Historical And Strategic Shift In Response To Pakistan Aggression In Context Of Pahalgam Terrorist Attack – OpEd |
On April 22, 2025 the quiet and serene Baisaran valley located near Pahalgam of Anantnag district in Jammu and Kashmir was woken up by gunshots. Terrorists attacked tourists massacring 26 of them and injuring more than 20 others. The attack was carried out by a local terrorist outfit known by the name the resistance front (TRF) which is an offshoot of Lashkar- e- Taiba. The incident shook the very conscience of the country. The whole country was filled with grief and anger. Intelligence inputs established that Pakistan was behind the attack.
The Pahalgam attack and the lynching of the tourists is not the first attempt of Pakistan sponsored terrorists to wound Indian psyche and challenge Indian sovereignty on its own land. The very first challenge to Indian security and sovereignty has come from Pakistan within two months of partition of India and establishment of Islamic republic of Pakistan. Pakistan adopted an expansionist policy and invaded the Princely State of Jammu and Kashmir through tribal invasion sponsored by its army. The Pakistan invasion of Jammu and Kashmir was an illegal and rogue attempt of Jinnah who had signed a “Standstill Agreement” with Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir on one hand and on the other hand he had planned “operation Gulmarg” within the blink of time after Pakistan independence. The operation was planned to occupy the kingdom of Maharaja Hari Singh by Jinnah and final shape to ‘operation Gulmarg” was given on 18th august 1947 just after 4 days of establishment of Islamic republic of Pakistan. Brigadier Sher khan and brigadier Akbar khan were given the responsibility of this operation by Jinnah and as per plan 20, 000 ex-soldiers of British Indian army were to be recruited by Pakistan army from north west frontier province to invade the territory of Maharaja Hari Singh in tribal guise by October 22, 1947 through numerous routes from Pakistan border.
Jinnah became confirmed that Jammu and Kashmir will go to India one day as his carrot and stick policy failed to trap Maharaja. Maharaja Hari Singh refused the advice and assurance of Lord Mountbatten for the protection of dynastic privileges of Maharaja, if he joins Pakistan because majority of his subjects belonged to Islam on the one hand. On the other hand he openly refused to the military threats of Jinnah and kept his negotiations with India for the merger of his state with India. Maharaja call for help from India and accession with India when his state was turned down by Pakistan sponsored tribals and military was the natural act of a ruler to protect the interest of his people and state against the calibrated attempts of Pakistan and great powers to occupy his state forcefully.
India’s military action and diplomatic attempts against the illegal occupation of Jammu and Kashmir by Pakistan, however, has been restrained to vacate its territory from Pakistan. India did not act aggressively occupy and enter the territory of Pakistan from the other border routes of Pakistan pertaining with India. Moreover, despite Pakistan’s aggression and illegal occupying of territory of Jammu and Kashmir which happens to be an integral part of India as per the constitutional provisions, India continued its diplomatic relations with Pakistan and proved to be a friendly nation as it signed the “Indus Water Treaty” (IWT) with Pakistan in 1960. It is also pertinent to mention that once again Pakistan launched “Operation Gibraltar” to infiltrate into Jammu and Kashmir that resulted into full fledged war between India and Pakistan in 1965. This war ended with the “Tashkent Treaty” through which India and Pakistan assured the maintaining of status quo on the mutual borders.
The military aggression and intrusion into the Indian Territory of Jammu and Kashmir proved counterproductive to Pakistan itself as East Pakistan, i.e. the present Bangladesh, witnessed a strong linguistic and regional movement against the exploitation, discrimination and inhumane treatment meted out to the Bengali people of East Pakistan by the Punjabi dominant leadership of West Pakistan. The people of East Pakistan decided to get rid of the inhuman rule of West Pakistan and launched an armed rebellion by forming “Mukti Bahini” (a guerrilla resistance movement against Pakistan).
