The military conflict triggered by the Pahalgam attack has pushed ties between the neighbouring countries to the brink of complete breakdown. A report by Riyaz Wani
The moment 25 tourists and one pony operator were killed at Baisaran in Pahalgam on April 22, it looked certain that the gruesome event would snowball into a major standoff between India and Pakistan. With innocent tourists being the target, New Delhi found itself with little option but to respond to the attackers and their backers. Speaking at a public rally in Bihar soon after, Prime Minister Narendra Modi said that India will follow the perpetrators of Pahalgam carnage “to the end of earth.” Exactly sixteen days later, India carried out “precision strikes at terrorist camps” at nine sites in Pakistan, something that has been done for the first time. The army said “justice is served”, with New Delhi adding that its actions “have been focused, measured and non-escalatory in nature”. The following day, India destroyed Pakistan’s air defence system in retaliation to the neighbouring country’s unsuccessful attempt to target India’s defence installations with drones and missiles. India also escalated its military response by launching drone strikes deep inside Pakistan, targeting strategic locations in Lahore and Karachi, marking a significant widening of the conflict that had previously been concentrated along the Line of Control.
In retaliation, Pakistan quickly launched a wave of drone attacks targeting Indian military installations in Jammu and Kashmir. Pakistani drones were directed at army camps, communication hubs, and fuel storage facilities. The alert Indian air defense quickly neutralized them.
It was the third major crisis – this one is the most serious – between the two countries since the BJP-led government took over at the centre in 2014. And on all three occasions, the crisis began following terrorist attacks in Kashmir. In September 2016, India carried out surgical strikes across the Line of Control (LoC) in Pakistan-administered Kashmir, targeting terrorist launch pads. The operation came in response to the deadly Uri attack, where terrorists killed 19 Indian soldiers at an army base. It marked a significant shift in India’s counter-terrorism strategy, moving from defensive to proactive measures.
Again, in February 2019, following the Pulwama suicide bombing that claimed the lives of 40 Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) personnel, India launched air strikes in Balakot, deep inside Pakistan’s territory. The 2019 operation targeted what India described as a major Jaish-e-Mohammed training camp. Both strikes heightened tensions between the two nuclear-armed neighbors and underlined India’s evolving doctrine of responding forcefully to cross-border terrorism.
Ever since the Pahalgam attack happened, both the countries took a series of non-military steps against each. Five key measures were announced: the Indus Waters Treaty, long seen as a symbol of cross-border cooperation, was put on hold; the Attari land crossing was shut; Pakistanis will no longer get visa exemptions under SAARC; and diplomatic presence in both countries was scaled back significantly. These steps go beyond the symbolic: they reflect a deep rethink of India’s approach to its western neighbour.
Pakistan, in response, suspended bilateral trade initiatives, and has threatened to withdraw from all bilateral agreements with India, including the 1972 Simla Agreement. The Simla Agreement, a landmark peace deal between the two nations, was signed shortly after the creation of Bangladesh in 1971.
On May 8, India escalated its military response by launching drone strikes deep inside Pakistan, targeting strategic locations in Lahore and Karachi. According to Indian defense sources, the strikes were aimed at dismantling terror infrastructure and key military assets, marking a significant widening of the conflict that had previously been concentrated along the Line of Control. Explosions were reported near a military airbase in Lahore and at an ammunition depot in Karachi, with footage of the aftermath surfacing on social media. The strikes came just a day after India’s earlier air assault on Lahore’s air defence systems, part of its response to the Pahalgam terror attack.
In retaliation, Pakistan quickly launched a wave of drone attacks targeting Indian military installations in Jammu and Kashmir. Pakistani drones were directed at army camps, communication hubs, and fuel storage facilities, with reports of interceptions by India’s air defence but also confirmation of damage near Rajouri and Poonch. The tit-for-tat drone warfare heightened fears of further escalation, with both sides issuing statements accusing the other of aggression while asserting their own right to self-defence. International observers expressed growing concern over the rapid deterioration of the security situation.
On April 9 night, India launched precision strikes on three key Pakistani air bases early Saturday—Nur Khan (Rawalpindi), Murid (Chakwal), and Rafiqui (Jhang). Pakistan started Operation Bunyan un Marsoos against India, targeting military installations in Jammu, Kashmir and Punjab. The offensive involved surface-to-surface missiles and loitering munitions. The operation’s name, drawn from a Quranic verse, means ‘unbreakable wall’.
