Pahalgam Attack: A Tragedy Answered with Resolve

The terror attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, on April 22, 2025, was not merely a local act of violence—it was an audacious provocation by a long-standing adversary. As 28 innocent civilians were gunned down by militants linked to Pakistan-backed outfits, India crossed a painful threshold. In the aftermath of the bloodshed, what followed was not silence, not indecision, but historic clarity. The Government of India, under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, has responded with a comprehensive, calculated retaliation designed not just to punish—but to alter the strategic calculus in South Asia.

For too long, India’s responses to acts of cross-border terror have been confined to diplomatic statements, dossiers, and the hope of global sympathy. This time, however, the stakes were higher, and the message from New Delhi has been unequivocal: terror sponsored by Pakistan will now invite real, tangible consequences. Within 48 hours of the attack, the Cabinet Committee on Security concluded a high-level meeting and unveiled a five-point retaliation plan. These are not symbolic gestures. They strike directly at the lifelines of Pakistan’s economy, diplomacy, and regional engagement.

Most striking among the measures is India’s decision to place the Indus Water Treaty in abeyance. Signed in 1960 and brokered by the World Bank, the treaty has long been held up as a symbol of mature conflict management between nuclear-armed neighbours—even during wars and skirmishes. But the time for sentiment has passed. Water from the Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab rivers sustains over 90% of Pakistan’s agricultural economy. By suspending the treaty, India has signaled that goodwill cannot coexist with hostility. While the move stops short of unilateral abrogation, it removes India’s obligation to release waters from its dams. The implications for Pakistan’s food security and rural economy are profound.

Second, the closure of the Integrated Check Post at Attari effectively ends what little cross-border trade and people-to-people contact remained. From now on, those who have crossed into India may return via Attari before May 1—but beyond that, the corridor is shut. The symbolism is powerful: India will no longer entertain the illusion of normalcy with a nation that harbours, trains, and sponsors terrorists.

The government has also cancelled all visas issued under the SAARC Visa Exemption Scheme to Pakistani nationals. Initiated in 1992, this visa regime had allowed smoother travel for journalists, politicians, and cultural representatives. It was a mechanism for elite diplomacy, meant to nurture South Asian solidarity. But India’s move makes clear that it does not seek cultural ties with a regime whose state organs facilitate terror. The intellectual and political bridges once built in good faith are now deemed irrelevant in the face of bloodshed.

Even more serious is the expulsion of defence attachés stationed in the Pakistani High Commission. India has declared Pakistan’s military advisers—representing its army, navy, and air force—as persona non grata. This is not mere diplomatic posturing. It’s a deliberate signal that military-to-military backchannels are off the table. India has drawn a red line: the Pakistani deep state cannot simultaneously send soldiers to a diplomatic mission and militants to murder civilians.

In line with this, both nations will reduce their diplomatic footprints. The strength of each High Commission is to be brought down from 55 to 30. This reciprocal scaling down indicates a deliberate freeze in bilateral engagement. There will be no Track-2 diplomacy, no behind-the-scenes efforts to “reset” relations. The message is cold and clear: peace must be earned.

Critics might argue that such retaliatory steps risk escalation, that New Delhi is trading diplomacy for hardline posturing. But that misses the point. These are not knee-jerk reactions; they are calibrated decisions aimed at raising the cost of terrorism for its benefactors. For decades, Pakistan has operated under the assumption that India’s restraint is a strategic constant. That assumption is now shattered.

What makes this retaliation historic is that it represents a full-spectrum response—not just militarily, but diplomatically, economically, and psychologically. It weaponises the instruments of statecraft that Pakistan has long taken for granted: access to water, to Indian markets, to elite discourse, to diplomatic courtesy. This is coercive diplomacy at its most refined—and, for once, resolute.

But as we pivot toward long-term strategy, retaliation alone is insufficient. India must now also accelerate efforts at internal consolidation in Jammu and Kashmir. The attack in Pahalgam revealed lapses in security and intelligence coordination that must be corrected. Surveillance along tourist corridors, community-based counter-terror mechanisms, and infrastructure investments in public safety must all be deepened. Most importantly, the trust displayed by local Kashmiris—who shielded and rescued tourists during the attack—must be honoured through development, not just gratitude.

At the international level, India must continue building a narrative of principled, democratic self-defence. Every major democracy has faced terror. What sets responses apart is the moral legitimacy and legal precision with which they are pursued. India must present its five-point retaliation plan not as an act of vengeance, but as a necessary intervention to protect its sovereignty and civil society.

Ultimately, the Pahalgam attack may be remembered for two things: the lives we lost, and the line we finally drew. That line—etched across water, diplomacy, trade, and dialogue—marks the beginning of a new doctrine. One in which India no longer pleads, but acts. No longer tolerates, but deters. And no longer responds out of anger, but out of an unshakable commitment to security, peace, and justice.