The recent terrorist attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, has sent shockwaves through the region and beyond. The attack, which resulted in the tragic loss of innocent lives and left many others injured, has disrupted the fragile peace that had prevailed along the Line of Control in recent years. In response, India has taken an unprecedented series of diplomatic, economic, and military decisions, signaling a significant shift in its regional policy toward Pakistan.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi chaired an urgent meeting of the Cabinet Committee on Security at 7, Lok Kalyan Marg, to assess the situation and determine the country’s response. The decisions made were swift and uncompromising: the international border, including the crucial Atari crossing, is to be sealed; all Pakistani nationals currently in India have been given 48 hours to leave; the Indus Waters Treaty—one of the longest-standing water-sharing agreements between the two nations—has been cancelled; and the Pakistani High Commission in New Delhi is being shut down. Indian forces have been granted a free hand to respond to the crisis.
These decisions come at a time when India is strengthening its diplomatic and economic influence globally. Prime Minister Modi’s visit to Saudi Arabia marked a new chapter in Indo-Gulf relations, culminating in the signing of a $100 billion strategic partnership encompassing sectors such as petrochemicals, green energy, defense cooperation, technology, infrastructure, and cultural exchange. This deal was not just symbolic; it was a structural move that highlighted India’s rising global stature.
The timing of the Pahalgam attack is particularly significant. It coincided with multiple high-profile diplomatic events. While the Indian Prime Minister was in Jeddah engaging with Saudi leaders to cement an economic alliance that could reshape the Gulf-India axis, U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance was visiting India with his family, reinforcing the Indo-U.S. strategic partnership. These visits were public affirmations of India’s growing economic and geopolitical influence. In stark contrast, the attack appeared to be an attempt to destabilize India’s narrative of progress, harmony, and international leadership.
Global reaction to the attack has been overwhelmingly supportive of India. Countries including Saudi Arabia, Iran, Nepal, Sweden, and Russia have condemned the attack in the strongest terms. The Saudi Foreign Ministry called it a violation of all humanitarian norms, while Iran reiterated its principled stance against all forms of terrorism. Russian President Vladimir Putin extended his condolences and reaffirmed solidarity with India. These statements demonstrate a global consensus that terrorism has no justification, and that targeting innocent lives for political or ideological objectives is inexcusable.
On Indian social media, there has been an outpouring of grief, anger, and calls for justice. Many citizens have pointed fingers at Pakistan, reflecting a long-held belief among Indians that cross-border terrorism is often facilitated or tolerated by elements within Pakistan’s establishment. The perception that Pakistan is a “terrorist state” is gaining traction internationally, particularly following provocative statements from senior Pakistani officials. In this case, the attack followed a strong statement from Pakistan’s Army Chief, General Asim Munir, reiterating Pakistan’s claim over Kashmir and pledging continued resistance.
In response, India has taken diplomatic measures that could have lasting consequences. The expulsion of Pakistani military attachés, the withdrawal of Indian officials from Islamabad, and the suspension of diplomatic channels signal a freezing of bilateral relations. The cancellation of the Indus Waters Treaty is particularly significant. Signed in 1960, the treaty has withstood wars and crises. By setting it aside, India has not only struck at Pakistan’s vital water lifeline but also sent a clear message that it will no longer adhere to outdated obligations when its national security is under threat.
Non-kinetic actions, such as sealing the border and diplomatic disengagement, have been paired with military readiness. While there has been no official announcement of kinetic retaliation, parallels are being drawn with Israel’s response to the October 7 Hamas attack. A surgical strike or targeted retaliation remains a viable option for India, although the scale of any response may be limited due to Pakistan’s status as a nuclear power.
The potential for skirmishes along the Line of Control cannot be ruled out. In recent years, the border had seen relative calm due to backchannel diplomacy and ceasefire agreements. However, this latest attack may reignite regular cross-border firing, endangering civilians and further straining relations.
India, due to its robust economy and strong diplomatic alliances, is in a position to withstand prolonged conflict—military or otherwise. Pakistan, with its fragile economy and political instability, is in a much weaker position. This asymmetry may deter Islamabad from escalating the situation but also pressures it to recalibrate its internal and external policies.
Pakistan, in these circumstances, must act decisively and wisely. It should unequivocally condemn the attack, offer full cooperation in any investigation, and take concrete steps to reassure the international community that its territory is not being used to launch attacks on civilians in neighboring countries. Silence or deflection will only add to its diplomatic isolation.
Additionally, it is crucial for Pakistan to restrain its military and political leaders from making inflammatory statements. A war of words can lead to unintended consequences. Instead, Islamabad should focus on economic recovery and institutional reform. Only a strong, stable Pakistan can meaningfully advocate its case on Kashmir and engage in constructive dialogue with India and the international community.
At the same time, India must ensure that its domestic discourse does not descend into communalism. Violence begets violence, and targeting individuals based on religion will only deepen internal divisions. This is a time for unity, not hatred. Both Hindus and Muslims in India have suffered from terrorism, and it is essential that the government lead by example in fostering communal harmony.
In conclusion, the Pahalgam attack is not just a tragedy—it is a test. A test for India’s democratic resilience, for Pakistan’s credibility, and for the world’s commitment to combating terrorism. In such trying times, restraint, justice, and diplomacy must prevail. If both nations choose the path of de-escalation and cooperation, the region may yet emerge stronger from this crisis. But if sabers continue to rattle, it is the ordinary people on both sides who will pay the price.