On May 10, in a surprise turn of events, the ceasefire between the two countries came about, a result of urgent international diplomacy. Amid concerns over potential nuclear escalation, US President Donald Trump announced that both nations had agreed to a “full and immediate ceasefire” after intensive talks mediated by US officials, including Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
The ceasefire was welcomed by the international community, with countries like Saudi Arabia and China also playing supportive roles in the mediation efforts. However, the truce was fragile; within hours, both India and Pakistan accused each other of violating the agreement, with reports of explosions and drone intrusions in Kashmir. But things stabilized from thereon and the calm was eventually restored.
India delivers a telling message
Will the fresh attack on Pakistan deter future violence in Kashmir? This is a question that has been India’s longstanding foreign policy quandary. What has, however, changed from the past is that India now has firmly adopted a policy of punishing Pakistan after every terror attack in Kashmir or elsewhere. The Pahalgam attack, followed by the military conflict, has plunged India-Pakistan relations, already reeling over the past many years, to their lowest low.
The military strikes against terror camps and the response from Pakistan takes the situation to an entirely new level, threatening to push the region over the brink. After the Pahalgam attack, PM Modi was constrained to go one up on the previous strikes. And there were reasons for it: The 2016 and 2019 terror attacks were on the army personnel, something that has been happening in Kashmir. High-profile attacks on the security targets in J&K have continued unhindered over the past three decades. The Pahalgam attack was against innocent tourists.
So, any fresh military action against Pakistan had to be bigger and visible, one that satisfied the enraged public and also inflicted a deterrent blow on the Pakistan Army. The continuing escalatory spiral is expected to end up into a full-fledged war and a possible breach of the nuclear threshold of either country. It is a doomsday scenario that alarms the world and also causes a deep concern to the people of the region. But the focus should be on the root cause of it all, the unrelenting violence in Kashmir abetted from across the border. And as long as this violence lingers, no engagement is possible between India and Pakistan.
For example, the 2016 Pulwama bombing delivered a crushing blow to any hope of India-Pakistan dialogue in the long term. And ever since, India has antiseptically avoided any dialogue with Pakistan. In an interview to a television channel during his election campaign last year, PM Modi made it clear that India “shouldn’t bother much about Pakistan and whether it changes its approach or not.” He added that for the preceding 10 years he had put a lock on Pakistan being a factor in running India. “Let Pakistan manage two square meals. We don’t need to waste our time,” he remarked, hinting at Pakistan’s dismal economic state of affairs.
In fact, India, Pakistan relations have been on a slippery slope since the Mumbai attack in 2008 that derailed a promising India-Pakistan engagement which had almost culminated into a peaceful resolution of Kashmir. Ever since, the two countries have struggled to get back to some sort of engagement with India giving up the pursuit altogether down the line. After the abrogation of Article 370, which gave Jammu and Kashmir special status under India’s constitution, both countries downgraded the diplomatic staff at their respective high commissions. Since then, the two countries are left with no diplomatic tools to communicate with each other even at a crisis time. But India has also felt no need to engage with Islamabad. PM Modi has, by and large, successfully disconnected his foreign policy from Pakistan. And with the growing economic and conventional military disparity between the two countries, India also succeeded in dehyphenating itself from Pakistan.
With fresh strikes on terror bases, India hopes to not just establish some degree of dominance over Pakistan but also deter cross-border terrorism by disproportionately raising the cost for this. Its success, however, remains to be seen. And for that to happen, militancy in Kashmir has to come to an end. But this is something that hasn’t happened over the past 35 years, even though it has gone through its rise and fall. The reason for this is infiltration which has continued despite the fencing along a better part of the border.
Local militancy on the wane
True, the situation has altered drastically over the past five years. According to the figures revealed recently by the union home minister Amit Shah, 1,587 incidents of violence were reported in J&K in 2004 but the number dropped to just 85 in 2024. Similarly, civilian deaths, according to home ministry data, have fallen from 733 to 26, and security personnel casualties have declined from 331 to 31 over the same period. It is also obvious that the stone-pelting is now virtually non-existent. Strikes, once a routine method of expressing dissent, have also disappeared. Separatist politics has truly become extinct. What is more, even the local recruitment into militancy has fallen drastically. According to the official figures, the number of active militants in Jammu and Kashmir has shrunk to 76. About 59 of them are from Pakistan and just 17 are local – 3 in the Jammu region and 14 in the Valley. Among the foreigners, three are said to belong to Hizbul Mujahideen, 21 to Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) and 35 to Lashkar-e-Taiba.
Official data, on the other hand, has indicated a significant drop in youth taking up guns, marking the lowest figures in 15 years. This is for the first time since 2011-12, that the number of active local militants has fallen to single digits, taking forward a trend from 2023 and 2024, with only one new recruit recorded in 2025 so far.
