words are sometimes more dangerous than weapons.

Both nations now stand at a crossroads: they can continue to weaponize language until it brings real war — or they can choose the far harder path of restraint, dialogue, and reconciliation.

History is watching.
And so are a billion lives.

English Language Studies

War of Words: Rhetoric in the 2025 Pakistan-India Standstill