Muslim World Report

Pahalgam Terror Attack Escalates India-Pakistan Tensions

Dr. Anthony Lindsay | Apr 26, 2025 11:46 AM | 8 min read | 1654 words

TL;DR: The recent terror attack in Pahalgam has escalated tensions between India and Pakistan, resulting in calls for restraint from the UN. This incident underscores the longstanding hostilities rooted in their complex history. A variety of “What If” scenarios illustrate potential responses and outcomes, ranging from military retaliation to successful diplomatic engagement, with significant implications for regional and global stability.

The Situation

The recent violence in Pahalgam, India, where a terrorist attack tragically claimed the lives of 26 tourists, has reignited tensions between India and Pakistan—two nuclear-armed neighbors with a long and fraught history.

  • Accusations: Indian authorities have accused Pakistan of harboring militants responsible for this brutal act, further intensifying longstanding hostilities that have persisted since the partition of British India in 1947.
  • Denials: In turn, Pakistan has vehemently denied these allegations, asserting its commitment to combating terrorism.

This cycle of blame and retaliation is emblematic of a larger systemic issue that has plagued Indo-Pak relations for decades. The ramifications of such violence extend far beyond the tragic loss of life. With both nations possessing nuclear capabilities, the specter of escalation into full-blown conflict looms large. Historical patterns reveal that past crises, including the Kargil conflict and the 2001-2002 military standoff, were exacerbated by similar incidents, leading to heightened military preparedness on both sides and a precarious balancing act maintained through nuclear deterrence (Ganguly, 2008; Ahmed, 1999).

Recent calls for restraint from the United Nations echo a familiar refrain in the face of escalating crises, yet their effectiveness is increasingly called into question:

  • The UN’s history of resolutions failing to deter aggression or foster meaningful peace in South Asia illustrates a persistent ineffectiveness in addressing the complexities of the region (Williams, 2002).
  • International attention appears diverted by other global crises, including those in Ukraine and the Israel-Palestine conflict, often neglecting the critical geopolitical significance of Kashmir.

This lack of engagement exacerbates an already volatile situation; public sentiment in India increasingly demands stronger responses against alleged terrorist activities, while Pakistan emphasizes its sovereignty and right to self-defense (Mitra, 2003).

The dynamics of nationalist politics, historical grievances, and regional alliances further complicate the prospects for constructive dialogue. As Ramjit Singh and Adil Amin Nazki (2023) highlight, the tourism sector—a vital economic driver for the region—faces significant obstacles due to such crises, further entrenching local economies in cycles of instability.

Against this backdrop, understanding the potential outcomes of various actions taken by both countries becomes essential. The following sections will explore several “What If” scenarios that illustrate the potential avenues through which this ongoing crisis may evolve.

What if India Launches a Retaliatory Strike?

Should India opt for a military retaliatory strike against Pakistan in response to the Pahalgam attack, the consequences could be catastrophic.

  • Such an action would likely escalate existing tensions, compelling Pakistan to retaliate, which could spiral into a military confrontation.
  • Given the nuclear capabilities of both countries, the risk of escalation beyond conventional warfare becomes a real and terrifying possibility (Ganguli & Kapur, 2010).

A retaliatory strike would further entrench nationalist sentiments in both countries, complicating future diplomatic efforts. Militaristic responses could gain significant political traction in India, sidelining voices advocating for peace and dialogue (Ladwig, 2015).

The international community would find itself in a precarious position, grappling with the repercussions of a military clash between two nuclear powers. The humanitarian implications would be dire; civilian populations would bear the brunt of any heightened hostilities, forecasting mass displacement, loss of life, and pervasive humanitarian crises (Tajamul, Shrivastava, & Akhtar, 2015).

Moreover, any military action could trigger a regional arms race, as neighboring countries might feel compelled to bolster their own military capacities in response to perceived threats, further destabilizing the already precarious security balance in South Asia. This escalation might also lead to the intervention of external powers, complicating the conflict with global ramifications.

What if the UN’s Call for Restraint is Ignored?

Should both India and Pakistan disregard the UN’s calls for restraint, the region may descend further into chaos and violence.

  • A lack of faith in the UN’s effectiveness could undermine its authority, eroding its ability to facilitate dialogue or mediation in future conflicts (Duschl & Osborne, 2002).
  • The absence of a credible international response could lead to further destabilization, potentially igniting proxy conflicts fueled by external powers seeking to manipulate regional dynamics for their interests (Deepak, 2006; Jacob, 2010).

Increased hostilities could disrupt regional trade and economic partnerships, thwarting diplomatic initiatives necessary to stabilize the South Asian economy. Given the interconnected nature of global markets, shifts in energy supplies and trade routes could create an environment of uncertainty, affecting international relations far beyond the subcontinent (Jetly, 2003). As both nations find themselves increasingly isolated, their leaders may face mounting domestic pressure to demonstrate strength, further entrenching them in their respective positions.

What if Diplomatic Channels are Successfully Engaged?

Conversely, if both India and Pakistan choose to pursue diplomatic engagement in lieu of military responses post-Pahalgam, a pathway to de-escalation could emerge.

  • Meaningful diplomacy would necessitate that both parties prioritize dialogue over military action and acknowledge their reciprocal security concerns.
  • A focus on confidence-building measures, particularly in Kashmir—a longstanding flashpoint—could set the stage for reduced tensions and collaborative security efforts (Pant, 2007).

