Responding to the terror attack in Pahalgam

A terror attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, claimed the lives of 26 tourists, marking a strategically timed escalation by a Pakistan-backed proxy group, The Resistance Front, amidst rising tourism and the U.S. Vice President's visit to India. The act has reignited debates around India’s deterrence policy, cross-border terrorism, and Pakistan’s destabilising military posture.

Strategic Intent and Tactical Calculations

• Political Signal, Not Just Violence: The Pahalgam attack was a deliberate disruption of strategic normalcy in Kashmir, aimed at undermining the tourism-driven narrative of peace and progress, while also seeking to regain relevance for Pakistan in India’s foreign policy radar.
• Targeted Symbolism in Site Selection: The attack on Baisaran (nicknamed "Mini Switzerland"), a tourist haven near the Amarnath route, sought to psychologically scar the image of Kashmir as safe, using civilian deaths to sabotage a growing economy of peace.
• Institutional Lapses in Security Apparatus: Despite heavy investments in surveillance and counter-terrorism infrastructure, there was a glaring intelligence failure in a known high-value target area, revealing serious vigilance and coordination lapses among security agencies.

Pakistan’s Escalatory Doctrine and Role of ISI

• Proxy Warfare and Strategic Deniability: The Resistance Front, operationally linked to Lashkar-e-Taiba and backed by Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), continues the doctrine of deniable escalation — calculated attacks below the nuclear threshold while avoiding direct attribution.
• Internal Instability Driving External Aggression: Pakistan’s economic collapse and political dysfunction have historically triggered outward adventurism in Kashmir, used by the military to consolidate control and divert domestic dissent, as seen in past events like Kargil (1999) and Pulwama (2019).
• Role of General Asim Munir’s Aggressive Doctrine: Current Pakistani Army Chief General Asim Munir, former ISI head, has revived managed escalation rhetoric, with ceasefire violations and ideological posturing marking a return to a strategy that views Kashmir not as a peace project but as a tool for strategic leverage.

India’s Strategic Response and Policy Outlook

• Embrace Escalatory Credibility, Not Hesitation: India must adopt a policy of credible, calibrated deterrence through diplomatic isolation, economic leverage (e.g., Indus Waters Treaty), and covert operations — not as revenge, but as a sustained strategy to raise the cost of terrorism.
• Long-term Deterrence over Episodic Retaliation: Rather than reactive strikes, India must develop institutional continuity and bipartisan consensus in counter-terrorism policy, ensuring strategic patience and persistent diplomatic pressure that outlasts election cycles or international distractions.
• Integrating Internal Security with Public Trust: India’s internal approach should focus on economic integration, youth opportunities, and social cohesion in Kashmir. Framing Kashmiris as victims, not collaborators, is crucial for defeating the narrative-driven ecosystem that terrorist groups exploit.