Public anger over the India-Pakistan cessation of hostilities likely reflects decades of unresolved tensions, the shock of civilian deaths that ignited the conflict, and expectations that the fighting was far from over, experts say.
They say the associated information ecosystem — marked by claims, counterclaims and a desire to uncover the truth — also heightened the public's engagement with the conflict sparked by the April 22 terror attack in Pahalgam that killed 26 people, mostly tourists.
Many in India have questioned the government’s decision, announced on Saturday, to hold down fire, despite assurances that the armed forces remain combat-ready. Foreign secretary Vikram Misri faced abuse on X, accusing him of treason over India agreeing to stall hostilities with Pakistan. Even his daughter was not spared.
In private conversations, several people have advocated for continued military action to, as one former bank officer put it, “teach Pakistan a lesson”.
Psychologists suggest that such calls for continued military action stem not from bloodlust but from a complex interplay of factors, including perceptions of injustice, the emotionally charged history between India and Pakistan, and the immediate catalyst for the conflict.
“Public engagement would likely have been lower had this been a border conflict,” said Rituparna Chakraborty, a professor of psychology at Christ University in Bengaluru and an expert in social psychology.
Chakraborty added: “The starting point this time was the terror attack on tourists in Pahalgam — it is easier for ordinary people to connect themselves with the victims.”
Chakraborty also pointed to a psychological theory known as “excitation transfer”, which may have also influenced the public’s response. According to the theory, residual emotional arousal from one event can intensify reactions to a subsequent event.
“In the context of what happened in Pahalgam, associated perceptions of injustice amplify the emotional importance of payback or retribution,” Chakraborty explained.
Some experts highlight the role of “groupthink”, a phenomenon where the desire for consensus within a cohesive group leads to poor decision-making and the suppression of dissenting viewpoints.
“Groupthink can lower the capacity for rational thinking, diminish individual responsibility and reduce individual culpability,” said Prerna Sharma, associate professor of clinical psychology at the Institute of Human Behaviour and Allied Sciences, New Delhi.
Sharma notes that the current deluge of information, often shared through social media platforms, can foster groupthink among individuals engaged in digital information-sharing communities. “There is no need for any physical congregations of people for this,” she said. “Groupthink can often trivialise what should be a topic of serious discourse.”
Further complicating the public’s reaction is the evolving nature of how people process information.
“For some people, the cessation of military action might be like a plug being pulled, like a game abruptly stopped just as constant updates were building anticipation of something non-routine and big,” said Varsha Singh, professor of psychology at the Indian Institute of Technology in Delhi.
Unlike sport events where people can track minute-to-minute changes in scores and the information accessed by everyone is largely uniform, Singh said, the conflict presented claims and counterclaims, compelling individuals to actively seek out and assess varying narratives.
“This heightens the mystery; people who were mentally not interested ín following the conflict wanted to seek answers to their curiosity, resulting in further increase in engagement, constant news is almost addictive.
“In such a scenario and amid expectations of continued fighting, purely from an information processing perspective for those who were not closely related to the conflict, the cessation of hostilities might be a sudden, unexpected event that prematurely terminated the daily scorekeeping, while exchanging different narratives might have served as a social glue for some. This would not apply to those who had personal stakes in the events,” she said.