The militant assault that left at least 26 tourists dead in Pahalgam on Tuesday has emerged as the bloodiest attack in Indian-administered Kashmir since 2019. Unlike previous attacks primarily aimed at security forces, this one targeted innocent civilians vacationing in one of India’s most scenic regions. The brutality and symbolism of this strike go beyond the death toll—it marks a direct hit on the fragile image of peace and normalcy that India has worked to promote in the disputed territory.
The attack’s timing and location are significant. Pahalgam, known for its tranquil beauty and appeal to tourists, became the scene of a violent ambush that not only killed civilians but also shattered public confidence. For many analysts, the event highlights how volatile the situation remains in Kashmir, a region claimed in full by both India and Pakistan, yet governed in parts by each.
India’s reaction was swift. In a show of political and diplomatic muscle, Delhi responded by shutting down the main border crossing, suspending a crucial water-sharing agreement, and expelling Pakistani diplomats. More importantly, Indian Defence Minister Rajnath Singh assured the nation of a strong response, pledging action against not only the perpetrators but also those orchestrating such “nefarious acts” from behind the scenes.
Analysts largely agree that some form of military retaliation is all but certain. What remains uncertain is the scale, method, and consequences of such a response. “We are likely to see a strong response – one that signals resolve to both domestic audiences and actors in Pakistan. Since 2016 and especially after 2019, the threshold for retaliation has been set at cross-border or air strikes,” said military historian Srinath Raghavan to the BBC. “It’ll be hard for the government to act below that now. Pakistan will likely respond, as it did before. The risk, as always, is miscalculation – on both sides.”
Raghavan was referencing India’s significant retaliatory actions in 2016 and 2019. After 19 Indian soldiers were killed in the 2016 Uri attack, India conducted what it termed “surgical strikes” across the Line of Control (LoC), targeting militant bases in Pakistan-administered Kashmir. In 2019, the deadly Pulwama attack, which killed more than 40 paramilitary personnel, prompted Indian airstrikes on an alleged terrorist training camp in Balakot, marking India’s first air incursion deep into Pakistan since 1971. Pakistan retaliated with air raids, and the two nations briefly engaged in an aerial dogfight, resulting in the capture of an Indian pilot. While both sides demonstrated their military strength, they ultimately avoided a full-scale war.
Following these high-tension moments, a ceasefire agreement along the LoC was reached in 2021, which has largely held despite sporadic militant violence in Indian-administered Kashmir. But the recent attack, given its high casualty count and targeting of civilians, could test that uneasy truce.
Michael Kugelman, a foreign policy expert, stated that this incident could provoke a military response from India, especially if any degree of Pakistani involvement—real or perceived—is found. “The chief advantage of such a reaction for India would be political, as there will be strong public pressure for India to respond forcefully,” Kugelman told the BBC. “Another advantage, if a retaliation successfully takes out terrorist targets, would be restoring deterrence and degrading an anti-India threat. The disadvantage is that a retaliation would risk a serious crisis and even conflict.”
When it comes to India’s options, covert operations provide plausible deniability but may not satisfy the domestic political need to assertively reestablish deterrence, says Christopher Clary of the University at Albany. Clary identifies two primary avenues India could pursue. One is a resumption of cross-border firing, signaling the possible breakdown of the 2021 ceasefire. The other is more dramatic: airstrikes or even cruise missile attacks akin to the 2019 Balakot action.
“No path is without risks. The US is also distracted and may not be willing or be able to assist with crisis management,” Clary told the BBC, pointing to the broader geopolitical implications.
The nuclear dimension of India-Pakistan relations cannot be ignored. Both countries possess nuclear weapons, a factor that exerts a restraining influence on escalation but simultaneously increases the stakes of any miscalculation. “Nuclear weapons are both a danger and a restraint—they force decision-makers on both sides to act with caution. Any response is likely to be presented as precise and targeted. Pakistan may retaliate in kind, then look for an off-ramp,” Raghavan observed.
He drew parallels with recent conflicts such as those between Israel and Iran, where limited strikes were followed by attempts at de-escalation. However, he cautioned that such scenarios are inherently risky. “The risk is always that things won’t go according to script.”
Kugelman, reflecting on the 2019 Pulwama episode, noted, “Each country is comfortable using limited counter retaliation.” But he warned that India must carefully balance the political and strategic gains of a retaliatory move with the possibility of a deeper and more destructive conflict.
Hussain Haqqani, a former Pakistani ambassador to the US, echoed similar thoughts. He suggested that India may consider another round of limited “surgical strikes” similar to those in 2016. “The advantage of such strikes from India’s point of view is they are limited in scope, so Pakistan does not have to respond, and yet they demonstrate to the Indian public that India has acted,” Haqqani said in an interview with the BBC.
However, he also pointed out the risks of such a strategy. “Such strikes can also invite retaliation from Pakistan, which argues that it is being blamed in a knee-jerk reaction, without any investigation or evidence.”
Whatever course India chooses in response to this tragedy, the path forward remains treacherous. Any action may spiral into further violence, pushing the already tenuous peace in the region even farther out of reach. At the same time, India must grapple with internal questions about how such an attack could occur in what is considered one of the most secure and monitored areas.
“That such an attack occurred at the peak of tourist season,” Raghavan noted, “points to a serious lapse—especially in a Union Territory where the federal government directly controls law and order.”
As tension rises and decisions loom, both nations are left navigating a perilous landscape where every move could have profound consequences—not only for regional stability but also for the lives of millions caught in the crossfire.