India-Pakistan Joint Interview Pt. 1 “Border Tensions Persist After Ceasefire — Time to End the ‘War of Words'”

As the founding president of Asia Journalist Association and publisher of THE AsiaN, I have built a long-standing friendship with journalists from India and Pakistan. I have also seen them form bonds that transcend national boundaries by meeting journalists from both countries in one place.

However, the recent conflict between the two countries has become serious since the recent Kashmir terror attack. The governments of both countries, as well as the media, have continued to criticize each other harshly, and the situation is getting worse.

In response, THE AsiaN conducted two joint interviews with Gunjeet Sra, an Indian journalist and Nasir Aijaz, a Pakistani journalist, before and after the ceasefire between the two countries, in order to provide readers with an in-depth and balanced perspective.

THE AsiaN handed out the same questions to the journalists from both countries on topics such as ‘terrorism across the border,’ ‘temporary ceasefire,’ ‘local atmosphere,’ ‘media’s perspective on the situation,’ and ‘realistic solutions. THE AsiaN received written responses. The interviews conducted in Q&A format will be published in two parts in the English and Korean editions of THE AsiaN.

Following the terrorist attack in Indian-administered Kashmir on April 26, tensions between India and Pakistan have persisted. One of the central issues fueling the conflict is cross-border terrorism. How do the two governments differ in their stance on this matter?

Gunjeet Sra: From India’s perspective, the April 26 attack in Pahalgam is yet another example of the ongoing threat posed by cross-border terrorism emanating from Pakistan. India firmly believes that groups like Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), and Hizbul Mujahideen continue to operate with the full support and sponsorship of Pakistan’s state apparatus. These groups are part of a broader Pakistani strategy to destabilize Jammu and Kashmir and undermine India’s sovereignty through proxy violence.

India has long pointed to a consistent pattern of attacks originating from Pakistan, such as the 2001 Indian Parliament attack, the 2008 Mumbai attacks, the 2016 Pathankot airbase attack, and the 2019 Pulwama bombing. The recent attack in Pahalgam only strengthens India’s belief that these incidents are not isolated but part of a long-standing strategy.

Pakistan, however, denies any involvement in these attacks and often frames the violence in Kashmir as an indigenous uprising. From India’s perspective, this claim is both misleading and hypocritical, as Pakistan continues to provide safe havens for terrorists and their operations. India has made several attempts to engage in cooperation with Pakistan on counterterrorism. After the 2008 Mumbai attacks, India provided Pakistan with comprehensive evidence, including voice recordings, photographs, and call logs. In 2016, India even allowed a Pakistani Joint Investigation Team (JIT) to visit the Pathankot airbase to assist in the investigation. However, Pakistan has failed to act on the evidence provided. According to media reports citing sources, high-profile terror leaders like Hafiz Saeed and Masood Azhar continue to operate freely in Pakistan, despite being globally recognized as terrorists. This lack of meaningful action further reinforces India’s belief that Pakistan is not genuinely committed to combating terrorism.

For India, the core issue is that terrorism and dialogue cannot coexist. Any meaningful talks with Pakistan are impossible until Pakistan takes concrete, verifiable actions to dismantle the terror networks operating from its soil.

India has also raised the issue of Pakistan-sponsored terrorism at international forums like the United Nations, G20, and Financial Action Task Force (FATF). India’s efforts contributed to Pakistan being placed on the FATF grey list from 2018 to 2022 for its failure to curb terror financing. India believes that international pressure is crucial to force Pakistan to take responsibility for the terrorism emanating from its territory.

Nasir Aijaz: India views cross-border terrorism as a direct threat to its national security and maintains that ‘Pakistan has historically supported militant groups operating in Kashmir’. Pakistan often denies state involvement, framing attacks as parts of a broader struggle for self-determination for Kashmiris, and emphasizes that it opposes terrorism in all forms. The two countries’ narratives remain fundamentally opposed, fueling ongoing tensions.

On the afternoon of May 10, a temporary ceasefire was reached between the two countries under the mediation of U.S. President Donald Trump. Some analysts had predicted that third-party intervention could be a major variable in the conflict. What are your thoughts on this?

Gunjeet Sra: The Indian government has strongly denied U.S. President Donald Trump’s claim that he helped mediate a ceasefire between India and Pakistan using trade as leverage. According to India’s Ministry of External Affairs, there were no discussions involving trade during any interactions with U.S. officials, and the decision to observe a ceasefire was made bilaterally between India and Pakistan. India reiterated that the military operations were entirely conventional and not influenced by any external power.

