By Dr. Muzammil Ahad Dar

Abstract

This paper explores the 2025 Pahalgam terrorist attack through the lens of Pugnaciousism, a conceptual framework that emphasizes the normalization of aggression and the strategic legitimization of violence in conflict-ridden societies. By analyzing this incident within the broader geopolitical and socio-political context of the Kashmir conflict, the study examines how aggressive postures by insurgent groups and corresponding state responses perpetuate a cycle of hostility, distrust, and alienation. The framework of Pugnaciousism provides insights into the complex relational dynamics among local populations, insurgent factions, and state authorities, highlighting how entrenched grievances, perceived oppression, and identity politics fuel enduring unrest. Furthermore, the paper discusses the domestic and international ramifications of the conflict, especially its impact on India-Pakistan relations and global diplomatic narratives. Through a critical engagement with historical and contemporary sources, this study argues for a nuanced understanding of aggression not merely as a symptom of conflict but as a relational strategy that shapes stakeholder behavior and obstructs peacebuilding efforts. Ultimately, it advocates for multidimensional conflict resolution approaches that address the deeper socio-political roots of aggression, thereby contributing to more sustainable peace processes in the region.

The concept of Pugnaciousism, characterized by an aggressive affirmation, serves as a objective through which we can understand the terrorist attack of Pahalgam in 2025 and its consequences on the current conflict of the Kashmir. This incident not only illustrates brutality inherent in this form of activism but also emphasizes how increased aggression among groups of insurgents influences the relational dynamics between local populations, militant organizations and state authorities. Pahalgam's attack provides a living illustration of the dynamics of changing power in the region, illuminating the rooted feelings of animosity and distrust that characterize the interactions between these stakeholders.

While I engage in the theoretical framework of Pugnaciousism, I recognize that motivations stimulating such violence are often rooted in a complex interaction of historical grievances, a socio-political exclusion and a desire deeply assisted for the agency. The groups of insurgents operating in Kashmir have increasingly adopted the aggressive posture not only as a means of asserting their influence but also as a resistance signal against the perceived oppression of the State. The actions of these groups must therefore be understood as part of a broader story in which local populations find themselves torn between fear, loyalty and the desire for stability. The use of terror as a tactical complicates relational dynamics, because local communities are often captured in the cross fires between state security operations aimed at suppressing violence and insurgents who present themselves as defenders of the cause of Kashmir.

In addition, the consequences of such attacks have repercussions by various strata of society, affecting not only immediate victims, but also shaping the perception of the public and political responses. The state, struggling with the need to restore order while simultaneously approaching the underlying problems of dissatisfaction, faces a great appeal. Pahalgam's attack serves as a catalyst for the intensification of military strategies in the region, thereby perpetuating a cycle of violence which moreover alienates the local population. This interconnection between aggressive insurgent actions and the resulting state reactions illustrate the depth of the Kashmir conflict, emphasizing the critical need for a nuanced understanding of these relational dynamics.

Thanks to my exploration of Pugnaciousism and its application to the Kashmir conflict, I aim to unravel the complexities that define relations with stakeholders in this geopolitical landscape. The study of Pugnaciousism encourages a complete examination of the way in which the aggression manifests itself in various forms, influencing the perceptions of legitimacy and support for groups of the State and the insurgents. Thus, the implications of Pahalgam's attack call for more in -depth consideration of the way in which the aggression not only shapes immediate violence, but also has an impact on the long -term perspectives of dialogue and peace. It is essential to recognize that the intensity of conflicts in Kashmir is not only rooted in external factors but is also motivated by the internal dynamics which reflect historical and socio -political realities. Understanding these nuances will be essential while I seek to contribute information on future peace processes and conflict resolution strategies in the region (Waqas and Rehman, 2023)., The terrorist attack of Pahalgam of 2025 acts as an application par excellence that encapsulate the changing paradigms within the Kashmir conflict, in particular through the lens of Pugnaciousism. This concept, characterized by an aggressive position often adopted by groups immersed in conflict, illuminates the intricate network of reasons and responses that feed the activities of the ongoing insurgents in the region. Jaswal's thesis (2024) effectively highlights how rebellious actors are not monolithic; They express adaptability in their strategies to navigate in the socio-political panorama of Kashmir. This adaptability is fundamental, as not only reflects the multifaceted nature of their grievances, but also underlines an incessant research of the Agencies between the perceived systemic oppression.

