The Kashmir Tensions. India vs. Pakistan
The Kashmir Tensions. India vs. Pakistan
1. Summary
The uneasy calm between India and Pakistan was shattered in late April 2025 after a brutal terrorist attack unfolded in the Baisaran Valley, near Pahalgam in Indian-administered Kashmir. On April 22nd, gunmen opened fire on tourists, killing at least 26 people and wounding dozens more. This attack was shocking for its targeting of civilians in a well-known holiday destination. The Resistance Front (TRF), which India says is a cover for the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), claimed it was responsible. New Delhi reacted quickly and strongly, blaming elements linked to Pakistan. A diplomatic crisis quickly followed, with military attachés expelled, the crucial Attari-Wagah border crossing closed, and visas for Pakistani citizens cancelled. At the same time, Indian security forces began a large-scale search for the attackers in Kashmir and increased counter-insurgency activities. In a move with potentially huge consequences, India announced it was suspending the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), a vital water-sharing pact that had survived previous wars, arguing Pakistan's alleged support for terrorism violated the agreement.
Pakistan firmly denied any involvement. While condemning the attack, it accused India of spreading "misinformation" and suggested the incident could have been a "false flag operation" staged to justify India's actions. Islamabad hit back with its own measures: closing its airspace to Indian planes, restricting border crossings, stopping trade, and cutting diplomatic staff numbers. Critically, Pakistan stated that any Indian attempt to change water flows under the IWT would be treated as an "act of war." International leaders condemned the terrorism and expressed support for India, but also urgently called for both nuclear-armed countries to show "maximum restraint" and step back from further escalation. The crisis has created a highly unstable situation along the Line of Control (LoC), greatly increasing the risk of military clashes and raising fears about instability spreading across the region.
2. The Pahalgam Attack
The Incident
On the afternoon of April 22, 2025, around 2:50 PM, the usually peaceful Baisaran Valley near Pahalgam – often called 'mini Switzerland' – turned into a scene of horror. This popular spot for tourists, known for its meadows and mountain views, is somewhat remote, mainly reached by foot or horseback, and wasn't heavily guarded. According to police and people who saw what happened, four or five attackers wearing military-style clothing and carrying automatic weapons, including AK-47s and M4 carbines, entered the meadow where hundreds of tourists and local workers were present.
They then began a targeted mass shooting. Survivors described a terrifying method: attackers reportedly asked victims their names and religion, specifically picking out non-Muslims, mostly Hindu tourists from different parts of India. Some said men were forced to prove they weren't Muslim before being shot at close range. Videos emerged showing chaos and panic, with bodies lying on the grass and injured people calling for help.
The attack left a terrible toll: at least 26 civilians were confirmed dead, and estimates of the injured varied from over 20 to possibly three dozen, many with severe wounds. The victims were mostly Indian tourists from states like Maharashtra, Kerala, Karnataka, Odisha, Gujarat, Haryana, West Bengal, Uttar Pradesh, and Arunachal Pradesh. A Nepali citizen, a tourist from the UAE, a local Kashmiri guide, and an Indian Navy officer reportedly on his honeymoon were also among those killed. This massacre is the deadliest attack targeting civilians, particularly tourists, in Indian-administered Kashmir in more than twenty years, drawing comparisons to the 2008 Mumbai attacks for its scale and cruelty. It marked a stark change from recent attacks in the Kashmir Valley, which, while involving targeted killings and clashes with security forces, had generally not affected the large number of tourists visiting such places.
Responsibility Claim
A group calling itself The Resistance Front (TRF) took responsibility for the attack through social media. TRF appeared after India removed Jammu and Kashmir's special status under Article 370 in 2019. Security experts in India and abroad generally consider TRF a front group for Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), the Pakistan-based organization behind the 2008 Mumbai attacks, which is listed as a terrorist group by the UN. TRF's use of an English name makes it different from older militant groups in the area.
