In a decisive departure from its usual restraint policy, Pakistan will formally brief the United Nations Security Council on India’s escalating hostility. Islamabad is making it clear to anyone willing to listen that New Delhi threatens regional stability and breaches international law. The decision comes amid a string of provocations: India’s unproven attribution of the Pahalgam attack to Pakistan, the suspension of Indus Waters Treaty talks, and a demand for Pakistani diplomatic staff to exit by April 30. These are all part of a deliberate effort to frame Pakistan as the perpetual aggressor. For too long, India has enjoyed impunity in shaping the global narrative around its regional disputes; capitalising on its economic weight and Western partnerships to portray itself as a victim of terror, all the while evading scrutiny for its own violations–whether in Kashmir, along the Line of Control, or in the conduct of its diplomacy. Pakistan’s move to engage the international circuit is therefore nothing short of a deliberate and well-structured bid to demand consequences and accountability. There is precedent. In the lead-up to past escalations (Pulwama in 2019, Balakot, Uri) India moved swiftly to blame, isolate, and posture, often before investigations had even begun. Each time, Pakistan was left to defend itself reactively, while Indian narratives dominated global headlines. The cost of this narrative asymmetry has now become too high to ignore. Even more concerning is India’s willingness to politicise the Indus Waters Treaty: one of the most durable frameworks in South Asian diplomacy. To turn water, a basic human right, into a diplomatic weapon is not only provocative; it is reckless in a region already grappling with climate shocks, glacier melt, and resource scarcity. The UNSC may not intervene directly. It may, as it often has, retreat into procedure and ambiguity. But Pakistan’s message is unambiguous: the world cannot say it wasn’t warned. The alarm has been sounded. The choice before the international community could not be clear-cut: confront escalation and demand restraint or look away, again, and allow a dangerous game between nuclear neighbours to escalate unchecked. *