The Pakistan High Commission at Bullers Lane in Colombo 7, suddenly saw around 200 protesters last Wednesday, April 30.
The group led by a Sri Lankan who has claimed as the leader of a fringe political party protested and shouted slogans against the Pakistan High Commission.
The highly unorganised protesters even did not know what was to shout at the protest, witnesses said. The leader in Sinhala shouted, “We don’t want terrorism”, while some others held a placard written as “Pakistan, stop State-sponsored terrorism”.
The protest leader later told the media that if President Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s Government does not take action against the Pakistan High Commission, Sri Lankan people will take action to oust the diplomatic mission.
The protest was against a deadly terrorist attack in Pahalgam in South Kashmir in the previous week. The protest lasted just 15 minutes and the protesters left soon after the video recording. Some protesters when inquired had told the Police that they just were asked to come in return of a promise to pay them if they take part in the protest.
The protest also was held when Sri Lanka’s Defence Secretary was in Islamabad for the fifth Defence Dialogue with his Pakistani counterparts. The worst part is there was a repeated protest on Friday, May 2, but this time, Police outnumbered around 25 protesters.
The incident demonstrates the implication of the Pahalgam terror attack on Sri Lanka. Pakistan is one of Sri Lanka’s friendliest neighbours, which helped in the island nation’s prolonged 26-year civil war, when India was neutral or tacitly backed the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) during a certain period.
Foreign Media have reported that Islamist assailants segregated men, asked their names and targeted Hindus before shooting them at close range in the Pahalgam area, killing 26 people in the April 22 attack.
India has said it had identified three attackers, including two Pakistani nationals, as “terrorists” waging a violent revolt in Muslim-majority Kashmir. Islamabad, however, has denied any role and called for a neutral investigation. Hindu-majority India accuses Islamic Pakistan of funding and encouraging militancy in Kashmir, a Himalayan territory claimed by both nations but ruled in part by them. Islamabad says it only provides moral and diplomatic support to a Kashmiri demand for self-determination.
What happened?
On a calm morning in April 2025, the serene town of Pahalgam in South Kashmir was shattered by a deadly terrorist attack, killing 25 Indian tourists and one Nepali visitor.
This incident was one of the most brazen assaults in the region in recent years, bringing back haunting memories of past violence and raising new alarms across South Asia.
Pahalgam, known for its breathtaking landscapes and as a gateway to the Amarnath Yatra pilgrimage, was swiftly turned into a zone of military lockdown and media frenzy.
The region, despite being a tourist haven, has seen intermittent spells of violence since the armed insurgency began in Kashmir in 1989.
Historically, the region has been a flashpoint due to its symbolic and strategic significance.
The Amarnath Yatra route, which passes through Pahalgam, has often been targeted by militants aiming to destabilise India’s grip on Kashmir and inflame Hindu-Muslim tensions.
In 2000, a deadly attack near Pahalgam claimed the lives of over 30 Amarnath pilgrims, shocking the nation.
Sporadic skirmishes and grenade attacks continued into the 2010s, though Pahalgam remained relatively less volatile than areas such as Pulwama or Sopore.
The current attack in 2025 marks a dangerous escalation, as it brings renewed attention to a region long seen as transitioning towards normalcy.
Kashmir conflict
The Kashmir conflict is a complex, multi-layered dispute rooted in colonial legacy, identity politics, territorial ambitions, and human rights issues.
At its core, the conflict began in 1947 when the princely State of Jammu and Kashmir acceded to India under contentious circumstances following Pakistan-backed tribal invasions.
Since then, three wars have been fought between India and Pakistan over the region. The conflict has evolved from a State-to-State dispute to a mix of indigenous insurgency and cross-border terrorism.
The revocation of Article 370 in 2019 by the Indian Government, which granted Kashmir special autonomy, added fuel to the fire.
Many Kashmiris saw it as an erosion of their identity and rights, while India claimed it was necessary for integration and development.
The presence of half a million Indian troops in the region, coupled with frequent internet shutdowns, detentions, and alleged human rights violations, has kept the pot boiling. Local anger, combined with foreign interference, continues to sustain the conflict.
Indian anger
India has consistently maintained that Kashmir is an integral part of the Union, and any violence in the region is a result of Pakistan’s proxy war through non-State actors. The Indian Government’s narrative emphasizes development, integration, and counterterrorism.
After the Pahalgam attack, Indian intelligence pointed fingers at Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), a group with a long history of attacks in India, including the 2019 Pulwama bombing.
Indian leaders said that Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) has historically supported such groups to destabilise Kashmir and India more broadly.
India has also cited diplomatic gains in the region, such as investments in infrastructure, improved voter turnout in local elections, and the opening up of tourism, to showcase its success in normalising Kashmir.
The Pahalgam attack, however, exposes the underlying volatility that remains unresolved.
The attack represents a grave escalation in the insurgency that has long troubled Jammu and Kashmir.
Targeting a tourist-heavy region during a peak season, the attack not only inflicted human casualties but also aimed to destabilise the image of Kashmir as a safe and secure destination.
For India, this strike is deeply symbolic—it undermines the Central Government’s claims of normalised conditions in the region following the abrogation of Article 370 in 2019.
It serves as a potent reminder that despite military and administrative efforts, the militant infrastructure remains resilient and capable of carrying out sophisticated, high-impact attacks. Strategically, the Pahalgam attack exposes persistent security lapses and intelligence failures, raising difficult questions about the effectiveness of counterterrorism operations in the Union Territory. The incident could fuel public and political criticism, particularly with national elections approaching in India, and place pressure on the Government to respond decisively.
If credible links emerge connecting the attack to cross-border actors or Pakistani-based militant groups, the event could significantly heighten Indo-Pak tensions, disrupting fragile diplomatic channels and regional stability.