In its statement, TRF directly connected the attack to population changes in Kashmir, saying it was a response to over 85,000 "outsiders" settling in the region since 2019. The group also claimed, without providing evidence, that the victims were not "ordinary tourists" but people linked to Indian security agencies. Indian intelligence later named a senior LeT commander, Saifullah Kasuri (also known as Khalid), as the likely planner of the attack.
The deliberate targeting of tourists, especially Hindus, in a popular and previously thought-safe location like Baisaran, shows a disturbing shift in how militants operate. While past violence often hit security personnel or specific minority groups, this attack aimed for mass casualties among visitors, fitting TRF's stated reason of opposing demographic change. The attackers likely wanted to create widespread fear, scare off future tourists and potential settlers from mainland India, and undermine the Indian government's claims that removing Article 370 brought peace and prosperity, often highlighted by growing tourism numbers. The brutality and location seemed chosen to cause maximum psychological harm, damage Kashmir's vital tourism economy, and possibly provoke communal violence, pushing the conflict into a dangerous new direction.
Immediate Aftermath
A huge security response followed immediately. The Indian Army, paramilitary units, and Jammu and Kashmir Police launched joint search operations throughout the area. Helicopters, including specialized HAL Dhruv models used in anti-terror operations, scanned the forested mountains. New checkpoints were set up, and reports indicated former militants were brought in for questioning. Pahalgam was temporarily locked down. Local people, especially pony handlers, were crucial in the first rescue efforts, helping injured tourists, offering shelter, and carrying victims away on ponies and makeshift stretchers. Those critically injured were flown to a military hospital in Srinagar.
The attack sent shockwaves through Kashmir's tourism sector, which had been seeing a strong recovery. Panicked tourists started leaving the region quickly. Airlines like Air India and IndiGo rapidly organized extra flights from Srinagar to major Indian cities to help people leave. State governments, like Karnataka and Maharashtra, arranged airlifts and assistance for their residents. Local businesses expressed deep worry about the economic impact, as tourism is the main source of income for many in Pahalgam and the surrounding valley. Taxi drivers and shop owners spoke of suddenly empty tourist areas and anxiety about their future earnings.
Across Kashmir, the local population reacted with widespread condemnation and grief. In a rare show of unity, the valley observed a complete shutdown ('Bandh') on April 23rd, called by the Jammu and Kashmir National Conference. People from all backgrounds joined protest marches and candlelight vigils, denouncing the violence and calling for peace. Shopkeepers in Srinagar took to the streets, emphasizing that tourists were guests and expressing anguish over the killings. Chief Minister Omar Abdullah publicly expressed sorrow and urged people outside Kashmir not to see all Kashmiris as enemies, pointing out their own long suffering in the conflict. This strong local reaction, driven by both horror at the violence and real fear for the region's economy, suggested the attack's nature might have turned parts of the population against the perpetrators, even those who might sympathize with the broader Kashmiri cause. The incident also caused fear among Kashmiri students in other parts of India after online threats told them to leave certain areas.
Timeline of Events (April 22-25, 2025)
3. India's Response
India moved quickly and decisively after the Pahalgam massacre, launching actions against Pakistan on diplomatic, economic, and security fronts. These steps seemed designed to put maximum pressure on Islamabad while showing firm resolve to audiences at home and internationally.
Diplomatic Actions
After a top-level meeting of the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS), led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi on April 23rd, where officials reportedly discussed the attack's "cross-border linkages," India began a major diplomatic pushback.
Key diplomatic ties were cut back sharply. India ordered Pakistan's Defence, Military, Naval, and Air Advisors out of the country within a week, declaring them 'persona non grata'. At the same time, India pulled its own military advisors from Islamabad. Both countries were told to reduce their High Commission staff numbers from 55 to 30 by May 1st.
Movement across the border was severely restricted. The main land crossing at Attari, near Amritsar, was closed immediately to all traffic. A May 1st deadline was set for people already across the border with valid permission to return.
