THE CONTEXT: The Resistance Front (TRF), a group linked to Lashkar-e-Taiba, claimed responsibility for a terrorist attack in Pahalgam. In response, India suspended the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty with Pakistan. The situation escalated after Pakistan’s Army Chief reiterated the “Two-Nation Theory,” emphasizing religious divisions between Hindus and Muslims. International bodies, including the United Nations Security Council, condemned the attack but omitted direct references to TRF.
WHY THE INDUS WATERS TREATY FREEZE MATTERS:
-
- Strategic Water Leverage: First formal Indian step outside IWT—sediment‑flushing at Salal & Baglihar dams without Pakistan’s concurrence .
- Hydro‑Diplomacy: Treaty gave 80% of basin flows to Pakistan, yet does not forbid “non‑consumptive” uses (Article III). India’s abeyance exploits that grey zone while signalling deterrence by denial (water as a limited coercive lever).
- Domestic Optics: Plays into “Jal‑Jeevan‑Suraksha” narrative, aligns with National Water Policy‑2023 focus on upper‑riparian rights.
INDIA’S TOOLKIT AGAINST CROSS‑BORDER TERROR:
| Attack & Year | Indian Response | Deterrence Outcome | Strategic Gaps |
|---|---|---|---|
| Parliament 2001 | Operation Parakram: full mobilisation along LoC | Raised cost but 10 month standoff strained logistics; no doctrinal shift | Escalatory risk near nuclear threshold |
| Mumbai 2008 | Global diplomatic blitz; Pakistan admitted LeT role; FATF grey listing (2009) | Sustained financial squeeze on Pak terror eco system | Slow judicial closure; deterrence lag |
| Pathankot 2016 | Invited Pak JIT to air base | Signalled transparency, but yielded little prosecution | Perceived strategic timidity |
| Uri 2016 | Cross LoC surgical strikes | Re established limited window “hot pursuit” doctrine | One off, surprise lost |
| Pulwama 2019 | Balakot air strike (first beyond PoK) | Broke “aerial red line”; showcased precision strike ability | Pakistan’s counter air sortie, pilot capture showed escalation ladder still open |
| Pahalgam 2025 | IWT suspension + kinetic options kept in reserve | Paradigm shift: combines water leverage + potential multi domain strike | Water weapon’s long term credibility; Chinese stake in CPEC dams |
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK: FROM TACTICAL REACTIONS TO STRATEGIC DETERRENCE
India’s counter-terrorism strategy has evolved through three distinctive phases:
1. Defensive Restraint Phase (1989-2001): Characterized by absorbing terrorist attacks while pursuing diplomatic engagements, positioning terrorism as a law enforcement challenge rather than a national security threat.
2. Calibrated Proactive Phase (2001-2016): Marked by diplomatic isolation combined with enhanced border security and counter-infiltration measures, with limited cross-border operations.
3. Strategic Coercion Phase (2016-Present): Defined by proactive cross-border operations (surgical strikes, airstrikes) combined with international diplomatic pressure and economic measures to increase Pakistan’s cost for supporting terrorism.
INTERNATIONAL RESPONSE AND DIPLOMATIC DIMENSIONS
1. Multilateral Forums: At the UN Security Council, India faced challenges in securing a strongly worded condemnation due to Pakistan’s current membership in the UNSC. Pakistan utilized its position to water down the statement, removing references to The Resistance Front (TRF) and avoiding language that would directly implicate Pakistan-based terrorist groups.
2. Bilateral Support: Strong expressions of support and solidarity have been received from many governments worldwide, unequivocally condemning the terror attack. Saudi Arabia, during the Prime Minister’s state visit, strongly condemned the “ghastly terror attack in Pahalgam”. The 4th Meeting of the India-Egypt Joint Working Group on Counter Terrorism similarly condemned the “heinous terrorist attack in Pahalgam that targeted domestic and international tourists”.
3. Diplomatic Challenges: India must navigate calls for restraint from various international actors, including the United States, European Union, United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia, which may attempt to mediate and call for de-escalation between Delhi and Islamabad1.
INDIA’S DIPLOMATIC STRATEGY MUST NOW FOCUS ON SEVERAL PARALLEL OBJECTIVES:
1. Global Terrorist Designation: Bringing a listing request for UNSC designation of the TRF and its leadership, similar to efforts after the Mumbai attacks (LeT) and Pulwama (JeM).
2. Financial Action Task Force (FATF) Re-engagement: Revisiting FATF strictures on Pakistan, which proved effective in pressuring Pakistan’s support for terrorist infrastructure previously.
3. Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism (CCIT): Reinvigorating diplomatic efforts for the CCIT, which India first proposed in the 1990s to establish a universal legal framework to counter terrorism.
