Enemies Targeted Kashmir’s Growth—India Must Guard It with Smart Power

The terrorist attack on April 22, 2025, left India shocked and aggrieved. It was not just a blow to national security, but a direct assault on the economic transformation underway in Jammu and Kashmir. However, responding with heightened aggression or war rhetoric is not only imprudent—it risks derailing the very progress the terrorists intended to sabotage. Strategic diplomacy, strong internal security reforms, and safeguarding economic momentum must be the cornerstones of India's response, not a reaction driven by sentiment or misplaced nationalism.

The attack, claimed by a proxy group widely believed to be supported by elements within Pakistan’s military establishment, comes at a time when Jammu and Kashmir is experiencing an economic revival. According to the 2023–24 Government of India investment report, Rs 3,500 crore worth of investments were committed to the Union Territory, resulting in an anticipated creation of over 6.06 lakh job opportunities. These investments are vital in stabilizing the region economically, offering alternatives to the youth, and weakening the recruitment base of militant groups.

The Home Ministry data also indicates that the influx of capital has contributed to a 40% boost in the local economy, with infrastructure development, tourism promotion, and skill-based employment on the rise. By targeting this progress, the attackers clearly intended not only to strike fear but to sabotage the economic backbone being built to promote peace and integration.

Senior security analyst Lt Gen Syed Ata Hasnain (Retd) observed in a recent panel discussion that “this attack is not just against people or property—it is against the evolving architecture of economic security and regional integration in Kashmir. The intent is to create fear that deters investors and paralyses the mobility of youth into mainstream opportunities.” His words underline that this isn’t simply a cross-border conflict—it is a strategic assault on India’s economic sovereignty.

The political discourse, however, risks spiraling into a war cry. While public outrage is justified, history shows that hasty decisions in the realm of foreign policy can backfire. In 1999, the Kargil conflict cost India over 500 soldiers and destabilized a decade of diplomatic engagements. The Shimla Agreement, brokered in 1972, and the Indus Waters Treaty, signed in 1960 with World Bank mediation, have both served as points of strategic pressure and engagement with Pakistan. Revoking these without calibrated alternatives may strip India of the limited leverage it still holds.

India must be cautious not to cut off all diplomatic and monitoring channels. Reducing embassy staff and halting visa processes, including for those arriving under SAARC frameworks, may sound like stern measures, but they also eliminate the pathways through which India observes and engages with Pakistan. A former RAW officer, Vikram Sood, commented in an interview, “Our biggest strength is intelligence gathering and surveillance, not isolation. Without access to key diplomatic backchannels, India loses the ability to predict and pre-empt threats.”

Security preparedness must instead be enhanced within. The April 22 attack highlighted lapses in border surveillance and local intelligence-sharing. Data from the Ministry of Defence revealed that 14% of key posts in the northern sector remain understaffed. In fact, in February 2025, Defence Minister Rajnath Singh had sanctioned a special recruitment drive to induct 75,000 personnel across the Army and paramilitary forces, but procedural delays have kept this plan on paper. These shortcomings must now be urgently addressed.

Rather than react with fire, India must act with fortification. The restructuring of internal intelligence, especially in sensitive zones like Pulwama, Poonch, and Uri, is essential. High-resolution drones, AI-based threat detection, and better integration between the Army, local police, and IB can drastically reduce infiltration and sabotage attempts. Kashmir, after all, is not just a security zone—it is an evolving economic and cultural identity, and it must be treated with both sensitivity and strategy.

On the international stage, India must use its rising global profile to isolate Pakistan diplomatically. At the World Economic Forum in January 2025, Prime Minister Narendra Modi had emphasized that "terror and trade cannot coexist." India must now reinforce this message, rallying support in G20 forums, UN General Assembly debates, and through bilateral lobbies with countries like the UAE, France, and Japan—nations that have traditionally supported counter-terrorism resolutions.

Yet, as global examples show, economic and military might alone don’t deter asymmetric warfare. Even the U.S., with its military supremacy, faced prolonged challenges in Afghanistan and Iraq, with trillion-dollar expenditures and uncertain outcomes. Donald Trump’s tariff wars, meant to economically isolate China, did little to stop cyber threats or assertive expansion in the South China Sea. Thus, India's strength must lie in nuanced diplomacy and domestic consolidation, not mimicking failed models of revenge.

Tourism, a key pillar of Kashmir’s revival, has historically acted as a soft power buffer against militancy. A study by the Ministry of Tourism shows that regions with increased tourist footfall reported 27% less militant activity. The April attack, unfortunately, coincides with the start of the summer season when Kashmir receives maximum footfall. Ensuring that tourism does not collapse under fear is vital. The government must invest in narrative-building, safety infrastructure, and rapid incident response teams to assure both tourists and locals.

This isn’t to say India must appear weak. Any act of terror must be met with deterrent action—but it must be smart, not self-destructive. Cyber sanctions, economic targeting of terror-financing networks, enhanced FATF pressure on Pakistan, and calibrated strikes on terror camps (if verified intelligence supports it) are within the realm of justified response. But full-scale war? That would destroy decades of peace-building, destabilize South Asia, and crumble economic growth—not just in Kashmir but across the country.

In closing, the April 22 attack was a challenge to India’s resilience, not just its borders. To preserve the economic promise of Jammu and Kashmir, ensure national security, and retain global credibility, India must move cautiously, strategically, and intelligently. Revenge may satisfy emotions, but only reform, resilience, and readiness will secure the nation.