Visa rules were tightened significantly. India cancelled all existing valid visas for Pakistani nationals, starting April 27th (medical visas remained valid until April 29th). Special visa privileges under the SAARC scheme for Pakistanis were revoked, and those in India under this scheme were told to leave within 48 hours. India's Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) advised Indian citizens not to travel to Pakistan and urged those already there to come back quickly. Earlier, the MEA had called in Pakistan's top diplomat in New Delhi to strongly protest the attack. Reports also indicated India started talking to allied nations to try and isolate Pakistan.
Indus Waters Treaty Suspension
Perhaps the most significant action was India's decision to put the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty "in abeyance with immediate effect." This was a first; the treaty, negotiated with World Bank help and a rare point of stability through past wars and crises, had never been suspended before.
India officially told Pakistan about this decision in a letter from the head of its Ministry of Water Resources. The reasons given were twofold. First, India pointed to Pakistan's alleged ongoing "cross-border terrorism" targeting Jammu and Kashmir, arguing this broke the treaty's terms and created security problems that stopped India from using its own treaty rights fully. Second, the letter mentioned Pakistan's refusal to discuss changes to the treaty that India had requested under Article XII(3), citing "fundamental changes" since 1960 like population shifts and new energy needs.
Security and Political Actions
In Kashmir, security forces launched a massive operation to find the Pahalgam attackers. Tens of thousands of police, army, and paramilitary troops joined the manhunt, searching large areas, setting up more checkpoints, using helicopters to check the mountains, and reportedly questioning former militants. The Jammu and Kashmir Police released drawings of three suspects based on witness descriptions. They identified two as Pakistanis linked to LeT (Hashim Musa alias Suleman and Ali Bhai alias Talha Bhai) and one as a local resident (Abdul Hussain Thoker), offering a large reward (Rs 20 lakh, about $23,000) for information leading to their capture. India's National Investigation Agency (NIA) also started a formal investigation.
Counter-insurgency operations were stepped up across Jammu and Kashmir. Security forces were put on high alert along the Line of Control (LoC) and the International Border. Showing the tense situation, the Indian Army reported stopping an infiltration attempt in the Uri sector on April 23rd, killing two militants just a day after the Pahalgam attack. High-level security meetings were held by Union Home Minister Amit Shah, who had flown to Srinagar right after the attack, and by Jammu and Kashmir's Lieutenant Governor, Manoj Sinha, to oversee the response.
Politically, Indian leaders used strong language. Prime Minister Modi, speaking at a rally on April 24th, gave a stern warning, promising India would "identify, track, and punish every terrorist and their backers... beyond their imagination" and chase them "to the ends of the earth."
The government also worked to build political support at home. An all-party meeting was held on April 24th, led by Defence Minister Rajnath Singh, to update opposition leaders. Key opposition figures, including Congress leader Rahul Gandhi and Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge, strongly condemned the attack and publicly supported the government's actions against terrorism. This show of national unity, prompted by the horrific attack, gave the government strong political backing. Separately, J&K Chief Minister Omar Abdullah also held an all-party meeting in the Union Territory.
India's response came together over about 48 hours after the attack, starting with the CCS meeting and leading to the announcements on diplomatic ties and the IWT suspension. This sequence, focusing first on diplomatic and economic pressure rather than immediate military strikes, suggests a calculated response that unfolded in stages. It allowed India to signal its determination forcefully, build international condemnation of Pakistan, and see how Islamabad reacted, while keeping military options – like the 2016 surgical strikes or 2019 Balakot airstrikes – open if needed later, depending on the impact of the initial steps or domestic political demands.
4. Pakistan's Response
Pakistan reacted to the Pahalgam attack and India's subsequent actions with strong denials, counter-claims, matching retaliatory steps, and defiant words, particularly about the Indus Waters Treaty.
Denials and Accusations
Officially, Islamabad strongly denied any state involvement in the Pahalgam killings. While expressing condolences, top officials including Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar and Defence Minister Khawaja Asif rejected India's accusations linking Pakistan to the attack and demanded credible proof.
