Pahalgam Terror Attack: Pakistan’s Gamble And India’s Dilemmas

At the briefing to the all-party meeting on Thursday, the Government admitted that lapses had led to the terrorist attack at Pahalgam, which resulted in the horrific deaths of 26 people.

The Government was asked at the meeting: Whom are you holding responsible?

A direct answer was not provided. It was not considered the forum for such detailing.

It is learnt that the Government is of the opinion that the attack was not due to a lack of New Delhi's commitment, synergy, or orientation on the ground. The urgent need, it believes, is first and foremost to ensure that such an attack does not happen again. Alongside that, the Government is prioritising measures to prevent infiltration—though both are easier said than done.

The Government is also working through a set of dilemmas as it steadily shapes its multi-pronged response and puts in place a functional deterrence.

New Delhi has joined the dots, and what emerges is what the Government believes is “strong and compelling evidence” of a Pakistani signature. One such indication is the use of the M4 assault rifle, which is being characterised as having very clearly come from NATO stock left behind in Afghanistan. Only last week, this newspaper carried a front-page story reporting that as many as half a million weapons abandoned by the United States are awash in Afghanistan—posing a real threat to regional stability. The weapons now in the hands of terrorists in Jammu and Kashmir are believed to be from that very stockpile.

Two days ago, Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri, while addressing the media without taking questions, prefaced his remarks by saying: “In the briefing to the CCS, the cross-border linkages of the terrorist attack were brought out.” These linkages are further evident in the form of working Pakistani ID numbers, local support, and broad indications that the perpetrators have retreated to the higher reaches—and that authorities know where they are. The demolition of the homes of those believed to have provided support is part of an effort to root out this support system.

The Government’s stated aim is to get at both the perpetrators and the broader networks. It is not drawing too many distinctions about the specific affiliation of the terrorist outfit. The Government is convinced, based on available intelligence, that they are Lashkar militants in Masqueraded, and that their camps remain operational across the border. Notably, these camps have not disbanded as they usually do after such attacks in order to minimise the risk of retaliation.

Is their continued presence a signal of Pakistan’s calculations? Is striking them now a viable option? With the Pahalgam attack, Pakistan seems to have turned a critical corner. It is daring New Delhi to put its money where its mouth is.

The measures the Government is currently taking are akin to cleaning the area where a surgery is about to be performed. The pressing question is: What surgery?

It is not yet clear what sort of options the Government is considering, especially as the evidence needed to lay out the full extent of the linkages is still being pieced together. If rooting out the networks is indeed the priority, then symbolic gestures like Balakot are insufficient to dismantle the entrenched terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan and the strategic calculus that supports it—as proven by the Pahalgam attack.

Given the near-total absence of bilateral ties, the current set of diplomatic measures and countermeasures merely hold up a mirror to the dismal state of affairs. They do little to impose any real or additional cost on either nation.

The Prime Minister has referenced the support India has received from world leaders in the wake of the Pahalgam attack. Pakistan, too, is aware that an attack of this scale inevitably invites retribution. A Pakistani response to Delhi’s response is, therefore, a given.

Because of the situation’s inherent potential to escalate, whatever action New Delhi takes will have to be carefully managed. The Americans will have to be on board, as will other key nations. Though New Delhi in 2025 is far better positioned than it was in 2001–2002—when it launched Operation Parakram in an attempt to get the Americans to pressure Pakistan into dismantling its terror infrastructure—it still needs Washington to help both leverage the situation and manage its aftermath.

Will Donald Trump, who thrives in mediation scenarios and enjoys being in the limelight, step forward to prove that a friend in need is a friend indeed? That is Pakistan’s gamble—the mediation scenario.

People have long suspected that the 'n' in Pakistan stands for 'nuisance.' Pakistan seems determined to prove them right.Pahalgam terror attack.