Pahalgam Attack: Why Pakistan Provoked Despite Modi Govt's Expected Response

India has announced diplomatic censures against Pakistan. Will it stop here or will there be a military response?

Why has Pakistan chosen to up the ante knowing fully well that the Narendra Modi government will respond once again?

(Photo: Aroop Mishra/The Quint)

The sound of heavy gunfire pierced the pristine air in Kashmir Valley’s Baisaran meadow on 22 April, shattering the tentative peace and calm that had enveloped the insurgency-torn region that was stripped of its special status in August 2019. Within a span of 20-30 minutes, the terrorists picked their targets and shot them at close range. The death of 26 people in Pahalgam, a popular tourist destination, was the first big strike against civilians since the abrogation of Article 370.

The terror attack – claimed by The Resistance Front, a proxy for the Lashkar-e-Taiba which carried out the audacious strike at multiple locations in Mumbai in 2008 – stands out for various reasons.

The attack, in fact, has set several precedents. Never before have tourists been targeted at such a large scale. Civilians – migrant labourers and Kashmiri Pandits and tourists – have been killed in the past but not in one fell swoop.

Terror, in fact, had found a new address and had crossed over to Rajouri and Poonch, south of the Pir Panjal mountain range.

On 22 April, however, the terrorists appeared out of the woods and made their presence felt in the heart of the valley and at the height of the tourist season.

Calculated Escalation: Vance Effect?

The Pahalgam attack, which bears Pakistan's stamp, is a clear case of what security experts refer to as “calculated escalation.” The last big attack in Kashmir was in Pulwama, in February 2019 – also in South Kashmir – when a suicide bomber rammed an explosive-laden car into a Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) convoy, killing 40 troopers. It is important to mention that Pulwama took place before the reading down of Article 370 and Article 35-A, which safeguarded the residents of Jammu and Kashmir, the only Muslim-majority state. Article 35-A, in particular, allayed the fear of the Kashmiris that they would be reduced to a minority in their own state.

There is another precedent and an important one: the Pahalgam provocation has come after the Narendra Modi-led government has made clear its ‘zero tolerance for terror’ policy.

Modi, in fact, redrew the security paradigm by taking political ownership of surgical strikes, deep into Pakistani territory, not once but twice.

The first strike was carried out by the Indian Army after Pakistani terrorists crossed the line of control and killed 19 soldiers in Uri in 2016. The second, known as the Balakot strike, was conducted by the Indian Air Force in 2019 when it hit Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) facilities soon after the Pulwama attack.

So why has Pakistan chosen to up the ante knowing fully well that the Modi government will respond once again? A lot of attention is being paid to the fact that the Pahalgam attack by terrorists wearing camouflaged uniforms coincided with the visit of American Vice President JD Vance because it is common for Pakistan to try and internationalise the Kashmir issue.

The guns were also aimed at unarmed tourists who had trekked about 7 kms from Pahalgam to reach the Baisaran meadow, often referred to as ‘mini Switzerland’, when Modi was in Saudi Arabia.

The officials in charge of security in Jammu and Kashmir should have known that Pakistan raises the stakes during high-profile visits. It has done that in the past – 36 Sikhs were massacred in Chittisinghpora in 2000 when US President Bill Clinton came to India – and this time, instead of strengthening the security grid, a sense of complacency seemed to have marked the approach. The terrorists who appeared out of the woods knew that there was virtually no security presence in Baisaran and that it would take them time to get there because the meadow could only be reached on ponies or after an hour-long trek.

The Cards Were on the Table

There is another reason that points to the fact that the government in Delhi, and the Lieutenant Governor in Srinagar (who controls law and order ever since Jammu and Kashmir was sliced into a Union Territory) did not have their eyes and ears to the ground. The serenity of Pahalgam was shattered only a few days after a provocative speech by Pakistan army chief, General Asim Munir. 

Munir, who has never hidden the fact that he is rooted to an Islamist ideology or that he is carefully crafting an image of being a ‘Maulvi’, wagged his finger and stated that Kashmir is, was, and will continue to be Islamabad’s “jugular vein.” 

Addressing a gathering of Pakistanis based abroad, General Munir went on to say more. Referring to the audience as Pakistan’s ambassadors, he said,

“You should definitely tell Pakistan's story to your children. Our forefathers thought that we are different from the Hindus in every aspect of life. Our religions, our customs, traditions, thoughts, and ambitions are different. That was the foundation of the two-nation theory that was laid."

Munir’s Kashmir statements made it clear that the issue remains at the heart of the Indo-Pak conflict and that Islamabad was not going to soften its stance or hold back on exporting terror across the line of control.

Munir has chosen to flex his muscles when Pakistan is not just under pressure from terrorists but is also facing an economic and political crisis.

India responded to Munir’s comments by reminding Pakistan that it was in illegal occupation of Indian territory but rhetoric apart, the entire security command – in Delhi and Srinagar – ought to have been prepared for an attack ever since the hijacking of a train in Balochistan in March, when several ministers and senior army officials pointed to what they called "India’s hand".

Pakistan has for long alleged that India is financing and arming the Baloch insurgents, who have been aiming their guns at Pakistan’s military establishment. At a press conference on 14 March, soon after Jaffar Express had been hijacked from Quetta, Director General of Inter Services Public Relations, Lt General Ahmed Sharif Chaudhry, directly accused India of instigating and supporting the Balochistan Liberation Army.