However, militancy has still lingered on the fringes, in the hills, and has refused to be quelled, largely because the infiltration has continued to replenish the depleted local ranks.
Would attacks on terrorist sites in Pakistan bring the terrorism in Kashmir to an end? It is difficult to predict. That is, if the outcome of the 2016 surgical strikes and 2019 Balakot strikes is anything to go by. Militancy has continued, albeit it has steadily lost its sting.
Would this trend towards reduction in militancy-related violence continue? There’s hope that it will, although such moments in the past haven’t been built upon but frittered away. For example, the number of militants – both local and foreign – had, more or less, declined to the same levels in 2011. This had momentarily ushered in a peaceful environment. But the numbers surged again from thereon, especially the local recruitment, with south Kashmir as its hub. And by 2015, we had over 300 local militants in the Valley. However, the situation since has drastically metamorphosed, and, on their face, the things seem unlikely to go back to square one. But, it is also true that Kashmir remains an unpredictable place.
A huge blow for Valley tourism
For over three years, tourism in Kashmir has been consistently on the rise. So much so, it became not just a symbol of the prevailing normalcy but also underpinned it. In 2024, 2.95 million tourists visited Kashmir – 43,000 of them foreigners – up from 2.71 million in 2023 and 2.67 million in 2022. This year, the government expected to beat this record but the Pahalgam attack has suddenly brought it down to a trickle.
In the Valley, hotels, houseboats, and tour operators, once fully booked for the summer season, are now scrambling to offer discounts of up to 70% after mass cancellations from anxious tourists.
This sudden collapse in tourism, a sector that had flourished in recent years thanks to a lull in violence, threatens to hit the livelihood of a large number of people deeply dependent on visitors drawn to Kashmir’s snow-capped peaks, pristine lakes, and lush Mughal gardens. This even as the booking sites show deep price cuts, but the tourism stakeholders have little hope.
“All our bookings for the next two months have been cancelled,” said Umar Ahmad, a staff at a guest house in Srinagar. “There are no fresh bookings. It is going to hurt”
The attack, which India has blamed on Pakistan, has triggered a series of diplomatic and economic measures against Pakistan. The rise in war rhetoric in the country has left local residents fearing the worst.
The arrivals from the northern states have by and large come to a halt but those from the southern states have continued to trickle in, brushing aside the fresh security concerns. .
Former J&K Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti has, however, appreciated the courage of some of these visitors during her visit to Pahalgam. She assured them of the region’s “resilience and hospitality.”
But this, of course, isn’t enough. The tourism sector forms 6.8 percent of Kashmir’s GDP and employs two million people. The sector has the potential to shore up the Valley’s beleaguered economy. But the sharp drop in tourist numbers is certain to drive up unemployment figures. Back in Srinagar, taxi drivers are once again speaking of the abrupt collapse in business.
“I was busy before the horrific killing, driving tourists around the Valley,” said Fayaz Ahmad, a taxi driver. “Before the attack, I didn’t have time to take on more work. There’s none now”
Where do we go from here?
Would India’s strikes in Pakistan change the situation for the better? There’s no telling it would in the long term. That is, if the outcome of the strikes in 2016 and 2019 are anything to go by. However, the response may give a sense of reassurance to the tourists, persuading them to return to Kashmir in the near term. This time, things will be more challenging though: in the earlier precedents of the Indo-Pak clash, the targets of violence were security forces, this time, tourists were attacked. Tourism in Kashmir has thrived on the belief that militants do not attack them. But after the Pahalgam attack, this confidence has been shattered, and may not be repaired easily.
The fresh conflict between India and Pakistan, has not only deepened the diplomatic and military standoff but also cast a long shadow over hopes for regional stability. While India’s forceful retaliation aimed to establish deterrence and reinforce its zero-tolerance stance on terrorism, history suggests that such cycles of violence often have had limited long-term impact on militancy in Kashmir. The repeated use of military strikes, although significant in scale and symbolism, has yet to deliver a lasting resolution to the entrenched conflict.
What is clear, however, is the immediate human and economic toll of these events, particularly on Kashmir’s fragile tourism-driven economy. With public sentiment shaken and the perception of safety eroded, especially after the targeting of tourists, rebuilding trust will be an uphill task. As both nations dig deeper into hardened positions, the likelihood of dialogue or reconciliation appears remote, leaving Kashmir’s people to grapple with renewed uncertainty. In the absence of a sustained political process and meaningful engagement, the region risks remaining locked in a perilous cycle of violence and disruption. Now that this crisis has blown over, we need a long term plan for dealing with Pakistan. The two countries can’t afford a perpetual hostility, with intermittent clashes threatening to trigger a full-fledged war.
