THE CONTEXT: During the opening week of Kashmir’s spring tourist season, a mass shooting in Pahalgam’s Baisaran meadow claimed 26 civilian lives and injured 17 others — a calculated act by The Resistance Front, a Lashkar-e-Taiba proxy. Timed with U.S. Vice-President J.D. Vance’s visit to India, the attack aimed to internationalise the Kashmir issue and sabotage the region’s image of recovery, striking at tourism as a symbol of restored trust and stability.
BACKGROUND (WHY NOW?): STRATEGIC TRIGGERS BEHIND THE PAHALGAM TERROR ATTACK:
1. Civil–Military Disequilibrium and Revival of ‘Managed Escalation’ Doctrine: Following Pakistan’s February 2025 general elections, the military’s reassertion under General Asim Munir—a former ISI chief—has led to a decentralisation of decision-making within Rawalpindi’s GHQ. Gen. Munir is reviving the doctrine of ‘managed escalation’, a calibrated strategy of violence below the nuclear threshold, aiming to keep Kashmir on the boil without triggering full-scale retaliation.
-
- As per analyst Christine Fair, Pakistan’s military periodically instrumentalises Kashmir as a “low-cost high-impact theatre” to assert institutional primacy during periods of domestic churn.
2. Economic Fragility and Strategic Diversion: Pakistan’s economy remains precariously dependent on IMF life-support, with GDP growth hovering at 2.6% and inflation (CPI) projected under 1% in 2025 (World Bank, IMF WEO 2024). In such scenarios, external confrontation often serves as a diversionary tactic, shifting public focus away from economic pain towards nationalistic fervour.
-
- Historical Pattern: The Kargil incursion (1999), Mumbai attacks (2008), and Pulwama bombing (2019) all coincided with domestic legitimacy crises for the military or elected regimes in Pakistan.
3. Soft-Target Strategy: Tactical Terrorism to Fracture Mainstream: Targeting civilians — especially tourists — aligns with Pakistan’s longstanding asymmetric warfare doctrine, which seeks to:
-
- Erode confidence in Kashmir’s peace narrative,
- Provoke a disproportionate Indian response,
- Alienate local populations from the Indian state.
-
- This strategy mirrors the psychological warfare tactics embedded in hybrid conflict doctrines, leveraging perception battles over military gains. Such attacks are aimed more at shaping narratives than at achieving battlefield advantages.
4. Escalation Along the LoC: Breach of Ceasefire Understanding: The February 2021 ceasefire agreement between India and Pakistan had led to a notable decline in cross-border violence. However, April 2025 witnessed three major ceasefire violations, indicating a pattern of controlled escalation possibly sanctioned from higher command.
-
- Over 1,300 ceasefire violations occurred in 2020, compared to under 100 in 2022 and 2023, but the early months of 2025 show a sharp uptick ( MoD Reports).
SYNTHESIS: THE STRATEGIC LOGIC OF TIMING:
-
- The coincidence of internal volatility in Pakistan, resurgent military adventurism, global diplomatic activity (J.D. Vance’s visit), and the spring tourism window creates a near-textbook environment for orchestrating symbolic acts of violence with maximum psychological, diplomatic, and media impact.
- India must decode this pattern of proximate provocations and plausible deniability not episodically, but through an integrated deterrence framework combining external signalling, internal hardening, and narrative dominance.
THEORETICAL LENS: STRATEGIC FRAMEWORKS INFORMING INDIA’S RESPONSE TO CROSS-BORDER TERRORISM
1. Cross-Border Terrorism as Instrument of State Policy: Strategic Depth Doctrine: Pakistan’s consistent use of proxy terrorist groups, particularly in Kashmir, must be understood within the framework of its pursuit of “strategic depth”—a Cold War-era military doctrine which has evolved into an asymmetric strategy post-nuclearisation.
-
- The Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) sustains terrorist ecosystems like Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) to apply pressure on India below the threshold of conventional war, thereby exploiting the nuclear backdrop as a shield.
- This mirrors a “plausible deniability architecture”—where state-sponsored non-state actors act as strategic proxies.
2. Deterrence Theory 2.0: From Punishment to Prolonged Cost-Imposition: Classical deterrence theory, as articulated by Schelling and Waltz, hinges on credible threat of punishment. However, India’s strategic context requires a second-generation deterrence paradigm: not just retaliation, but cumulative cost-imposition across multiple non-kinetic dimensions.
Core Pillars of “Deterrence 2.0”:
-
- Diplomatic: Elevating terrorism from a bilateral grievance to a global norm-violation (e.g., FATF pressure).
- Economic: Targeted trade suspension, denial of MFN (Most Favoured Nation) benefits, review of Indus Waters Treaty provisions under Article 60 of Vienna Convention.
- Covert/Hybrid: Grey-zone operations to degrade terrorist infrastructure and communication nodes.
- Information Warfare: Use of digital diplomacy, public attribution, and narrative disruption on global platforms.
3. Complex Interdependence: Leveraging Linkages Without Military Escalation: Introduced by Keohane and Nye, the theory of Complex Interdependence provides a useful analytical lens in South Asia, where water, trade, and airspace function as non-military instruments of coercion and signalling.
THE ISSUES:
1. Intelligence Coordination Deficit: Silos Over Synergy: Despite decades of counterterror reform attempts post-Kargil, India’s intelligence architecture still suffers from agency compartmentalization.
-
- Lack of real-time integration between IB, RAW, Army Intelligence, CRPF, and State Police Special Branches.
- Absence of predictive AI-enabled threat modelling despite drone and CCTV presence — failure to detect six armed men in a high-density zone.