Pakistan then accused India of spreading "misinformation" and using the tragedy to justify its own actions, especially suspending the IWT. Defence Minister Asif went further, suggesting to news outlets, without evidence, that Islamabad suspected the attack might have been "orchestrated" or a "false flag operation" meant to blame Pakistan. Pakistan's Foreign Secretary, Amna Baloch, briefed diplomats in Islamabad, rejecting India's story and warning against actions that could increase tensions.
Retaliatory Actions
After a meeting of its National Security Committee (NSC) – the country's main civil-military decision-making group – on April 24th, Pakistan announced several countermeasures that mirrored India's actions.
Pakistan immediately closed its airspace to all Indian-owned or operated aircraft, including commercial airlines. This forced Indian flights, especially those going west from North India, to take longer, more expensive routes.
Regarding the border, Pakistan announced it would soon close the Wagah crossing, but said it would stay open until April 30th for departures. It ordered all Indian citizens in Pakistan, except Sikh pilgrims visiting holy sites, to leave within 48 hours.
Economically, Pakistan stopped all trade with India, including transit trade going through Pakistan to third countries like Afghanistan.
Diplomatically, Pakistan matched India's moves by expelling Indian diplomats and agreeing to reduce High Commission staff numbers to 30. In a potentially significant statement, Pakistan also said it reserved the right to put all bilateral agreements with India, "including but not limited to Simla Agreement in abeyance".
Position on Water Treaty
Pakistan reacted furiously to India suspending the Indus Waters Treaty. Official statements called the move "unilateral, unjust, politically motivated, extremely irresponsible and devoid of legal merit." Power Minister Awais Leghari described it as a "cowardly, illegal move" amounting to "water warfare." Foreign Minister Dar called it "immature and presumptuous."
Crucially, Pakistan issued a very strong warning: any attempt by India to stop or divert water belonging to Pakistan under the treaty would be considered an "Act of War." The official statement after the NSC meeting said such an act would be "responded with full force across the complete spectrum of National Power." Showing immediate concern, Pakistan reportedly paused work on a canal project shortly after India's IWT announcement.
Declaring interference with water flows an "act of war" is extremely strong language, even by the standards of past India-Pakistan crises. Given how much Pakistan depends on the Indus river system for its farming, economy, and population, this statement likely has several goals. It sets a clear red line on water security, trying to stop India from turning the symbolic treaty suspension into actions that actually affect water flows. It also aims to rally support within Pakistan and grab international attention, possibly forcing mediation efforts. But this stance is risky. By publicly committing to this threshold, Pakistan might feel forced to react strongly to any Indian action seen – rightly or wrongly – as crossing that line, greatly increasing the chances of miscalculation and unintended escalation.
Military Alert
Expecting possible Indian military retaliation, similar to what happened after major attacks in Uri (2016) and Pulwama (2019), reports indicated Pakistan's military was put on high alert along the Line of Control. Unconfirmed social media posts and flight tracking data suggested Pakistan might be moving military equipment, including planes, to bases closer to Jammu and Kashmir. Pakistan also reportedly announced and started naval live-fire drills in the Arabian Sea, further showing a state of increased military readiness.
Pakistan's statement about potentially putting the Simla Agreement on hold adds another layer of risk. The 1972 Simla Agreement formalized the Line of Control (LoC) as the de facto border after the 1971 war, until a final settlement on Kashmir. By questioning this fundamental agreement, Pakistan implicitly challenges the LoC itself. While maybe intended as diplomatic pressure, India could see this as Pakistan abandoning its commitment to the LoC's stability, potentially making cross-LoC military operations by either side seem more permissible. Indian sources noted this could also undermine other important trust-building measures between the two countries, like agreements to prevent accidental nuclear conflict, making an already dangerous situation even more unstable.
5. International Reactions
The Pahalgam attack and the rapid escalation between India and Pakistan that followed drew immediate and widespread international attention. The world strongly condemned the violence but also urgently called for de-escalation.
Condemnation of the Attack
Leaders and governments around the globe quickly condemned the April 22nd terrorist attack. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres strongly denounced the killings, stating that attacks targeting civilians are unacceptable under any circumstances.
