Nuclear threat, geo-political uncertainty: The risks of impulsive military action post-Pahalgam

The devastating terrorist attack on April 22, in Pahalgam has once again pushed India to the brink, compelling it to seriously consider various options for retaliating against Pakistan.

The terrorist attack resulted in the deaths of 26 people, marking it as the deadliest such incident in Kashmir since the attack on security forces in Pulwama in 2019. India has blamed Pakistan for the outrageous attack.

This tragedy has ignited a powerful wave of public anger across India, exerting pressure on Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government to respond decisively. Modi has vowed severe repercussions for perpetrators and their supporters, raising public expectations of a robust military action.

Lessons from Uri and Balakot

The current situation strongly parallels past incidents. After the Uri attack in 2016, India launched surgical strikes on terrorist launch pads in Pakistan-administered Kashmir.

Similarly, following the Pulwama bombing in 2019, India executed airstrikes in Balakot inside Pakistan.

These operations were intentionally limited, aiming to punish without triggering a full-scale war. Nevertheless, Pakistan managed to neutralise these actions effectively.

Post-Uri, Islamabad denied that India had conducted any surgical strike. Following Balakot, Pakistan promptly responded with retaliatory airstrikes, capturing an Indian pilot.

Both incidents failed to achieve lasting deterrence, underscored by subsequent low-profile terrorist attacks every year in Jammu and Kashmir.

These historical precedents illustrate a critical strategic shortfall: India’s retaliatory measures have temporarily satisfied domestic demands but have failed to change Pakistan’s strategic...

Read more