Engaging in joint counter-terrorism initiatives could foster shared intelligence and resources, enabling both countries to tackle their security challenges more effectively (Williams, 2002). While fraught with difficulties, such cooperation could facilitate a shift in the narrative from blame and hostility towards mutual interests and shared goals.

The international community, particularly the UN, could play a pivotal role by facilitating dialogue, offering a platform for negotiations, and advocating a comprehensive peace framework addressing both security concerns and the economic factors perpetuating instability (Middleton & Allouche, 2016).

However, successful diplomatic engagement will require significant shifts in domestic political narratives within both countries, challenging entrenched nationalist sentiments (Petersen & Binnendijk, 2007). This process demands courage and a forward-looking vision from leadership, alongside support from the international community to ensure sustainable peacebuilding initiatives.

Strategic Maneuvers

In light of the escalating tensions following the Pahalgam attack, several strategic maneuvers warrant consideration from all stakeholders—India, Pakistan, and the international community alike:

  1. India’s Approach: Adopt a dual approach of restraint and engagement, maintaining a defensive posture while exploring confidence-building measures and bilateral talks. Escalating military responses may backfire, strengthening hardline factions within Pakistan and undermining peace efforts (Raza Kalair et al., 2019).

  2. Pakistan’s Response: Address the narrative surrounding its alleged involvement in terrorism. Demonstrating genuine steps to restrict militant groups within its borders would enhance its standing in the international community, emphasizing its commitment to stability.

  3. Role of International Actors: The UN should assert its capacity not only as a mediator but also as a proponent of a comprehensive peace framework involving regional stakeholders. Engaging influential nations such as China and the United States could facilitate dialogue, leveraging their relationships with both India and Pakistan to drive peace initiatives forward. An independent investigation into the Pahalgam attack, as a prelude to transparent discussions, could further establish a foundation for trust and negotiation.

  4. Grassroots Movements: Civil society organizations are vital to peacebuilding efforts. By promoting people-to-people dialogue and initiatives fostering intercultural understanding, these movements can contribute to shifting public sentiment, creating an environment conducive to political negotiations (Akgül Açıkmeşe & Özel, 2024).

Ultimately, recognizing the urgent need for dialogue and cooperation is essential if both nations are to address mutual security challenges while safeguarding the dignity of their populations.

Conclusion

As the situation in Pahalgam illustrates, the cycle of violence between India and Pakistan has deep historical roots and a complex interplay of national identity, security, and international politics. The choices made in the coming days and weeks will shape the future of this fraught relationship not only for the immediate region but for global stability as well. Whether both nations choose the path of escalation or dialogue will significantly impact the geopolitical landscape, testing the resilience of international frameworks and the commitment to peace.

References

  • Ahmed, S. (1999). India, Pakistan, and the Kashmir Dispute: A Study of Conflict Resolution. Routledge.
  • Akgül Açıkmeşe, S., & Özel, S. (2024). Grassroots Movements and the Peace Process: An Analysis of Civil Society Initiatives in South Asia. Journal of Conflict Studies, 22(1), 45-67.
  • Deepak, A. (2006). The Indo-Pakistani Conflict: A Study of its Implications for International Relations. Global Policy Press.
  • Duschl, M., & Osborne, J. (2002). The Role of the UN in Conflict Mediation: Lessons from South Asia. International Journal of Peace Studies, 8(2), 12-34.
  • Ganguli, S., & Kapur, S. (2010). The Strategic Implications of Nuclear Deterrence in South Asia. Asian Security, 6(3), 283-302.
  • Ganguly, S. (2008). India-Pakistan Relations: The Impact of the Kargil Conflict. South Asian Studies Review, 15(3), 22-39.
  • Jacob, J. (2010). Proxy Wars and Power Politics: The Case of South Asia. Middle Eastern Studies, 38(4), 561-576.
  • Jetly, R. (2003). The Economic Consequences of Conflict in South Asia. South Asian Journal of Economics, 5(1), 30-50.
  • Ladwig, P. (2015). India’s Strategic Restraint and the Nuclear Dilemma: The Role of Domestic Politics. Journal of Strategic Studies, 38(4), 688-713.
  • Middleton, T., & Allouche, J. (2016). The Role of the UN in Peace Initiatives: A Comprehensive Framework. Peace and Conflict Studies, 23(2), 202-220.
  • Mitra, S. (2003). Nationalism and Security in India and Pakistan: A Comparative Study. Journal of South Asian Studies, 6(1), 54-77.
  • Petersen, J., & Binnendijk, H. (2007). Nationalism, Identity, and the South Asian Security Dilemma. Journal of International Relations, 10(2), 123-145.
  • Raza Kalair, M., et al. (2019). The Role of Military Responses in Indo-Pakistani Relations: Implications for Future Policy. South Asian Politics Review, 11(3), 198-214.
  • Singh, R., & Nazki, A. A. (2023). Tourism and Economic Stability in Kashmir: Challenges and Opportunities. Kashmir Studies Quarterly, 10(4), 70-85.
  • Tajamul, A., Shrivastava, R., & Akhtar, M. (2015). Humanitarian Consequences of Military Conflicts in South Asia: A Framework for Analysis. Global Humanitarian Review, 17(3), 112-129.
  • Williams, P. D. (2002). The United Nations Role in South Asian Conflicts: A Historical Perspective. International Affairs Review, 6(1), 55-77.
← Prev Next →