- Missed cues from Gen. Asim Munir’s provocative speech prior to the attack — highlighting the underutilisation of open-source intelligence (OSINT).
2. Escalatory Ladder Management vis-à-vis Nuclear Threshold: India’s ability to craft a proportional yet credible punitive framework is hampered by Pakistan’s low-intensity conflict strategy under the nuclear umbrella.
-
- Any visible retaliation risks escalation; but inaction reinforces Rawalpindi’s low-risk cost-benefit calculation.
- Absence of a publicly articulated “Ladder of Consequences Doctrine” blunts deterrence — allowing Pakistan plausible deniability.
3. Information Warfare & Communal Polarisation: Terror outfits exploit digital virality, fake narratives, and communal fault lines to augment impact beyond the battlefield.
-
- Weaponisation of religious identity in civilian targeting amplifies fear and divides — as seen in selective killings in Pahalgam.
- Pakistan’s ISPR-backed digital networks propagate misinformation that erodes national unity and interfaith trust.
-
- No national-level psychological operations (PSYOPS) doctrine, unlike UK’s Government Communication Headquarters (GCHQ) or US STRATCOM.
4. Livelihood Crisis for Kashmiris: Collapse of Peace Economy: Tourism, a ₹23,000 crore industry in J&K, is a lifeline for pony-wallahs, hoteliers, artisans, and youth — now directly threatened by terror.
-
- Every terror incident disrupts interstate emotional integration and economic interdependence.
- Collateral unemployment risk: One family member in tourism often supports four others — creating ripple economic trauma.
5. International Fatigue & Diplomatic Deprioritisation: Despite repeated attacks, global empathy has plateaued — Pakistan is no longer under FATF grey list; UNCCIT remains stalled.
-
- Post-2022, Islamabad’s “hybrid regime” under military control is once again normalised in Western diplomatic corridors.
- Rising Middle East-Pakistan trade linkages undermine India’s efforts at isolating Pakistan.
POLICY OPTIONS:
| Domain | Actionable Lever | Intended Cost on Pak |
|---|---|---|
| Targeted Kinetic | Covert counter terror raids on LeT/TRF launch pads | Raise risk for handlers without general war |
| Hydro Diplomacy | Maximise eastern river utilisation; fast track Ratle, Pakal Dul | Water stress signalling under IWT framework |
| Financial | Work with US/Gulf; re grey list Pak at FATF; push sanctions on ISI generals | Liquidity squeeze; reputational hit |
| Info/Cyber | Disrupt propaganda channels; expose Munir’s contradictions in Arabic/Urdu media | Erode ideological appeal |
THE WAY FORWARD:
Precision Deterrence Doctrine – No War, No Silence:
-
- Calibrate non-attributable covert action under revamped NTRO-R&AW Task Force targeting Pakistan-based proxy infrastructure.
-
- Resume targeted economic reprisals under Most Favoured Nation (MFN) suspension, WTO-consistent trade curbs.
- Prepare for cross-domain retaliation ladders — cyber disruption, asset seizures, coordinated diplomatic blowback — publicized as part of a ‘Credible Consequence Doctrine’.
Geo-Economic Punitive Alliances – Disrupt the Terror Finance Supply Chain
Recognising Pakistan’s vulnerability to economic chokeholds, India should:
-
- Use strategic diplomacy to press Riyadh, UAE, Qatar to halt Pakistan’s financial bailouts, especially through Islamic Development Bank.
- Call upon Trump-aligned U.S. lawmakers and Republican Senate lobbies to push for Pakistan’s FATF re-blacklisting.
- Activate bilateral FATCA enforcement agreements to trace terror money routed through diaspora accounts.
Cultural-Security Synergy: Build Economic Immunity in Kashmir
Targeted civilian killings aimed to sabotage the tourism economy. GOI must:
-
- Float the ‘Sabr-Suraksha Tourism Revival Scheme’ – with ₹500 cr budget for security-enhanced travel, micro-insurance, and religious tourism trails.
- Create Pahalgam Peace Circuit – from Chittisinghpura to Amarnath — with multi-faith heritage curation, countering the narrative of fear.
Strategic Moral Alignment with Global South: New Delhi Declaration on Terror
India must use this moment to craft a new international anti-terror doctrine:
-
- Launch a Delhi Conference on State-Backed Terror, urging the Global South to declare that “faith-motivated violence against civilians is genocide-adjacent”.
- Back UN ratification of the long-pending Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism (CCIT), leveraging support from Latin America, Africa, ASEAN.
- Push for sanctions on Pakistani military officials, under US Magnitsky Act-equivalents, and create a Global Terror Enabler Registry.
THE CONCLUSION:
The Pahalgam massacre is not merely an attack; it is a strategic provocation. India’s response must be multi-layered — combining diplomatic isolation, covert recalibration, and inclusive domestic healing. National unity, not internal discord, must be our guiding principle. Deterrence must move from theory to policy execution — where strategic ambiguity ends and credible consequence begins.
UPSC PAST YEAR QUESTION:
Q. Winning of ‘Hearts and Minds’ in terrorism-affected areas is an essential step in restoring the trust of the population. Discuss the measures adopted by the Government in this respect as part of the conflict resolution in Jammu and Kashmir. 2023
MAINS PRACTICE QUESTION:
Q. The Pahalgam terror attack is not just a security lapse, but a strategic and ideological challenge to India’s internal cohesion and external deterrence. Critically examine India’s counter-terrorism posture, with suggestions for a long-term deterrence framework.
SOURCE:
Spread the Word