The United States offered particularly strong support for India. Vice President JD Vance, who was visiting India, called it a "devastating terrorist attack." President Donald Trump posted on social media that the "United States stands strong with India against terrorism" and offered full support. Reflecting this view, the US House Foreign Affairs Committee publicly criticized The New York Times for using the word "militants" instead of "terrorists" in its reporting. The US Embassy in New Delhi issued a security warning for its citizens and repeated the State Department's long-standing advice against travel to Jammu and Kashmir due to risks of terrorism and unrest. A Pentagon official also expressed solidarity.
Condemnations and condolences also came from many other world leaders and countries, including Russia's Vladimir Putin, Italy's Giorgia Meloni, France's Emmanuel Macron (calling it "heinous"), the UK's Keir Starmer ("utterly devastating"), Japan's Prime Minister Ishiba, and the governments of Qatar, Germany, Singapore, and others. China's ambassador to India also expressed condolences.
Calls for Restraint
While condemning the attack and expressing sympathy for India, the international community also showed deep concern about the rising tensions between the two nuclear-armed neighbors. The United Nations took the lead in publicly calling for de-escalation. UN spokesperson Stephane Dujarric repeatedly urged both the Indian and Pakistani governments "to exercise maximum restraint" to prevent the situation from getting worse, stressing that issues should be resolved peacefully through "meaningful, mutual engagement." Analysts also pointed out the potentially vital role the US might play behind the scenes in managing the crisis.
This two-sided international response shows a complex situation. There was clear agreement that India had suffered a terrible wrong in the terrorist attack, shown by the strong condemnations. But this was balanced by an urgent need to stop the crisis from turning into a military conflict between India and Pakistan, given the catastrophic potential. The focus quickly shifted from just condemning the attack to actively managing the resulting crisis between the two states. While India initially received much international sympathy, this dynamic suggests that sustained international pressure would likely be put on both countries to step back from conflict, potentially limiting India's options for large-scale military retaliation if it wants to keep broad international support. The US position, trying to balance its strategic partnership with India while preventing war, remains a key factor.
6. The Indus Waters Treaty Issue
India's decision to suspend its participation in the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) is one of the most significant and potentially far-reaching results of the Pahalgam attack. It fundamentally changes a decades-old system for managing shared water resources between the two rivals.
Treaty Background
Negotiated over nearly ten years with help from the World Bank and signed in 1960, the IWT has controlled the use of the six rivers of the Indus Basin system. It gave India full use of the three "Eastern Rivers" (Ravi, Beas, Sutlej) and gave Pakistan control over most of the water from the three "Western Rivers" (Indus, Jhelum, Chenab). India was allowed limited use of the Western Rivers for things like domestic needs, farming, and generating hydropower (run-of-the-river projects), as long as it didn't significantly reduce the water flowing downstream to Pakistan.
The treaty has been remarkably durable, surviving major wars between India and Pakistan in 1965 and 1971, and the limited Kargil conflict in 1999. Despite many arguments over specific projects over the years, the IWT, with its established processes like the Permanent Indus Commission (PIC) for regular talks and resolving disputes, has often been pointed to as a rare example of successful water cooperation between hostile neighbors.
For Pakistan, the Indus river system is essential for survival. About 80% of its irrigated farmland depends on Indus waters, making up 93% of the system's water use within Pakistan. The basin supports a huge population, major cities like Karachi and Lahore rely on it for water, and much of its electricity comes from hydropower generated by its flows. Farming powered by the Indus is a major part of Pakistan's economy. Pakistan is already considered highly water-stressed, making the predictable water flow guaranteed by the IWT extremely important.
India's Justification and Pakistan's Reaction
India gave two main reasons for the suspension. The immediate trigger was Pakistan's alleged "sustained cross-border terrorism," which India argued broke the treaty's good faith requirement and created security problems preventing India from using its own treaty rights. Connected to this was India's existing complaint that Pakistan had refused to negotiate changes to the treaty requested by India under Article XII(3), citing "fundamental changes" since 1960 (like population growth and energy needs). This suggests India used the crisis caused by the Pahalgam attack to push an issue – treaty renegotiation – where previous diplomatic attempts had failed. The suspension seems to be both a punishment for the attack and a strategic move to change a long-standing agreement India saw as outdated or unfair.