CURRENT SCENARIO & EMERGING FAULT‑LINES:
| Vector | 2025 Reality Check | Implications |
|---|---|---|
| Pakistan’s Domestic Calculus | Gen Asim Munir (tenure till Nov 2027) resurrects “jugular vein” rhetoric, labels Pakistan a “hard state” . Military also fighting a resurgent Baloch insurgency—Jaffar Express hijack killed 31 hostages in Mar 2025 . | External diversion incentives are high; expect short, spectacular attacks to shift public anger outward. Indian policy must account for Munir’s escalatory bias and domestic legitimacy deficits. |
| China Factor on CPEC Dams | Key PoK dams Kohala (1,124 MW) and Azad Pattan (700 MW) remain stalled—financial close now pushed to Sept 2027. Beijing fears kinetic action or political instability could endanger USD 3 4 bn exposure. | Creates a tacit convergence of interest between India and China for risk containment even amid LAC frictions; opens space for India to use diplomatic signaling aimed at Chinese investors to pressurise Rawalpindi. |
| Global Mediation Fatigue | FATF removed Pakistan from grey list in Oct 2022 and did not relist it in Feb 2025 plenary despite Indian lobbying . US EU Gulf troika issued typical “de escalate” calls but offered no punitive levers. | Limits external coercion; underlines need for India’s own coalition of the willing (Quad Plus, GCC) on terror financing, plus data driven lawfare at UNSC (1267 listing for TRF). |
| Hydro Diplomatic Collision Course | Pakistan preparing legal action at World Bank, PCA & ICJ, terming treaty freeze an “act of war”. World Bank has stayed non committal. | Possible “lawfare drag” over Vienna Convention (1969) Article 62 (fundamental change of circumstances). India can cite climate risk and persistent treaty violation by terror support to justify abrogation. |
THE WAY FORWARD:
CALIBRATED MULTI‑DOMAIN DETERRENCE
1. Distributed precision strikes on pre‑fed launch‑pads in PoK using loitering munitions & stealth UAVs to keep the footprint below Pakistan’s declared nuclear thresholds (Schaffner‑Narang ladder).
2. Counter‑UAS “Fire‑wall”: deploy AI‑fed acoustic sensors, RF jammers and laser dazzlers along the 40‑km vulnerability arc; justified by BSF’s seizure of 294 Pakistani drones in 2024 alone.
3. Joint Intelligence‑Fusion Centre (Northern Theatre)—a CDS‑led sensor‑shooter loop that integrates CIBMS feeds with NTRO realtime imagery; constitutional locus under Art 355 (Centre’s duty to protect a State against external aggression).
HYDRO‑DIPLOMATIC “INDUS‑II” COMPACT
1. Climate‑resilience clauses (glacial melt data‑sharing, emergency flood releases).
2. Sediment‑management rights: legitimise India’s reservoir flushing that began at Salal & Baglihar on 1 May 2025.
3. Reciprocal compliance trigger: water‑storage augmentation pauses automatically if Islamabad fails to curb cross‑border terror (treaty‑law basis; Vienna Convention Art 62: fundamental change of circumstances).
FINANCIAL & LEGAL COUNTER‑TERROR MEASURES:
1. UNSC 1267 motion for TRF with pattern‑of‑behaviour dossier (Telegram propaganda, drone drops, narco‑routes). India has already begun lobbying non-permanent UNSC members post-attack.
2. Enemy Property (Amend.) Bill 2025 to attach properties & shell companies linked to Pakistan‑origin financiers—draft text cleared by MoD in Feb 2025; complements UAPA s 25 ransom‑freeze powers.
3. Create a Quad‑Plus + GCC “Kyber‑Fin Track”: an intelligence‑ledger that flags crypto wallets & hawala nodes; GCC ministerial communiqué (March 2025) already calls for deeper CT finance cooperation.
| Pillar | Actionable Reform | Rationale (with evidence) |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Kinetic Deterrence | Launch calibrated Distributed Precision Strikes on launchpads in PoK, under “Escalate-to-De-escalate” doctrine (Stephen Cohen) | Avoids full-scale war while imposing direct costs on terror infrastructure; maintains below-nuclear-threshold signalling (Cohen 2004) |
| 2. Water Statecraft | Initiate “Indus-II Framework” renegotiation: integrate climate resilience, sediment management, emergency flow clauses | Suspended IWT (May 2025) offers a window; “hydro-strategic statecraft” underscores water as leverage (Water, Peace & War) |
| 3. Diplomatic Offense | Push UNSC 1267 listing for TRF; mobilize Quad-Plus, GCC for terror financing crackdowns; revitalize CCIT push | UNSC 2025 statement omitted TRF; similar Indian push led to JeM listing post-Pulwama; CCIT revival aligns with India’s G20 agenda |
| 4. Border Tech | Complete CIBMS Phase-III by 2026; deploy anti-drone swarm systems on LoC | BSF Punjab seized 87 drones (2024); ORF records 267 drone incursions (2022); Carnegie: drones as low-cost asymmetric tools |
| 5. Legal Warfare | Amend Enemy Property Act to attach terror financiers’ assets; enable transnational asset freezes | India used UAPA to attach ₹12,000 cr in terror-linked properties (2021-24); FATF regime supports such domestic-international alignment |
| 6. Civil-Military Synergy | Establish Northern Theatre Joint Intelligence Fusion Centre (JIFC) integrating military, IB, R&AW under CDS | National Security Strategy draft (IDSA, 2020) recommended joint fusion centers; strengthens sensor-to-shooter loop for border threats |
THE CONCLUSION:
India’s response must transcend episodic revenge and architect a “comprehensive national security” paradigm that fuses hydro‑diplomacy, hard‑kinetic options, and soft‑power outreach. Converting the LoC into a settled International Border, while audacious, could permanently undercut the proxy‑war incentive structure and unlock a peace dividend for South Asia. The challenge is to calibrate firmness with strategic restraint—“the iron fist in a velvet glove”—so that deterrence is restored without sliding into an uncontrollable escalation spiral.
UPSC PAST YEAR QUESTION:
Q. The terms ‘Hot Pursuit’ and ‘Surgical Strikes’ are often used in connection with armed action against terrorist attacks. Discuss the strategic impact of such actions. 2016
MAINS PRACTICE QUESTION:
Q. India’s evolving response to cross-border terrorism reflects a strategic shift from reactive retaliation to a multidimensional deterrence framework combining kinetic, diplomatic, legal, and water statecraft tools. Discuss.
SOURCE:
Spread the Word