The terror attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, on April 22, 2025, which killed 26 innocent people and injured multiple, has once again resurrected tensions in South Asia. While India has taken numerous major actions against the neighbouring country, Pakistan has responded with an invitation to seek a ‘neutral international probe’, with an open invitation for the United Nations to intervene.
Advertisment
On its face, Islamabad's action is a positive, even pacifying, step. But looked closely — in the context of history, timing, diplomatic calculation and regional politics — it looks more a tactical move than a genuine move for justice.
Advertisment
According to several media reports, Pakistan has demanded  an ‘independent’ and ‘neutral’ investigation overseen by international observers. Pakistan has stressed that only a third-party-led inquiry could ‘credibly establish the truth’ of the Pahalgam terror attack.
Advertisment

This is essential framing. By insisting on external intervention, Pakistan acts as a helpful player while implying that India is incapable of independently investigating terror attacks in a fair manner. It's a familiar diplomatic script — one that we have been seeing for quite a while now.

What history tells

Pakistan’s previous record puts to question the credibility of its recent offer. From the 26/11 Mumbai attacks to the Pulwama bombing, Islamabad has either denied any Pakistani-based terror groups' involvement or insisted on irrefutable evidence, all while hindering or derailing investigations internally.
In the Pulwama case, for example, even after Jaish-e-Mohammed took responsibility and India brought dossiers of evidence, Pakistan stalled under the pretext of ‘examining’ the evidence — a tactic now infamous in diplomatic circles.
Likewise, after the Uri attack (2016) and Pathankot (2016), even so-called ‘joint investigation efforts’ fell through when Pakistani investigators tried to deflect blame on India.
With this history, Pakistan's present proposal seems to be more aimed at displaying diplomatic maturity in front of the international community than to achieve actual accountability. By talking about an international investigation, Pakistan is trying to shift the script — from that of a would-be perpetrator (or an accomplice) to that of a stakeholder in the war against terror. It's a classic ploy: Be in a corner, internationalise the crisis so that  blame gets watered down.

The New York Times pointed out that Pakistan’s appeal appears to be partly designed for an American and European audience, where demands for ‘dialogue’ and ‘neutral probes’ tend to receive a sympathetic hearing. By presenting itself as reasonable and cooperative, Pakistan attempts to muddy the distinction between victim and perpetrator in the minds of global policymakers.
Yet, there is a potential risk for Pakistan as well: If ever there is an actually independent international investigation (one cannot be sure), it might reveal painful realities regarding terror havens running within its borders.
India, in turn, has to walk a tight rope. Blunt rejection of the offer might be seen as reactive; blind acceptance might enable Pakistan to hijack the process.
While Pakistan's proposal for an international investigation into the Pahalgam terror attack is framed as a high-minded gesture, history, timing, and strategic calculations lead to a different conclusion: It is much about diplomatic survival.
Without measurable actions — such as destroying known terror networks, surrendering terrorists, and prosecuting facilitators — Pakistan's newest proposal will be perceived as yet another eyewash rather than a genuine step.
More than empty words and diplomatic drama, victims of Pahalgam deserve justice. They deserve real change.