After Pahalgam: War or diplomacy for India?

Satyabrat Borah

(satyabratborah12@gmail.com)

The Pahalgam terror attack on April 22, 2025, has left India reeling. The brutal killing of 26 tourists, including 25 Indians and one Nepali, in the serene Baisaran meadow—often called “mini Switzerland”—was a calculated assault not just on innocent lives but on the fragile sense of normalcy in Jammu and Kashmir. The Resistance Front, a shadowy offshoot of the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba, claimed responsibility, thrusting the India-Pakistan rivalry back into the global spotlight. As outrage sweeps the nation, from protests in London to emotional funerals in Pune, the question looms large: What should India do now? Should it wage war against Pakistan or pursue a diplomatic offensive? The answer lies in a delicate balance of strength, restraint, and strategy, shaped by history, geopolitics, and the aspirations of a billion-plus people.

The attack’s timing and target were no accident. Pahalgam, a jewel of Kashmir’s tourism, symbolizes India’s efforts to project stability in the region after the 2019 revocation of Jammu and Kashmir’s special status. By striking civilians—families picnicking, honeymooners, and pilgrims—the attackers aimed to shatter this narrative and reignite tensions. India’s swift response, announced after a Cabinet Committee on Security meeting chaired by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, was a barrage of diplomatic measures: suspending the Indus Waters Treaty, closing the Attari-Wagah border, expelling Pakistani military attachés, and banning Pakistani nationals from entering India under the SAARC Visa Exemption Scheme. Pakistan retaliated, closing its airspace, suspending trade, and threatening to revoke the 1972 Simla Agreement, escalating the crisis to a dangerous brink.

The public clamour for action is palpable. From social media to street protests, voices demand justice—some even call for military strikes akin to the 2016 Uri surgical strikes or the 2019 Balakot airstrikes. The emotional weight of the attack, with stories of victims like Sushil Nathaniel from Indore or the Nepali tourist Sudeep Neupane, fuels this anger. Yet, India’s response must transcend raw emotion. A war with Pakistan, a nuclear-armed neighbour, is fraught with peril. The two nations have fought four wars since 1947, three over Kashmir, and the shadow of nuclear escalation looms over any military calculus. As military historian Srinath Raghavan noted, both sides are restrained by their nuclear arsenals, forcing calculated, limited responses to avoid catastrophic miscalculation.

A full-scale war would also strain India’s resources and global standing. India’s economy, poised for growth, could face disruptions from prolonged conflict. International allies, while condemning the attack, urge restraint. The United States, through spokesperson Tammy Bruce, called for justice but stopped short of endorsing military action. European and G20 nations, briefed by India’s Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri, expressed solidarity but would likely baulk at supporting a war that risks regional destabilization. China, a key player in the region, remains a wildcard—its response to India’s moves could complicate matters, especially given its own interests in the Indus River system.

Military action, however, cannot be entirely ruled out. Targeted strikes, like those in 2016 and 2019, could restore deterrence and satisfy domestic demands for action. Intelligence suggests 42 terrorist launch pads are active in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, and neutralising them could disrupt militant networks. Yet, as analyst Michael Kugelman points out, such strikes carry risks of escalation. Pakistan’s military, under General Asim Munir, is more stable than in past crises and likely to retaliate. The 2019 Balakot episode, where Pakistan shot down an Indian jet and captured its pilot, underscores the potential for tit-for-tat spirals. Covert operations, offering deniability, might be a safer bet, but they lack the public catharsis of visible retaliation.

Diplomacy, then, emerges as India’s most potent weapon—if wielded with precision. The measures already taken, particularly suspending the Indus Waters Treaty, strike at Pakistan’s economic lifeline. The Indus River system is critical for Pakistan’s agriculture and hydropower, and India’s threat to withhold water, as articulated by Water Resources Minister C.R. Patil, has provoked Islamabad’s ire, with Pakistan calling it an “act of war”. This move, while bold, must be calibrated to avoid international backlash. The World Bank, which brokered the 1960 treaty, and multilateral institutions may pressure India to reverse course. India must leverage its diplomatic clout to justify its stance, framing the suspension as a response to Pakistan’s failure to curb cross-border terrorism.

 Further diplomatic isolation of Pakistan is a viable strategy. India’s briefings to envoys from 45 nations, including G20 members and regional players like the UAE and Oman, signal a concerted effort to build a global coalition. Highlighting Pakistan’s links to groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba, designated as terrorists by the UN, strengthens India’s case. Pakistan’s denial of involvement, with Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar demanding “credible evidence”, rings hollow given the Resistance Front’s social media presence traced to Pakistani soil. India could push for sanctions or FATF scrutiny to choke Pakistan’s financial networks, though this requires navigating complex global alignments, including Bangladesh’s warming ties with Pakistan.

Economic measures can amplify diplomatic pressure. Closing the Attari border and suspending trade, as India has done, disrupts Pakistan’s economy, already reeling from inflation and debt. India could explore cyber operations to target terrorist financing or propaganda networks, though this risks escalating into a broader cyber conflict. Domestically, India must bolster security in Kashmir. The attack exposed lapses—reports indicate no police permission was granted for tourists to access Baisaran meadow. Intensified counter-terror operations, like the arrest of two associates in Kulgam and a Rs 20 lakh reward for information on the attackers, are steps in the right direction. Protecting Kashmir’s tourism, a lifeline for locals, is equally critical to counter Pakistan’s narrative of chaos.

The domestic political landscape complicates India’s choices. The all-party meeting on April 24, chaired by Defence Minister Rajnath Singh, showed unity, with leaders across parties condemning the attack and demanding action against terror camps. Yet, opposition figures like Rahul Gandhi, who visited victims’ families, have criticised the government’s Kashmir policy, alleging security failures. Public pressure, amplified by figures like cricketer Gautam Gambhir calling for severed sporting ties, demands a “loud and clear” response, as Singh promised. Any perceived weakness could embolden critics and erode the government’s credibility.

India’s response must also consider the Kashmiri people. The attack has devastated local livelihoods, with tourists fleeing and airlines operating extra flights from Srinagar. Chief Minister Omar Abdullah’s description of the attack as unprecedented in scale underscores the need for community engagement. Ensuring safety for Kashmiris, as promised by state police, and countering Pakistan’s propaganda that paints the attack as a “false flag” are vital. Pakistan’s claim, echoed by Defence Minister Khawaja Asif, seeks to deflect blame but lacks credibility given the Resistance Front’s explicit motives against “outsiders” in Kashmir.

A hybrid approach—combining targeted military action with aggressive diplomacy—offers the best path forward. Limited, precise strikes on terrorist infrastructure, paired with covert operations, could degrade militant capabilities without triggering all-out war. Diplomatically, India should double down on isolating Pakistan, rallying global support through forums like the UN and G20. Economic pressure, including sustained trade and visa restrictions, can weaken Pakistan’s resolve. At home, strengthening Kashmir’s security and economy will counter the narrative of vulnerability. Prime Minister Modi’s vow to pursue the perpetrators “to the ends of the earth” must translate into actions that are resolute yet restrained, ensuring justice without plunging the region into chaos.

The Pahalgam attack is a grim reminder of the enduring challenge of terrorism in Kashmir. India stands at a crossroads, with the world watching. War may satisfy the urge for vengeance, but its costs are steep. Diplomacy, backed by strategic force, offers a smarter way to assert India’s resolve, protect its people, and secure its future. The memory of the 26 lives lost demands nothing less than a response that is as wise as it is strong, ensuring that such tragedies are never repeated.