Trump’s remarks drew criticism from opposition leaders in India, who questioned the government’s silence and expressed concern over the implication that India was being equated with Pakistan. Former diplomats also warned that such claims could damage India’s global image by reviving the outdated practice of viewing India and Pakistan as a linked pair in international diplomacy. They stressed the importance of maintaining India’s independent position on the global stage. Third party intervention is not something that India views as welcome at this point.

Nasir Aijaz: Third-party mediation can be a double-edged sword. While it offers an opportunity for dialogue and de-escalation, success depends on genuine commitment from all sides. The ceasefire under Trump’s mediation shows that external influence can temporarily reduce hostilities, but sustainable peace requires long-term diplomatic engagement, mutual trust, and addressing root causes beyond temporary agreements.

On May 12, the military leadership of both countries held their first meeting following the signing of the ceasefire. Do you believe there was meaningful progress, given that the two countries communicated via a hotline rather than meeting face-to-face? On the other hand, despite the ceasefire, gunfire continues to be reported in some disputed areas. Do you believe there is a possibility of the conflict escalating again at this stage?

Gunjeet Sra: It is a step in the right direction, albeit a cautious one. Maintaining communication, especially in tense situations, is important for avoiding misunderstandings or unintended escalation along the Line of Control. That said, India would likely see this interaction as routine and tactical, rather than a sign of any deeper progress.

While both countries are trying to uphold the terms of the ceasefire, there isn’t enough confidence yet to engage more directly or move towards a broader thaw in relations.

India remains skeptical about the long-term value of such exchanges unless they are accompanied by clear and sustained action from Pakistan to stop cross-border terrorism. In the past, ceasefire agreements and military dialogues have often been undermined by continued infiltration and attacks orchestrated from across the border. That’s why India is likely to view this hotline communication as a practical measure to maintain stability, not as an indication of genuine or lasting progress.

Continued gunfire in some areas shows that the ceasefire is fragile. India is committed to peace but has made it clear that any violations, especially those linked to cross-border terrorism, will be met with a strong response.

Nasir Aijaz: The fact that the military leadership of both countries held their first meeting following the ceasefire is a positive step, indicating a willingness to engage and communicate. While a hotline meeting is less personal than a face-to-face encounter, it nonetheless allows for direct dialogue and immediate clarification of issues, which can be crucial in early stages of peace processes.

Whether there was meaningful progress depends on the substance of the discussion—if concrete agreements, commitments, or measures to de-escalate further are made, then it suggests genuine forward movement. Conversely, if the communication is primarily introductory or vague, it may be more of a symbolic gesture.

Overall, such exchanges can be significant short-term indicators of willingness to cooperate, but sustained progress will require continued dialogue and tangible actions beyond just the initial meeting.

Despite the ceasefire, sporadic gunfire and incidents in disputed areas suggest underlying volatility. Without comprehensive solutions, miscalculations or accidental escalations could reignite broader hostilities. Moreover, despite the ceasefire, War of Words continues, which may spark the fire.

I would, however, suggest the leadership – both civilian and military, of two countries, to stop the War of Words while being engaged in negotiations. I noticed certain statements like ‘It was India, not Pakistan, who desired ceasefire’ (DG, ISPR, Pakistan), and ‘I’m Muslim, but Indian, and categorically say that we will not tolerate terrorism at any cost’ (Military Spokeswoman of India). Such a kind of ‘War of Words’ should be avoided.

Although a temporary ceasefire has been declared, border areas and high-risk zones remain tense. What is the current atmosphere on the ground in both countries, and how are citizens reacting?

Gunjeet Sra: On the Indian side, the atmosphere in border areas remains tense and uncertain. While the ceasefire has brought a pause in open hostilities, there is little sense of security among civilians living near the Line of Control, who have endured years of intermittent shelling and displacement.

People living in these regions have expressed a deep mistrust in the peace process, especially given past experiences where ceasefires were short-lived. The prevailing mood is one of cautious hope mixed with anxiety.

In urban centers across India, public sentiment is shaped largely by media narratives, which have often been nationalistic and emotional. There’s widespread support for a tough stance on terrorism, but also concern for soldiers posted in forward areas. Civil society groups and some commentators have called for restraint and diplomacy, but these voices are often overshadowed by demands for action and justice.

Nasir Aijaz: The atmosphere is tense but cautious. Many citizens are anxious but hopeful for peace, as they wish to see normalcy and development. Security remains heightened, and some are wary of renewed violence, while others remain optimistic for a peaceful resolution.

(To be Continued)

Link to Korean article : [인도-파키스탄 기자 공동인터뷰 1] “휴전 이후에도 국경지대 불안 여전…’말의 전쟁’ 지양해야” – 아시아엔 THE AsiaN