When The Quint called former diplomat, Vivek Katju, also an expert on Pakistan, for his analysis, he pointed me in the direction of a prescient article he had written for Firstpost in end-March.

“Each army chief has to show that he is up to giving a ‘fitting’ response, especially to an attack the institution he leads perceives or rather misperceives, has come from India. As such, it is possible that the Pakistan army will attempt to sponsor a terrorist event in India within the foreseeable future.”

Former Diplomat Vivek Katju

The ’foreseeable future’ became a deadly reality on 22 April when tourists were mercilessly targeted. Eyewitness accounts pointed to how the terrorists had picked their targets based on their religion. One woman, captured on video, can be heard saying, “They shot my husband because he is not a Muslim.” The video took me back in time when, in Punjab, Hindus were forced off buses, and shot dead by Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale’s armed warriors during the heydays of the militancy.

Kashmiris Reject Hate

The Pahalgam attack too was aimed at dividing and polarising communities but the Kashmiri locals, who stand to lose the most, were quick in announcing a hartal and speaking up against the blood of “guests” being spilled on their soil. Peace marches and candle vigils too are being held but, in the immediate, the tourism industry will take a knock and impact the livelihoods of thousands of hoteliers, shikara and houseboat owners, and guides.

The government still has to confirm the role of Lashkar’s shadow outfit, The Resistance Force, but tourists appear to have been deliberately chosen as targets because all governments – including Modi’s – have used the “increase of tourists” yardstick to emphasise the return of normalcy.

The Centre has, especially in the last few years since the abrogation, used the tourism yardstick to point to its slogan of ‘Naya Kashmir.’

It even hosted the G20 tourism working group meeting in Srinagar in May 2023, in which delegates from sixty different countries participated. The Pahalgam attack, however, has not just hit the tourism industry. It has also, in many ways, punctured the claim that Jammu and Kashmir is on the firm path to peace. The road to peace is still vulnerable. It can – and was – breached through the dastardly Pahalgam attack, for which there was scant intelligence. Officials posted in the valley, point out – on the condition of anonymity – that human intelligence, so crucial an element for planning counter-insurgency operations, has shrunk since the abrogation of Article 370.

What Now?

It is clear that the Modi government will give a loud and clear response. The Prime Minister spoke, even before rushing back from Saudi Arabia, saying, “Our resolve to fight terrorism is unshakeable…”. Home Minister Amit Shah, who rushed to Kashmir too, has made the government’s intent clear. “Bharat does not bend to terror,” he said.

What shape will the response take? How will the government punish the “attackers and their masters,” as Defence Minister Rajnath Singh proclaimed?

As a first step, the government announced, after a meeting of the Cabinet Committee on Security, that it was putting the Indus Waters Treaty in abeyanace, closing down the Attari border and asking all Pakistanis currently in India under the SAARC visa scheme, to leave within 48 hours. But will the government stop here or will there be a military response?

I spoke to two crucial officials who led the Uri surgical strike. Lt Gen (Retd) DS Hooda who headed the Northern Command at the time told The Quint:

“There will definitely be a response even though the options are limited. India cannot do anything diplomatically because India and Pakistan are not engaging each other. The response will be a military one, but this time, Pakistan will be expecting one and I believe they are already strengthening their deployment on the Line of Control. Sending our men across like we did after Uri is fraught with risk and will only up the escalatory ladder. I would say that the least risky is the use of the air force.”

Lt Gen Satish Dua, who was the Corps Commander in charge of the Chinar Corps during the Uri attack, predicted “a big response” while speaking to The Quint. He said that when he learnt of Amit Shah rushing to Srinagar, he was reminded of how the then defence minister, Manohar Parrikar, came to his office at a time when he did not want a VIP to distract him from the terror that had unfolded in Uri. Dua did not want to hazard a guess on what shape the Pahalgam response will take but said he was in no doubt that it would be “big” because what happened in the picturesque meadow was a “spectacular attack” that had been deliberately carried out to instil fear and provoke India.

Dua emphasised that the steps relating to the Indus Waters Treaty and the visa cancellations “were only a part of a diplomatic response,” adding, “of course, there will be a military response. The defence minister has said so. It will happen at the time and place of our choosing.”

As the government of India decides on how and when it will respond, it is important to remember that the only commitment between India and Pakistan, that still holds, is the ceasefire agreement along the line of control.

There is another aspect that the government of India must factor in: that peace in Kashmir is fragile, and that it was the ordinary Kashmiri who first came to the rescue of the wailing families in Pahalgam.

The locals assisted with taking the injured to the hospital, before the security forces could arrive; before helicopters were pressed into action for evacuation. An outreach to the common Kashmiri must, therefore, also be factored into. To conclude, the response must be military, in the case of Pakistan. In the case of an alienated Kashmir, it must also be political.

Postscript: Among the dead was a pony ride operator named Syed Adil Hussain Shah. He was killed trying to shield a tourist. That is Kashmiriyat and that needs to be remembered and honoured too. 

(Harinder Baweja is a senior journalist and author. She has been reporting on current affairs, with a particular emphasis on conflict, for the last four decades. She can be reached at @shammybaweja on Instagram and X. This is an opinion piece, and the views expressed are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for them.)