Pakistan completely rejected India's reasons, calling the suspension illegal, politically motivated, and irresponsible. Its declaration that changing water flows is an "act of war" shows how critically important Pakistan views the treaty's guarantees.
Whether India's suspension is legal is unclear. The IWT itself doesn't mention unilateral suspension or termination. India might try to use principles of international law, like Article 62 of the Vienna Convention on Treaties regarding a "fundamental change of circumstances," but taking action alone is legally questionable and could be challenged, possibly through the World Bank as a treaty signatory.
Potential Impacts
Despite the dramatic nature of the suspension, its immediate effect on water flow is likely limited. Experts agree that India currently doesn't have the large-scale infrastructure (like dams or diversion canals) on the Western Rivers to physically stop or significantly change the water flow into Pakistan quickly. Building such infrastructure would be a huge, time-consuming, and expensive project, likely taking decades, especially in the difficult Himalayan region.
However, the suspension is not just symbolic. In the short term, it allows India to stop cooperating as required by the treaty. This could include stopping the regular sharing of water data (including crucial flood data during monsoons), halting meetings of the Permanent Indus Commission, refusing to provide design details or allow inspections for new Indian projects on the Western Rivers, and possibly changing how reservoirs are filled in ways that disadvantage Pakistan. While India hasn't always used its full water allowance on the Western Rivers, partly due to Pakistani objections, the suspension removes these limitations. This breakdown of cooperation and predictability is itself a major problem for Pakistan's water management.
The longer-term consequences are serious. The suspension creates deep uncertainty for Pakistan's future water security, potentially affecting farming plans, investment, and overall economic stability. It could encourage India to aggressively build hydropower projects and water storage facilities on the Western Rivers, now possibly free from the treaty's rules and dispute processes. This could lead to long legal battles and further damage the already poor relationship between the two countries. The suspension sets a worrying example of using water resources as weapons in international disputes and could permanently destroy a treaty once seen as a key part of regional stability. Lack of cooperative management could also worsen environmental problems in the Indus basin.
Even without immediately stopping large amounts of water, the threat implied by the suspension carries huge psychological and political weight in water-scarce Pakistan. The suspension fundamentally damages the predictability and sense of security around Pakistan's most vital natural resource. India might therefore gain significant leverage through the potential threat to water supplies and the breakdown of the cooperative system, regardless of whether a complete blockade is currently possible.
7. Possible Short-Term Scenarios
The situation after the Pahalgam attack and the following escalatory steps by India and Pakistan remains highly volatile and unpredictable as of late April 2025. Based on what has happened and past events, the following short-term scenarios (over the next one to four weeks) seem possible, although their likelihood could change quickly. Adding to the tension are recent signs of trouble along the Line of Control (LoC). Reports from early April 2025 mentioned renewed ceasefire violations and an intrusion attempt India blamed on Pakistan, suggesting the relative quiet since the February 2021 ceasefire agreement was already breaking down before the Pahalgam attack. An infiltration attempt was also stopped right after the attack. This existing tension likely contributed to how quickly and severely the current crisis escalated.
Scenario 1: Diplomatic/Economic Standoff (High Likelihood)
Description: Tensions stay extremely high, but the conflict remains mostly diplomatic and economic. India and Pakistan keep their recently imposed measures: fewer diplomats, closed border crossings, suspended flights, and the formal suspension of IWT cooperation. Harsh words continue, but major military clashes are avoided. The LoC remains tense, possibly with minor, localized ceasefire violations or artillery fire like before the major escalation, but without getting worse. International players engage in quiet diplomacy to prevent military conflict and encourage limited communication channels. The focus stays on putting pressure on each other through isolation, economic disruption, and possibly legal moves regarding the IWT.