The implications of Pahalgam's attack extend beyond simple violence; They mean a deeper relational dynamic among the main parties involved in the Kashmir conflict. For the local population, this accident aggravates an already precarious existence. Many people find struggling with rigid choices, torn between an innate loyalty towards local insurgents - often seen as defenders of the identity of Kashmir - and a palpable fear of government reprisals. The weight of this internal conflict affects social cohesion, further strengthening divisions within the communities that could otherwise join against shared adversities of violence.

In addition, the government forces were forced to recalibrate their counterpines strategies in response to the evolution nature of the threats exemplified by the attack of Pahalgam. The dependence on military interventions often intensifies the cycle of no confidence, leading to an escalation of the Pugnace behavior among the insurgents. Therefore, the approach of the state-frequently characterized by heavy-weight measures that alienate large segments of the population, which can see these actions as oppressive rather than protective. This reaction can inadvertently increase the charm of the insurrection, providing fertile soils for recruitment and radicalization.

In this intricate environment, the regional parties, such as neighboring countries and international entities, also carry out significant roles in modeling the trajectory of the conflict. Their different interests and interventions can further complicate the relationships between local actors. For example, the support external to the groups of rebels often strengthen their determination, deepening the cycle of violence and fear. On the contrary, the diplomatic pressures of the international community aimed at promoting peace sometimes do not win the shaded realities on the ground, leaving the local complaints without conducting.

Therefore, Pahalgam's attack not only underlines the acute implications of Pugnaciousism within the Kashmir landscape but also acts as a reflective point to understand the relational dynamics in play among all the main parties concerned. Each entity is engaged in a delicate balancing deed, in which their actions can mitigate or aggravate tensions, illustrating the complexity of the conflict in this historically controversial region. While the interested parties navigate this labyrinth of loyalty, fears and retaliation, the cycle of violence remains a persistent spectrum, modeling not only individual lives but also the collective narrative of Kashmir., The implications of the terrorist attack of Pahalgam of 2025 extend significantly into the diplomatic arena, influencing the relationships between India and Pakistan, deeply influencing the international perceptions of the Kashmir conflict. As highlighted by Hoskote (2018), asymmetry in war plays a fundamental role in complicating the perspectives for the resolution of conflicts in this volatile region. The attack acts as a clear reminder of persistent instability that characterizes the Kashmir conflict and underlines the relevance of Pugnaciousism as an objective through which to analyze the dynamics of the stakeholders.

Pugnaciousism refers to the institutional and ideological entrenchment of confrontational postures among competing actors. It denotes a cycle where aggression is normalized, violence is legitimized as strategic response, and every action justifies a reaction. Unlike traditional conflict theories focused on rational choices or ethnic grievances, pugnaciousism emphasizes relational hostility and symbolic gestures of dominance.

It is an aggressive and combative position characterized by a propensity to conflict, model the responses of various actors involved in the Kashmir crisis. The immediate reaction of the Indian government in the aftermath of the Pahalgam attack is indicative of a hardening of positions, in which retaliation narratives often obscure the opportunities for dialogue. The definition of the definition of the government of military action on the diplomatic discourse illustrates how Pugnaciousism can obstruct potential negotiation paths. This reaction reflects the historical model in which both nations, led by nationalistic fervour and historical complaints, find it difficult to engage in a constructive dialogue.

The relationship between India and Pakistan is not simply a bilateral question; It also resonates on a global scale. The international community, observing these developments, often prepares with its perceptions of the conflict. A Pugnace approach from both sides enlarges the risk of wider repercussions, with foreign nations weighed down by the responsibility to avoid the escalation of conflicts. The parties concerned as regional powers and international organizations can hesitate to intervene or mediate, fearing repercussions or further trench of pugnace attitudes. Consequently, the space for the contracts of diplomatic involvement, leaving room for the distrust and hostility to be proliferated.

In addition, the attack has implications for the parties interested domestic both in India and in Pakistan. In India, the public response to terrorism often feeds an atmosphere of jingoism, in which political leaders exploit nationalist feelings to strengthen their narratives. This dynamic of pugnaceism can undermine the efforts of civil society aimed at reconciliation and construction of peace, making it difficult to emerge and obtain moderate tractions. The voices that support peace and the discussion struggle to compete against the background of a growing militarized rhetoric, which, in turn, model the political panorama.