It is pertinent to note that India extended its political and military support to “Mukti Bahini” and Pakistan took it as the India’s act of aggression and intervention in the internal affairs of Pakistan and indulged into a full-fledged war with India in 1971. In this war Pakistan forces faced India’s military might and soon accepted the reality. It resulted in the military defeat and partition of Pakistan into Pakistan and Bangladesh. After this war Pakistan signed “Shimla Agreement” with India and assured India of respecting the line of control in Jammu and Kashmir and settling of the mutual disputes through peaceful and hormonal methods.
The humiliating defeat of Pakistan in 1972 witnessed a shift in Pakistan military strategy against India and Pakistan decided to launch a coveted and unconventional war against India as it realised that it cannot afford a direct military confrontation with India. It is at this time that Pakistan leadership drafted a policy on the lines of its Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s declaration of “Thousand-year war against India” and General Zia-ul-Haq’s call of “Bleeding India with Thousand Cuts”. Punjab has been the first ground for the test of Pakistan policy of unconventional war against India and one of the most prosperous and developed states of India has been ruined through the calibrated secessionist movement and narco-terrorism. However, despite many evidences and open support of the Pakistan to secessionist terrorists in Punjab, India could not design any policy framework and diplomatic measures to control the Pakistan’s intervention in Punjab. The Indian attempts to normalise the situation in Punjab has been restrained to the internal security measures and vigilance at international border of Pakistan adjoining to the Punjab.
Another border state of India Jammu and Kashmir became the second breeding ground of unconventional war of Pakistan against India through intrusion of terrorists and narco-terrorism since 1990s. The state of Jammu and Kashmir witnessed large scale violence by the terrorists and Pakistan was successful in propagating the terrorist violence as ethnic and secessionist movement of Kashmiri Muslims against government of India through its diplomatic measures at international level.
It is worth to note that despite many massacres of Kashmiri Hindus and exodus of Kashmiri Hindus from Kashmir valley in 1990s by terrorists who were not only sponsored by Pakistan but also citizens of Pakistan who were acting as jihadis. Despite its best-efforts government of India could not design an effective policy and diplomatic measures to hold Pakistan responsible for the killing of its citizens and spreading violence in its territory. The government actions and policy measures have been restrained to the internal security measures and fencing its border adjacent to Pakistan. In fact, in 1999 Pakistan planned a successful infiltration into the Indian Territory at Kargil that resulting into a limited war between Indian and Pakistan. However, despite of repeated incidents of infiltration from Pakistan by terrorists and killing of security forces personnel, India could not awake any strong diplomatic and military measures against Pakistan.
A historic and strategic shift has been witnessed with the change of ruling political party i.e. BJP at centre in 2014. The BJP led government took some strong policy and diplomatic measures not only to strengthen the security forces for countering terrorism but also designed the diplomatic and military measures to restrain Pakistan from its unconventional war calibrations through the terrorism in Indian territory. There has been a dynamic shift in India’s foreign policy especially towards Pakistan and India has become more offensive against the Pakistan sponsored terrorism in its territory. The tit for tat policy was adopted by the government of India and a due response to the Pakistan sponsored terrorist violence against the security forces was given through the military might. This policy shift was observed in 2016 after Uri attack.
On September 18 2016 armed terrorists attacked an army camp in Uri and killed 19 soldiers. The attack was carried out by Jaish-e- Mohammad terrorists, a Pakistan based and sponsored terrorist organisation. It was deadliest attack on armed forces in the past two decades. Ten days after the attack India responded with “surgical strikes”. Indian Special Forces carried out precise attacks on terrorist training camps in Pakistan occupied Kashmir killing scores of terrorists.
Targeted strikes across the line of control were carried out earlier also but what differed this time was the messaging. On September 29, 2016, the Director General of Military Operations (DGMO) of the Indian Army, Lt. Gen. Ranbir Singh, made a statement to the media, and announced the carrying out of surgical strikes. Pakistan was also officially informed about these strikes.
Within the period of three years Pakistan again designed a big attack on security forces on Indian Territory. On 14th February 2019 a convoy of Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) was attacked by a vehicle-borne suicide bomber in Pulwama that killed 40 CRPF personnel on the spot. The attack was again orchestrated by Pakistan based terrorist organisation Jaish-e-Mohammad in response to this attack India took more strong measures and went for airstrikes on terrorist camps in Pakistan territory. This airstrike destroyed many terrorist camps and killed more than 300 terrorists in the territory of enemy country which has happened for the first time in military history of India.