Supporting Factors: Both sides have already taken significant non-military actions, which might satisfy immediate domestic demands for a response. Strong international calls for restraint could influence decisions. The potentially catastrophic costs of military conflict between nuclear-armed states act as a deterrent. India's step-by-step response might involve a pause at this point to see the effect of current measures.
Potential Triggers for Change: Another major terrorist attack in India linked to Pakistan-based groups; a serious LoC incident causing significant casualties on either side; domestic political pressure forcing a more aggressive stance; misinterpreting actions leading to accidental military engagement.
Scenario 2: Limited Military Action (Medium Likelihood)
Description: India chooses limited military action to show resolve and retaliate more directly for the Pahalgam attack. This could involve cross-LoC "surgical strikes" targeting alleged militant launchpads (like in 2016) or possibly limited airstrikes against specific targets in Pakistan-administered Kashmir or even Pakistan itself (like Balakot in 2019). Pakistan would likely strike back, possibly proportionally, leading to localized but intense clashes with artillery, special forces, or air power along the LoC. The conflict stays limited geographically, and escalation is eventually stopped, perhaps through international intervention or a mutual decision to avoid a bigger war.
Supporting Factors: Intense public anger in India and pressure on the Modi government for a tangible military response. Clear statements from Indian leaders promising punishment and reports that military options are being considered. Past examples of using limited military strikes after major terror attacks. Pakistan's military being on high alert suggests they expect such a response. The already tense LoC provides a volatile setting.
Potential Triggers for Change: An Indian strike causing unexpectedly high Pakistani casualties (military or civilian); a Pakistani counter-attack seen by India as too strong; mistakes in targeting or causing unintended damage; failure of command leading to unauthorized escalation.
Scenario 3: Wider Conflict (Low Likelihood, High Impact)
Description: The situation spirals out of control. Limited military actions escalate due to miscalculation, overly aggressive retaliation, nationalist passion, or a breakdown in command. Clashes intensify and potentially spread beyond the immediate LoC/Kashmir area. Both sides undertake larger military mobilization. The risk of conventional war increases significantly. Nuclear threats could become more open, building on Pakistan's "act of war" language about the IWT and the constant nuclear danger. Pakistan's threat to suspend the Simla Agreement could further remove limits.
Supporting Factors: The extremely high level of current tension and deep mistrust. Pakistan explicitly linking water security to an "act of war" threshold and its threat to respond with its "complete spectrum of National Power." The history of previous wars over Kashmir. The inherent dangers of escalation between two nuclear-armed states.
Potential De-escalation Factors: Decisive and quick international intervention (especially by the US and China). Leaders on both sides realizing the potentially catastrophic results. Setting up effective backchannel communication to manage the crisis.
8. Conclusion
The late April 2025 crisis, set off by the horrific terrorist killing of tourists in Pahalgam, has pushed India-Pakistan relations into a dangerously unstable phase. The attack itself was a brutal change in militant methods, targeting civilians in a way meant to maximize fear and challenge India's story of returning normalcy in Kashmir. India's response was fast, harsh, and attacked on multiple fronts, using unprecedented diplomatic steps and, most notably, suspending the long-standing Indus Waters Treaty – a move with strategic weight far beyond simple retaliation. Pakistan's defiant denials, matching actions, and stark warnings, especially declaring that interfering with water flows is an "act of war," have dramatically raised the stakes.
As of late April 2025, both nations are locked in a tense standoff, with armies on high alert along the Line of Control. Suspending the IWT and Pakistan potentially challenging the Simla Agreement have broken key frameworks that, despite problems, offered some predictability and restraint in the past. This breakdown of established rules and communication channels significantly increases the risk of miscalculation or unintended escalation leading towards military conflict, a prospect made even more frightening by the nuclear weapons both states possess.
While a continued diplomatic and economic standoff seems the most likely near-term scenario, the chance of limited military strikes or clashes cannot be ruled out, given intense domestic pressures and past actions. International calls for restraint are crucial, but active de-escalation efforts, likely needing strong help from major world powers, seem necessary to pull back from the current dangerous edge.
