In the wake of the devastating terror attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, which claimed 28 lives and injured over 60 on April 23, 2025, regional tensions between India and Pakistan have reached a critical juncture.

The assault, orchestrated by The Resistance Front (TRF)—a proxy of the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT)—has reignited debates about cross-border terrorism, Pakistan’s military posturing, and India’s strategic response. This report examines the attack’s context, the historical parallels to previous incidents like the 2019 Pulwama bombing, Pakistan’s mobilization of military assets, and the broader implications for regional stability.

The attack occurred in Baisaran Valley, a popular tourist destination in Anantnag district, at approximately 2:30 PM local time. Armed assailants opened fire on tourists, including foreign nationals from the UAE and Nepal, in a deliberate strike timed to coincide with high-profile diplomatic engagements: US Vice President JD Vance’s visit to India and Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s state visit to Saudi Arabia. The TRF’s claim of responsibility, disseminated via social media, cited India’s issuance of domicile certificates to non-locals as a rationale, framing the violence as resistance to demographic changes. Security analysts, however, emphasize the TRF’s operational ties to LeT, whose leadership, including Hafiz Saeed, has long enjoyed sanctuary in Pakistan.

Prime Minister Modi curtailed his Saudi trip to oversee crisis management, while Home Minister Amit Shah convened an emergency security review in Srinagar, vowing that “the perpetrators will not go unpunished”. The attack has drawn comparisons to the 2019 Pulwama bombing, where 40 Indian paramilitary personnel were killed by a Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) suicide bomber. Former Jammu and Kashmir Director General of Police SP Vaid labelled the incident “Pulwama 2.0,” alleging involvement of Pakistan’s Special Service Group (SSG) commandos disguised as militants.

The Pulwama attack marked a watershed in India-Pakistan relations. India’s subsequent airstrikes on Balakot, targeting JeM camps, demonstrated a shift from strategic restraint to proactive deterrence. Pakistan’s retaliatory aerial engagement the following day escalated tensions, underscoring the volatility of the nuclear-armed neighbors’ stand-off. In the aftermath, India intensified efforts to diplomatically isolate Pakistan, including lobbying for UN sanctions against JeM chief Masood Azhar and revoking Pakistan’s Most Favoured Nation status.

The TRF’s emergence in 2019, following India’s abrogation of Article 370, exemplifies Pakistan’s strategy of deploying proxy groups to maintain plausible deniability. By rebranding LeT operatives as “local resistance” fighters, Pakistan seeks to evade international scrutiny while sustaining pressure on Indian-administered Kashmir. This tactic mirrors the use of JeM in Pulwama and highlights Islamabad’s reliance on non-state actors to advance its security objectives.

Satellite imagery and social media reports indicate heightened Pakistani military activity along the Line of Control (LoC). Retired Indian Naval Commander Sandeep Dhawan noted increased sorties by Pakistan Air Force (PAF) C-130 transport aircraft near Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK), speculating about potential troop reinforcements or terrorist infiltrations. Egyptian journalist Khaled Mahmoued corroborated these observations, reporting that Pakistan had placed its air force on high alert following Modi’s pledge of retaliation.

Pakistan’s mobilization reflects acute awareness of India’s capacity for cross-border strikes, as demonstrated post-Pulwama. The presence of SSG commandos—a unit specializing in asymmetric warfare—near the LoC suggests preparations for both offensive and defensive scenarios. However, experts caution that overt military clashes risk unintended escalation, particularly given both nations’ nuclear arsenals.

The Indian Army has long warned of Pakistan’s exploitation of social media to radicalize Kashmiri youth. Lieutenant General Ranbir Singh, in 2019, highlighted how platforms like Facebook and WhatsApp are weaponized to disseminate pro-militancy propaganda, often glorifying jihadist narratives. The TRF’s rapid claim of responsibility via Telegram channels underscores the centrality of digital tools in modern insurgent tactics.

Indian security forces have responded with AI-driven monitoring systems to detect and neutralize extremist content. By analyzing sentiment trends and flagging radicalization hotspots, these initiatives aim to disrupt recruitment pipelines while preserving civil liberties. Despite these measures, the persistence of encrypted communication channels poses ongoing challenges.

Home Minister Amit Shah’s declaration that “Bharat will not bend to terror” signals resolve, but the government faces pressure to translate rhetoric into action. Security analysts advocate for a multi-pronged approach: surgical strikes on terrorist training camps, intensified border surveillance, and diplomatic campaigns to blacklist TRF operatives globally. Former officials like SP Vaid have even invoked Israel’s response to Hamas as a model, advocating for disproportionate retaliation to deter future attacks.

India is likely to leverage its growing strategic partnerships, particularly with the US and Saudi Arabia, to isolate Pakistan. The timing of the attack during Vice President Vance’s visit may galvanize US support for counterterrorism initiatives, while Modi’s engagement with Saudi leadership could curb Pakistani access to Gulf funding.

The Pahalgam attack has derailed tentative efforts at dialogue, such as the 2021 ceasefire along the LoC. Pakistan’s continued reliance on proxy groups undermines confidence-building measures, pushing India toward harder security postures. With both nations conducting military exercises near the border, the risk of miscalculation remains acute.

Global powers, including the US and EU, have condemned the attack but stopped short of explicitly blaming Pakistan. The involvement of foreign nationals among the victims may spur stricter counterterrorism advisories for travellers to Kashmir, exacerbating economic losses in the region’s tourism sector. Human rights organizations, meanwhile, warn against conflating counterterrorism operations with collective punishment of Kashmiri civilians.

The failure to pre-empt the Pahalgam attack underscores gaps in human intelligence. Expanding networks of informants within militant groups, coupled with advanced surveillance technologies like drones and facial recognition systems, could improve threat detection.

Military solutions alone cannot resolve Kashmir’s instability. Socioeconomic initiatives—such as job creation for youth, mental health support for conflict survivors, and educational reforms—are critical to undermining militant recruitment. The Indian Army’s “Sadbhavana” projects, focusing on community development, offer a blueprint but require scaling.

Pakistan’s reluctance to dismantle terrorist sanctuaries necessitates international pressure. India could lobby for Financial Action Task Force (FATF) sanctions against Pakistani institutions funding groups like TRF, while multilateral platforms like the Quad (US, India, Japan, Australia) might expand counterterrorism intelligence-sharing.

The Pahalgam attack epitomizes the enduring threat of cross-border terrorism in South Asia. As India weighs its response, it must balance the imperative of deterrence with the risks of escalation. Pakistan’s military mobilization and historical support for proxies suggest a calculated gamble to test India’s resolve, yet neither nation can afford full-scale war. Long-term stability hinges on addressing Kashmir’s political grievances, curbing radicalization through inclusive development, and fostering multilateral cooperation to isolate terrorist networks. The coming weeks will reveal whether leadership in New Delhi and Islamabad can transcend cyclical retaliation to forge a path toward enduring peace.

Agencies