Despite giving a strong message through military action and calibrated destruction to Pakistan for engaging in the terrorist activities against India, Pakistan did not restrain from carrying out covert warfare against India. It continued to sponsor cross border terrorism and continued with its policy of bleeding India by thousand cuts. The Pahalgam massacre of Hindu tourists by the terrorists is part of Pakistan conventional war against India. This time India seems to take drastic steps and some measures at the policy level to force Pakistan to stop from adopting the unconventional war measures against India. The suspension of Indus Water Treaty (IWT) is one of the historic strategic measures which indicate that India can go to any extent to protect lives of its citizens and territorial sovereignty of the country.
Indus Water Treaty was signed on 19 September 1960 in Karachi by Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and Pakistan’s President Field Marshal Ayub Khan. It was brokered by World Bank. It governs the distribution and management of the Indus River system, encompassing six rivers: the Indus, Jhelum, Chenab, Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej. According to its provisions, India received exclusive rights over the eastern rivers—Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej—while Pakistan was allocated the waters of the western rivers—Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab.
This treaty survived three wars (1965, 1971 and 1999) and 65 years of conflict. Though the treaty was inherently discriminatory against India, India still honoured it. On many occasions India threatened to suspend it but stopped short of doing it. But this time it was suspended. Its suspension holds significance because Indus River system forms the lifeline of Pakistan’s agriculture and is already reeling under conflict over distribution of Indus water.
Although the suspension of treaty will not affect the water supply to the Pak immediately but its significance lies in its messaging. It is a clear message to Pakistan that India’s response to any act of Pakistani aggression will be deep and powerful which will hurt that country to its core. Also, the response to any incitement would be proactive which will have long term repercussions. The suspension of the Indus Water Treaty also signifies that India has moved beyond diplomatic and military tools to answer Pakistan’s aggression and is ready to explore non military options. Short term implications of the suspension of the treaty may not be immediately visible but it holds significant long-term implications. It also sets a precedent for future crisis and it is a message to Pakistan also that India is ready to explore non-conventional methods also.
The Army forms Pakistan’s deep state as it holds real power there and all the decisions are basically taken by the army. Our traditional response to any act of aggression was generally military or diplomatic which had little impact on the Pakistan army establishment. It in fact further strengthened the legitimacy of Pakistan army. But the suspension of the treaty will adversely impact the army establishment. The Pakistan army holds a significant share of agricultural land in Punjab province. It is also directly involved in agricultural investments in the region.
The suspension of the treaty will lead to water crisis since the region is heavily dependent on Indus River system for irrigation. It will lead to loss of legitimacy of Pakistan army as a stabilising force in the country and its inability to counter India’s offensive. Also, water from Indus River is being diverted from the Sindh province to the Punjab province which has led to regional conflicts. The suspension of the treaty will also adversely impact the “Green Pakistan Initiative” which is a flagship programme of the Pakistan army. It will also hurt Pakistan’s economy very severely which is already going through economic crisis.
The suspension of Indus Water Treaty by India is unprecedented and indicates a tectonic shift in India’s response to Pakistan sponsored terrorism. It sends out the message that India’s response to any act of aggression will no longer be limited to diplomatic and military means. India is now ready to strike deep and hard which will have long term repercussions. India is now ready to go to any measure to defend its territory and its people.
India’s response will no longer be limited to its territory and India will strike deep in the enemy territory. India’s approach has become more offensive. India is now ready to adopt any measure it has to take to secure its territory and people. Also India’s response will not be limited to short term measures; India is ready to explore options which will have long term and very deep repercussions. It is strong and clear-cut message to Pakistan to mend its ways and stop sponsoring terrorism in India. Also, India has not terminated the Indus Water Treaty and just suspended it. It indicates that India is ready for negotiations but on its own terms. Talks will only happen when Pakistan completely stops sponsoring terrorism. In the context of suspension of Indus water treaty can be taken its historic shift against the Pakistan aggression from defensive to offensive strategy.
About the authors: