Responding to the Terror Attack in Pahalgam

Context

• The terrorist attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, is not a random act of violence, but a meticulously calculated political signal aimed at disrupting strategic stability, denting the image of a reviving Kashmir, and challenging India’s diplomatic posture.
• Occurring at a time when tourism was beginning to flourish and coinciding with U.S. Vice-President J.D. Vance’s visit to India, the attack underscores a deliberate attempt to project instability and provoke response.
• Amid these developments, it is important to explore the motives behind the attack, examine its broader geopolitical context, critique the gaps in India’s security apparatus, and propose a long-term strategic framework for deterrence and stability.

The Motives Behind the Attack, Pakistan Factor and Proxy War Paradigm

• A Calculated Strike on Peace and Normalcy
  • The setting of the attack, Baisaran, popularly known as mini Switzerland, is symbolic.
  • The target was not merely civilians, but the very notion of Kashmir as a safe, rejuvenating tourist destination.
  • By targeting a site associated with joy, leisure, and innocence, the perpetrators intended to etch fear into public consciousness and derail the narrative of normalcy.
  • The visceral imagery of bloodshed in a place of beauty and calm has amplified public outrage and psychological trauma.
  • Moreover, the timing reveals geopolitical calculation.
  • Just as Kashmir was emerging as a viable tourist destination and India’s global diplomacy was gaining momentum, the attack served to draw global attention back to unresolved tensions, particularly the cross-border dimensions rooted in Pakistan’s support for proxy terror groups.
• The Pakistan Factor and the Proxy War Paradigm
  • Responsibility for the attack was claimed by The Resistance Front, a proxy organisation tied to Lashkar-e-Taiba, operating under the umbrella of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI).
  • This pattern, employing nominally independent terror groups to maintain plausible deniability, has long characterized Pakistan’s asymmetric warfare strategy.
  • From Kargil in 1999 to Pulwama in 2019, each significant internal or civil-military crisis within Pakistan has been accompanied by escalatory acts targeting India, particularly in Kashmir.
  • General Asim Munir, Pakistan’s current army chief and a former ISI director, appears to be reviving the doctrine of managed escalation, provocations kept below the nuclear threshold to maintain strategic pressure on India while avoiding full-scale war.
  • His overt ideological rhetoric and increasing ceasefire violations along the Line of Control (LoC) reflect a hardening stance, fuelled in part by Pakistan’s internal instability.

Intelligence and Security Failures

• Despite being a known tourist hub and a gateway to the Amarnath shrine, Pahalgam appears to have suffered from serious lapses in intelligence and surveillance.
• The absence of drone and electronic monitoring, despite prior investments, signals a troubling complacency in counter-terror preparedness.
• While not on the scale of the Kargil intelligence failure, the incident points to systemic gaps that must be urgently addressed.

The Way Forward

• Toward a Long-Term Strategy of Deterrence
  • India’s responses to terrorism have often been episodic and reactive.
  • While necessary, condemnation and isolated acts of retaliation have failed to shift Pakistan’s strategic calculus.
  • What is required is a long-term, institutionalised deterrence strategy that transcends political cycles and is grounded in political consensus.
  • Classical deterrence theory emphasises not just the threat of punishment, but the imposition of cumulative and credible costs.
  • India must therefore embrace a framework of escalatory credibility, one that includes diplomatic isolation, reconsideration of resource-sharing arrangements like water, and the enhancement of covert capabilities aimed at disrupting terrorist networks across the border.
  • These are not reckless options, but essential tools of statecraft used effectively by other nations.
• Recognition of Kashmiris as Victims, Not Collaborators
  • It is crucial to recognise that the people of Kashmir are not complicit in this violence. They are its primary victims.
  • The attack was designed not only to kill, but to sever the growing ties between the Valley and the rest of India. Young Kashmiris today seek education, employment, and peace, not militancy.
  • To alienate them with suspicion is to risk losing the very demographic that holds the key to long-term peace.
  • Hence, India's internal response must prioritise inclusive development, sustained economic investment, and social integration over repression or blanket securitization.
• Leveraging the Diplomatic Channel
  • The presence of a senior U.S. official in India during the attack presents a diplomatic opportunity.
  • India must leverage this moment to push for firmer language and actionable commitments from allies against state-sponsored terrorism.
  • Sympathy in the aftermath of attacks is welcome, but what India needs more is preventative action and global pressure on Pakistan’s support systems.

Conclusion

• The Pahalgam massacre is not an isolated event but a chapter in a long and painful saga of asymmetric warfare.
• It is a reminder that ambiguity and restraint without consequence embolden the aggressor.
• India must now respond not merely with emotion, but with strategy, not with isolated reactions, but with systemic reforms and calibrated deterrence.
• The language of credible consequence is the only one that has historically restrained Pakistan’s adventurism. It is time India speaks it, again and with resolve.

Q1. What was the main target of the Pahalgam attack?
Ans. The attack targeted both innocent civilians and the image of Kashmir as a safe tourist destination.

Q2. Who claimed responsibility for the attack?
Ans. The Resistance Front, linked to Lashkar-e-Taiba and Pakistan’s ISI.

Q3. What major security lapse was highlighted?
Ans. A failure in intelligence and absence of surveillance in a high-tourism zone.

Q4. What strategic approach does the essay advocate for India?
Ans. Long-term, credible deterrence across political administrations.

Q5. How should India engage with Kashmir internally?
Ans. Through economic investment, political inclusion, and rejecting narratives that alienate locals. 

Source:The Hindu