Amid widespread reports on India media of Pakistan’s alleged violations along the Line of Control (LoC), Pakistan’s armed forces have denied the accusations both publicly and by establishing contact between the Director General Military Operations (DGMOs) on both sides and discussing the charges.

Apart from accusing Pakistan of firing along the LoC and even infiltrating the Indian side, India also alleges that Pakistani soldiers mutilated the body of two Indian soldiers. DGMO Pakistan has asked for actionable evidence – and if there is any merit to India’s claims it must provide proof behind these assertions.

The accusation of Pakistani soldiers mutilating the bodies of fallen Indian men is unprecedented – accusing a standing army of treating enemy soldiers or their remains inhumanely is no laughing matter. But considering the past conduct of the armed forces of Pakistan, it is altogether unlikely that Pakistan’s soldiers, trained and disciplined to follow strict orders would indulge in such a cruel and barbaric act. The army has conditioned its soldiers along the lines of professionalism, and examples of the past negate the accusations from India.

It is not as if these accusations have not been levied by India before – four years ago, India made the same claim, only for it to fizzle out due to a lack of proof.

The question then becomes about motive; why would India attack the integrity of the Pakistan Army, unless it needed to detract from the failings of its own security forces? The timing of these allegations should be noted – at a time when the international community is taking greater notice of atrocities committed by the Indian state in Kashmir, and only a day after COAS Qamar Javed Bajwa visited the LoC in the Hajji Pir sector of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, India responded by deflecting with baseless allegations.

Pakistan has taken a positive step by contacting the Indian government directly through the proper channel. The hotline is in place to prevent LoC violations and cross-border infiltration – by denying the rumours, Pakistan has cleared up its name. If India has proof to the contrary, it must share this because the burden lies on the Indian side to prove Pakistan is guilty.

The simple fact that both countries are unable to contact one another until after a violation has occurred is also partially to blame. Ultimately, the relationship with India is stagnant; it’s not as if there is no contact, but finding progress in the ties between the two over the last five years is futile. The Indian side shares the largest portion of the blame, and until it sees the error of its ways, Pakistan can expect more accusations without proof.