On Tuesday, April 22, the attack in Pahalgam, where at least 26 tourists were killed in a hail of gunfire, marked the deadliest militant assault in Indian-administered Kashmir since 2019.
The victims were civilians on holiday, not soldiers or officials — making the attack both brutal and symbolic: a blow not just to lives, but to the fragile normalcy the Indian government has tried to project in the disputed region.
Given Kashmir’s long and volatile history — claimed in full by both India and Pakistan but controlled separately — experts say India’s response will likely be shaped by both precedent and public pressure.
India’s Immediate Response
New Delhi quickly moved to close the main border crossing, suspend a critical water-sharing treaty, and expel Pakistani diplomats.
Defence Minister Rajnath Singh vowed a “strong response,” saying India would act against “the perpetrators and the masterminds” behind the “nefarious acts” on its soil.
Past Patterns of Retaliation
Military historian Srinath Raghavan told the BBC: “Since 2016 and especially after 2019, the threshold for retaliation has been set at cross-border or air strikes. It’ll be hard for the government to act below that now.”
He warns that Pakistan may retaliate, and says the “risk, as always, is miscalculation — on both sides.”
India’s two previous major responses are still fresh in memory:
- After the deadly 2016 Uri attack, India launched what it called “surgical strikes” across the Line of Control.
- Following the 2019 Pulwama attack that killed at least 40 paramilitary personnel, India carried out airstrikes on Balakot, deep inside Pakistan, triggering a brief but dangerous aerial confrontation.
A ceasefire along the LoC agreed in 2021 has largely held — but attacks like Tuesday’s show how fragile that calm remains.
Strategic Options and Risks
Michael Kugelman, a South Asia expert, said the scale of civilian casualties “suggests a strong possibility of an Indian military response against Pakistan, if Delhi determines or even assumes any level of Pakistani complicity.”
He emphasized that while retaliation would likely bring political gains and could “restore deterrence,” it would also “risk a serious crisis and even conflict.”
Christopher Clary of the University at Albany noted two likely paths for India:
- Renewed cross-border shelling across the LoC;
- Airstrikes or even cruise missile attacks, similar to 2019 operations.
“No path is without risks,” Clary said. “The US is also distracted and may not be willing or able to assist with crisis management.”
The Shadow of Nuclear Weapons
Nuclear arsenals on both sides add a heavy layer of danger to any escalation.
“Nuclear weapons are both a danger and a restraint,” said Raghavan, noting that they force decision-makers to act with caution and to calibrate military moves carefully.
Past crises between India and Pakistan — and even in conflicts like Israel-Iran — have often followed a pattern: calculated strikes followed by de-escalation efforts. But, as Raghavan warns, “the risk is always that things won’t go according to script.”
Political Pressures and Security Failures
Former Pakistani ambassador Hussain Haqqani believes India could opt for “limited surgical strikes” similar to those carried out in 2016.
“The advantage of such strikes,” he told the BBC, “is that they are limited in scope, so Pakistan does not have to respond, yet they demonstrate to the Indian public that India has acted.”
Nonetheless, Haqqani cautions that even small strikes could provoke retaliation from Pakistan, especially if accusations are made without conclusive evidence.
Meanwhile, India must grapple with serious internal security failures.
“That such an attack occurred at the peak of tourist season,” said Raghavan, “points to a serious lapse — especially in a Union Territory where the federal government directly controls law and order.”