Economically and socially, the attack threatens to derail the tourism-driven revival in Kashmir, which has been a cornerstone of New Delhi’s integration strategy for the region.
A loss of tourist confidence would not only impair local livelihoods but also weaken the narrative of development-driven peace.
For India, the Pahalgam attack is not just a security event—it is a multi-dimensional crisis that touches on national pride, regional geopolitics, and the long-term vision for Kashmir’s future.
Indian intelligence sources said that the Pahalgam attack bore hallmarks of cross-border training and logistical support, reinforcing suspicions that elements within Pakistan’s security establishment may have either directly or indirectly facilitated the plot.
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has vowed to pursue the attackers to “the ends of the earth” and said that those who planned and carried it out “will be punished beyond their imagination”. Calls have also grown from Indian politicians and others for military retaliation against Pakistan.
Pakistan’s denial
Pakistan, on the other hand, positions itself as a defender of Kashmiri rights and self-determination.
It said that Kashmir is a disputed territory whose future must be decided through a UN-mandated plebiscite, a stance rooted in early post-independence resolutions. Islamabad has denied direct involvement in the Pahalgam attack, instead accusing India of human rights violations and suppressing dissent in Kashmir.
It said that the armed resistance is indigenous and fuelled by India’s repressive policies.
The Pakistani Government also points to international reports on rights abuses in the region to justify its position.
Domestically, the Kashmir issue is deeply tied to national identity and political legitimacy, making it hard for any Pakistani Government to compromise or even publicly condemn militant violence in Kashmir without domestic backlash.
Pakistan has called for a “neutral” investigation into the killings of mostly Indian tourists in the attack and expressed its willingness to cooperate, saying that it remains committed for peace.
In the immediate aftermath of the attack, the Pakistani Foreign Office issued a statement condemning violence against civilians and dismissed Indian accusations as “baseless” and “politically motivated.”
Islamabad said that such attacks serve no strategic benefit to Pakistan and reiterated its stance that it seeks a peaceful resolution to the Kashmir issue through dialogue, not violence.
The State-run Pakistan TV said that the First Information Report (FIR) on the incident registered at a local police station regarding the Pahalgam attack has raised serious questions about the Indian Government’s version of events, exposing what security sources are calling a “false flag operation” orchestrated by the Modi administration.
Implications beyond Pahalgam
After the attack, India and Pakistan unleashed a raft of measures against each other, with Pakistan closing its airspace to Indian airlines, and India suspending the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty that regulates water-sharing from the Indus River and its tributaries.
The Pahalgam attack has wide-reaching implications with India facing a renewed security challenge. The move may compel India to rethink its post-Article 370 strategy, particularly the efficacy of its militarised approach. A surge in violence could also harm its image as a rising global power and investment destination.
On the other hand, Pakistan risks international isolation if further evidence of State-linked terrorism surfaces. But it may also gain diplomatic sympathy if it successfully highlights alleged Indian excesses and proves its innocence somehow.
For the South Asian region, the attack reminds a powder keg. Any tit-for-tat retaliation could escalate into a full-scale conflict, especially with the presence of nuclear weapons. Neighbouring countries such as Bangladesh, Nepal, and Sri Lanka watch cautiously, wary of the fallout on trade and regional cooperation. Asia and the broader world also have stakes. The Pahalgam incident can impact India’s relations with the U.S., China, and the Gulf countries. Multinationals and regional blocs such as ASEAN and SAARC may delay engagement due to instability.
A perceived failure to rein in terrorism—by either India or Pakistan—can hurt broader international cooperation and this means Global counterterrorism efforts are also at stake.
War or peace?
Avoiding another India-Pakistan war requires multi-pronged diplomacy, restraint, and a willingness to engage. This needs renewed bilateral dialogue, people-to-people engagement, a possible third party mediation, economic collaboration, and counter radicalisation program.
While political will is scarce, backchannel diplomacy should continue, if both parties need to avoid a fill-blown war. Reviving mechanisms such as the Composite Dialogue Process or Track II initiatives could help this.
Given the Indian stance soon after the attack including asking all Pakistani people to leave India, people-to-people engagement could be a highly unlikely strategy between the two countries. However, this is possible among Indian and Pakistani diaspora in foreign nations. Cross-border cultural, journalistic, and academic exchanges must be encouraged somehow between the two nations. A war-weary population on both sides may push governments towards peaceful resolution.
Though both nations are wary of external interference, silent mediation by trusted countries like Norway, Qatar, or even the UAE could pave the way for de-escalation of the current situation. However, there is a need for Pakistan to prove its innocence in collaboration with Indian authorities through this third party before any mediations.
Implications for Sri Lanka
The ripple effects of the Pahalgam terror attack are not lost on Sri Lanka. As a South Asian nation with its own history of terrorism and ethnic conflict, Sri Lanka is especially sensitive to developments in India and Pakistan. First, any deterioration in India-Pakistan relations affects regional stability. Sri Lanka’s trade, security, and maritime interests are deeply tied to a peaceful South Asia. Rising tensions can disrupt regional supply chains and diplomatic forums like SAARC, where Sri Lanka plays a balancing role.
Second, there are domestic implications. Sri Lanka’s Muslim and Tamil populations watch Kashmir closely, drawing parallels with their own grievances. If conflict escalates, it could influence sectarian narratives or foreign policy debates within Sri Lanka.
Finally, Sri Lanka must tread carefully in its diplomatic positioning. Leaning too heavily towards one side—India or Pakistan—could jeopardise its strategic autonomy. With growing Chinese influence and ongoing Western scrutiny over human rights, Sri Lanka must maintain a nuanced stance, calling for peace and multilateral engagement.
