A strategic pursuit of 'national interest'

The Pahalgam terror attack of 22 April, which claimed the lives of 25 Indians and one Nepalese citizen, has reignited long-simmering tensions between India and Pakistan. Retaliation was swift: in the early hours of 7 May, India launched Operation Sindoor, striking what it called ‘terrorist infrastructure’ across the Line of Control (LoC) and inside Pakistani territory.

Pakistan responded by calling the strikes , pledging retaliation. At the time of writing, India had reported 16 civilian deaths (and 59 injured) on its side of the border; Pakistan reported 26 civilian casualties from the Indian strikes. With both militaries on high alert, and some heat-seeking mainstream media outlets doing their worst to spread disinformation, the risk of the situation spiralling into a larger conflict is dangerously high.

This is a moment that , not further retaliation.

Military strikes may offer a sense of retribution but they often do not address the underlying drivers of terrorism. The 2019 Balakot operation, celebrated domestically as a ‘surgical strike’, escalated tensions to the brink of war without delivering sustained peace in Kashmir.

Militant attacks persisted, frequently targeting civilians and vulnerable infrastructure. While limited military actions may have psychological and symbolic value, particularly in domestic political contexts, evidence suggests that they have limited long-term impact on the operational and organisational capacity of terrorist groups.

Terror networks rooted in Pakistan are complex, transnational and resilient. Their decentralised structures and access to international support mean that striking a training facility or outpost is unlikely to yield meaningful results.

On the contrary, such strikes can be counterproductive — increasing the groups’ visibility, aiding their recruitment efforts, and reinforcing the narrative of victimhood that certain elements inside Pakistan’s civil and military establishment seek to cultivate. India risks falling into a strategic trap where each military response inadvertently strengthens the conditions that sustain extremism.

The 2025 geopolitical environment is more volatile than it was in 2019. Pakistan has test-fired missiles and placed its armed forces on high alert. The likelihood of misjudgment, miscommunication or accidental escalation is no longer remote — it is immediate and credible.

People flee amid cross-border shelling between India and Pakistan on the LoC

Compounding this is the fragility of Pakistan’s political and military leadership, which faces growing legitimacy challenges. In such an environment, the temptation to use a crisis to consolidate internal power may lead Pakistan to reckless brinkmanship.

Remember that there is no mutually agreed framework for managing conflict escalation. The absence of a clear threshold separating conventional war from a nuclear confrontation introduces a dangerous unpredictability to the equation. What begins as a limited exchange — however surgical or calibrated — can spiral into a broader, uncontrolled conflict. The cost of such a miscalculation in South Asia is unimaginably high.

India’s measured official response following Operation Sindoor appears aimed at preventing escalation. It is vital that this posture continues. Given Pakistan’s stated intention to retaliate, India must avoid the trap of a cycle of tit-for-tat escalation. As a regional power with aspirations of global leadership, India must show restraint and strategic patience.

The international community is already on edge, and the crises in Ukraine, Gaza and the Taiwan Strait have left little to no global bandwidth to mediate another conflict. The already frayed fabric of multilateral diplomacy can barely withstand a South Asian war.

The and several major powers — including the US, Russia and the EU — have issued calls for calm, dialogue and peaceful resolution. An expanded military strike by India would likely draw international criticism and isolate New Delhi diplomatically.

Despite being the victim of a grievous terrorist attack, global and regional support for India is lukewarm. China, , has backed Pakistan and called for an international inquiry into the Pahalgam incident. Other South Asian neighbours, including Bangladesh and Nepal, have chosen a cautious neutrality.

Even traditional partners in the West have refrained from offering unqualified support. This tepid response reflects not only geopolitical balancing but also growing discomfort with India’s assertive foreign policy and its perceived shift away from multilateralism.

An expanded strike will not reverse this trend, it may deepen India’s strategic isolation. As India seeks to play a greater global role and jockeys for a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, its actions must reflect the maturity and responsibility of a global power, not the impulses of reactionary nationalism.

India’s long-term security lies not in reactive military operations but in constructing a regional environment where terrorism is delegitimised, de-incentivised and dismantled through legal, diplomatic and cooperative mechanisms. That means doubling down on intelligence cooperation, exposing the financial and ideological networks that sustain terrorism, and working with partners to apply consistent pressure — both public and private — on Pakistan’s security establishment.

It also means tending to domestic vulnerabilities. Militant groups often exploit local grievances, governance failures and majoritarian narratives to justify violence. India’s strength will lie not only in its military might but also how it upholds justice, inclusion and democratic accountability inside its borders.

This is not a call for passivity or appeasement. It is a plea for strategic foresight. Every act of retaliation has consequences. Every escalation brings the subcontinent closer to a catastrophic tipping point. India’s challenge is to break that cycle.

India has sought to position itself as the voice of the Global South, a leader of emerging powers, and a champion of a more equitable world order. But leadership is not about rhetoric; it is about taking responsibility. A principled response to terrorism, anchored in international law and regional diplomacy, will speak more powerfully than any missile or airstrike.

This crisis is not just a test of India’s resolve, it is a test of its vision. Will it fall into the pattern of retaliation and escalation, or will it chart a new course — one that privileges long-term peace over short-term catharsis?

India stands at a crossroads. The attack in Pahalgam was a tragedy. Operation Sindoor was a forceful yet calibrated response. Now it’s time to hold firm and steer the nation with prudence and foresight. The world is watching — not just to see what India does next but to understand what kind of power it wants to be.

Ashok Swain is a professor of peace and conflict research at Uppsala University, Sweden

More of his writing may be