As befits a democracy, India is engulfed in a debate about the suitable response to the outrage at Pahalgam last week, which took 26 innocent lives. Many, including this author, have echoed the Prime Minister’s vow of strong retribution that will teach the perpetrators and their handlers in Pakistan a lesson they will never forget. Others have argued that war should be avoided. Indeed, the Prime Minister himself had famously declared that “this is not an era of war”. But it should not be an era of terrorism either. How then should India respond to Pahalgam?
Perhaps the best place to start is to ask ourselves what those malign men who sent the terrorists to the Baisaran Meadow in Pahalgam wished to achieve through their murderous actions. The objectives of the attack are clear: Stop peace and “normalisation” in Kashmir. Destroy tourism. Wreck the Kashmir economy to increase discontent there. Add to mistrust of Kashmiris among other Indians. Increase communal polarisation within India. Distract India from pursuing its economic growth; derail the “India story”. Internationalise Kashmir. Re-hyphenate India and Pakistan in the global imagination.
Only one set of people gains from all of these — the military forces in Pakistan, desperately looking for a diversion from their own unpopularity and the frustrations of a stagnant economy. The attack was prefigured by the army chief, General Asim Munir, making a speech articulating a bigoted view of the impossibility of good relations between Hindus and Muslims and reminding the world that Kashmir was, in his view, the “jugular vein” of Pakistan (Never mind that your jugular vein cannot exist outside your own body).
We must not let these evil forces achieve any of their objectives. From this follows what we should not do: we should not blame ordinary Kashmiris for what happened, which is completely against their interests. If in our fury and grief, we alienate them, or if a majority of Indians turn against an entire community because of the actions of a few, the terrorists’ objectives will have succeeded. We must continue to pursue normalcy, tourism and growth in Kashmir. India’s commitment to Kashmiri integration must be reaffirmed, indeed redoubled. Tourists must be encouraged to return to the Valley.
Equally, we must not allow our grief and fury to be turned against our own Muslim citizens. The fact that the terrorists claim to speak in the name of all Muslims does not mean that their claim is in any way justified. The vast majority of Indian Muslims wish to live in peace in the homeland of their ancestors, coexisting, working, playing and sharing joys and sorrows with their countrymen and women of other faiths. Nothing could be more damaging to our nation’s future than the creation of an environment that encourages every Muslim to be regarded with suspicion. On the contrary, highlighting the opposite — the heroism of Kashmiris who came to the rescue of some of the affected tourists, and the ponywallah who gave his life in an attempt to stop the killings, as well as the many expressions of outrage by Indian Muslims that have flooded the internet, saying “not in our name” — would help convert the tragedy into an opportunity to build communal amity and national unity.
India’s communal harmony is indispensable. Let us not give Islamist bigots in Islamabad the satisfaction of seeing India fall into their trap, by behaving as they want us to. Let us, even as we mourn, rise above our justified anger to be the best versions of ourselves — fair-minded, all-embracing, and determined to ensure better lives for all our people, Muslim and Hindu, Kashmiri and non-Kashmiri alike.
Nor should we allow ourselves to indulge in a domestic blame game either. Baisaran has all the hallmarks of a planned attack, using sophisticated intelligence and reconnaissance, with meticulous planning and well-timed execution. Responsibility for the horrors lies more with those who planned and carried out the killings than with those who failed to prevent them. There were intelligence and security failures on our side, no doubt. The security forces can’t be everywhere, and no country has 100 per cent foolproof intelligence, as even Israel learned on October 7. Lessons must be learned and accountability established, in the government’s own interest. But the time for that is when the crisis is over, not now — when we all need to be united in our resolve to stand up to terrorism.
And what should we do? First, be on our guard. Our security forces must be on the highest alert. We cannot afford a repeat attack elsewhere. The security forces have tightened operations against militants in the Kashmir Valley, including demolishing houses linked to terrorists. The message has been sent: But now demolitions must stop so as not to create collateral damage among innocents. Our focus should transcend deterrence, aiming to reassure residents and tourists alike that the valley is perceived as safe and stable. Encouraging tourism while reinforcing security will serve both economic and psychological purposes, fostering a sense of normalcy even amid the crisis.
Second, diplomatic measures. The state of India-Pakistan relations had plunged so deeply into enmity that New Delhi had already exhausted most non-military avenues to express its disapproval of Islamabad. Still, on the diplomatic front, New Delhi must rally global support to pressure Pakistan’s military establishment. While seeking sanctions against identified military officials like General Munir may be challenging, the public exposure of the ISI’s nexus with terrorism in international forums can isolate Pakistan further. The opprobrium endured by the Pakistani military post-Bin Laden offers a precedent that India can build upon, mobilising a receptive global community to take decisive actions aimed at constraining Pakistan’s belligerence. This includes efforts to cut off military assistance to Pakistan, such as halting the US F-16 upgrade programme and restricting the supply of spares and components, curtailing non-humanitarian aid, and pushing for a freeze on multilateral funding of projects in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (POK). India must also advocate the extradition of wanted Pakistani terrorists, a fresh listing in the UNSC sanctions committee, and renewed FATF strictures on Islamabad.
But this is clearly not enough: Something more kinetic is needed to send a clear message to Rawalpindi that there will be a price to pay for terror. Surgical strikes across the Line of Control (LoC) targeting militant launch pads in Pakistan-administered Kashmir remain a viable option. Additionally, an air strike larger than Balakot, targeting terrorist training camps and infrastructure, or missile attacks aimed at the bases of militant organisations, could further underscore India’s fury.
India’s military response could expand to include the Navy, mobilising assets in the northern reaches of the Arabian Sea. Operating in international waters, the Navy could exert pressure on Pakistani merchant shipping, leading to higher insurance premiums for trade and further destabilising an already fragile economy, thus increasing the costs of Pakistani misbehaviour.
While overt actions will send a clear message, covert operations must be enhanced to ensure that key militant leaders and their networks within Pakistan remain perpetually under threat. India should also embrace cyber warfare tactics, disrupting communications and operational capabilities to dismantle the infrastructure that sustains terrorism.
How would Pakistan respond? Islamabad is unlikely to push for a full-scale war, given its constrained capabilities. As for nuclear posturing, recent global examples like the Ukraine war demonstrate that nuclear weapons are more often tools for deterrence than active instruments of war. Any nuclear movement will undoubtedly attract global scrutiny, and Pakistan remains acutely aware of the dire consequences of even threatening the use of tactical nuclear weapons. Instead, it may aim for a limited conventional conflict, hoping to attract international mediation and rekindle global attention on the Kashmir issue. Domestically, the crisis would be exploited to reinforce the Pakistani army’s tattered image as the ultimate guarantor of the nation’s security. India can live with this; we have done so before.
In short, India’s must be a multi-dimensional strategy, calibrated and calculated, combining measured aggression that delivers consequences for terror with methods that prevent uncontrollable escalation. It must include overt and covert measures, diplomatic outreach, and domestic fortification, maintain an element of surprise, and account for both India’s preparedness and Pakistan’s capabilities. India’s moves must leave little doubt about its resolve, while ensuring that these actions do not ignite major hostilities at the expense of the India growth story, which remains our overriding priority.
Let us never surrender to the murderers. Jai Hind.
The writer is MP (Lok Sabha) for Thiruvananthapuram
Security personnel keep vigil, in the aftermath of the Pahalgam terrorist attack, in Srinagar, Monday, April 28, 2025. (PTI Photo) 
Share