In Pakistan, the government faces a double challenge: to manage domestic factions that can take advantage of the situation for their agendas while maintaining a diplomatic position that recognizes international control and pressure. Pugnace reactions to the Pahalgam attack could encourage rigid elements within the country, complicating the governance mechanisms and their ability to pursue a constructive approach to the events. The relational dynamics between these interested parties reveal a cycle of aggression that not only strengthens existing tensions but also complicates negotiations on political and safety fronts.

In analysing the terrorist attack of Pahalgam through the lens of Pugnaciousism, it becomes evident that the aggressive postures adopted by the main parties concerned serve to root the divisions rather than facilitate the resolution. Understanding these relational dynamics is essential to fully evaluate the evolution panorama of the Kashmir conflict and the prospects for future peace initiatives. While the interested parties respond to the catalyst of violence, the rooted narratives and the dynamics of power rooted in Pugnaciousism in the end dictate the terms of commitment both at regional and international level., Finally, the analysis of Pugnaciousism in relation to Pahalgam's 2025 terrorist attack highlights the urgent need for a multifaceted approach to conflict resolution in Kashmir. Pugnaciousism, characterized by an aggressive posture in relation to perceived threats, serves as a critical lens through which to understand the dynamics of the Kashmir conflict. This lens allows an examination of how historical complaints, community identities, and regional power struggles have increased to a level where violence becomes a predominant response. The attack of Pahalgam not only means a continuation of hostilities, but also defines a precarious precedent for future interactions between the main stakeholders involved - that is, the Indian state, separatist groups and the local population. One such example is blasting and raising down the houses of militants and terrorists by the military forces in Kashmir.

Addressing the causes of aggression associated with Pugnaciousism requires a complete analysis of the Kashmir sociopolitical landscape. The intertwined fabric of the identity policy, along with economic deprivation, acts as a catalyst for violence and a barrier to peace. In considering the various perceptions and interests of all stakeholders, it is evident that any process of resolution cannot only focus on the cessation of hostilities; It must be involved with the underlying issues that perpetuate conflicts. For example, the marginalization felt by segments of the population of Kashmir usually feeds radicalization, which can lead to violent actions in response to perceived injustice.

In addition, the relational dynamics in play between stakeholders further complicates the pursuit of peace. The Indian state, committed to a territorial integrity policy, remains firm in its position against insurgency, while separatist factions continue to defend total autonomy or independence. In this loaded atmosphere, the local population is trapped between national priorities and aspirations of self -determination. Each entity's actions and reactions to events such as Pahalgam's attack are deeply influenced by their historical narratives, prevalent emotions and strategic goals. Thus, any structure intended for reconciliation must recognize and address these relational dynamics - consenting that all voices are represented and not suppressed.

In considering these complexities, it is essential to promote the dialogue that transcends traditional narratives of victimization and resistance. The involvement of multiple stakeholders in open discussions can serve as a basis for building confidence and establishing the bases for more lasting peace agreements. Although it is vital to address immediate safety concerns, the broader context should not be neglected. A comprehensive structure that encompasses diplomatic dialogue, community involvement and economic investment can significantly relieve tensions, promoting a change in the pugnacious responses to solving collaborative problems.

Recognize that Pugnaciousism is not only an individual feature, but a collective orientation in socio-political contexts allows us to understand the mechanics of conflict at a deeper level. By discarding reductionist views that simplify the conflict for mere terrorism or suppression of the state, we can appreciate the multifaceted realities that influence the situation of Kashmir. This critical perspective aligns with recent scholarships, suggesting that the effective resolution of conflicts in environments characterized by aggression requires patience, sustained engagement and willingness to face uncomfortable truths about the dynamics and identity of power in the kashmir conflict (Waqas & Rehman, 2023;

Dr. Muzammil Ahad Dar is Assistant Professor of Political Science at Kumaraguru College of Liberal Arts and Science, Coimbatore India 

References

Waqas, M., & Rehman, K. (2023). The Kashmir Dispute: A Strategic Analysis. VFAST Transactions on Education and Social Sciences, 11(3), 17-23.  

https://vfast.org/journals/index.php/VTESS/article/view/1662

Jaswal, A. (2024). The Changing Image of Insurgency in Kashmir (Doctoral dissertation, Staffordshire University). https://eprints.staffs.ac.uk/8588/

Hoskote, A. (2018). Review of published literature on conflict in Kashmir, asymmetry in war, conflict resolution, & armed forces in transition. International Journal of Research in Engineering, IT and Social Sciences, 8(05), 74-80.

 https://www.academia.edu/download/56609821/IJREISS_1879_49692.pdf