From Strategic Restraint to Proactive Retaliation
The terrorist attack in Pahalgam on April 22, which claimed the lives of 26 innocent tourists, marked more than just another tragedy. It shook the nation’s conscience, and more crucially, it jolted India into a new phase of strategic self-confidence. For years, as a peace-loving nation rooted in the teachings of Buddha, India responded to cross-border terrorism with calibrated military and diplomatic moves. But Pahalgam changed the equation. The attack became a turning point, an inflection moment prompting not just retaliatory strikes on terror hubs in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK), but also a bold and comprehensive diplomatic offensive aimed at isolating Pakistan globally for its patronage of terror.
India’s multi-pronged new strategy, consisting of military precision, diplomatic mobilisation, and domestic consensus, signals a complete tectonic shift in India’s new doctrine in conditions of the new normal. The days of silent dossiers and perfunctory demarche are over. What replaces them is a visible, vocal, and coordinated campaign, cutting across political lines and continents, with one unified message: enough is enough. The terror machine must be dismantled at its roots.
The symbolism of India’s all-party delegation starting its diplomatic outreach at the 9/11 Memorial in New York was telling. It was both a moment of solemn reflection and sharp signalling. As Congress MP Shashi Tharoor, who leads one of the delegations, observed, “It was a very moving moment for us, but also meant to send a strong message that we are here in a city still bearing the scars of a savage terrorist attack, in the wake of yet another one in our own country.”
India is urging the world to connect the dots: terrorism is not a bilateral issue between Delhi and Islamabad. It is a global threat. Groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM), and more recently, The Resistance Front (TRF) which claimed responsibility for the Pahalgam attack, are not freelance actors. According to Indian intelligence, TRF is only LeT rebadged, designed to offer Pakistan plausible deniability under international pressure. This tactic of proxy names and brutal attacks on minorities has been used before. India has submitted detailed dossiers to the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) urging TRF’s designation under the 1267 sanctions list. But China’s persistent opposition has stalled any meaningful action. New Delhi is not surprised by the lacklustre reaction of UNSC’s inaction as India and many other countries are questioning the working culture and credibility of the organisation that massively needs an overhaul with changing time and development. For all its global aspirations, the UNSC appears unwilling to adapt or expand, and increasingly out of touch with the world’s shifting threats.
After Pahalgam, India stepped up its campaign. It is now pressing harder, not just for TRF’s listing but also for Pakistan’s accountability. Predictably, Islamabad issued blanket denials, refusing to acknowledge terrorist or TRF presence. Meanwhile, India’s military response to the terrorist act was well calculated, well researched, swift, targeted, and resolute. Within days, precision strikes were launched on nine terror-linked sites in Pakistan and PoK, including LeT’s headquarters in Muridke and JeM’s stronghold in Bahawalpur. These were not random attacks, they were deliberate blows to the ideological and operational core of Pakistan’s jihadist ecosystem.
What made this operation distinct was its clarity and objective of targeting the terrorist positions and in no case should there be any collateral or civilian casualties. As Tharoor explained, “This was not the start of a war, it was a calculated act of retribution, targeting only terror outfits. It sent a message that India will not take terror lying down, but also that it is not seeking escalation.” The strikes, conducted during nighttime to limit civilian casualties, avoided military installations. The message was sharp and unmistakable: the doctrine of strategic restraint has been replaced by one of proportionate deterrence.
India’s narrative-building is global and systematic. Seven all-party delegations have spread across key countries, engaging lawmakers, ministries, media, and think tanks in the U.S., Russia, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, Japan, Indonesia, Algeria, South Korea, Colombia, Slovenia, Sierra Leone, and more. Unlike earlier efforts that focused only on the UNSC’s P5, India is now lobbying influential non-permanent members and incoming candidates. This is not episodic, it is part of a longer strategy to internationalise Pakistan’s role in fostering terrorism and delegitimise the use of “Kashmir” as an excuse for violence.
One of the most striking aspects of this campaign is domestic cohesion. These parliamentary delegations include MPs from nearly all political parties, both national and regional. BJP, Congress, Shiv Sena, Trinamool Congress, JMM, LJP, TDP and several others. Former diplomats understand the foreign land and politics much better, like Taranjit Singh Sandhu, Harsh Vardhan Shringla, and Mohan Kumar, who are providing continuity and strategic heft. Even opposition leaders like Tharoor have praised the government’s measured use of force. This bipartisan unity matters. It signals that India’s approach is driven not by electoral calculations but by national interest. It also sends a strong internal message: efforts to stoke religious or political divisions have failed. Indeed, after the Pahalgam attack, which targeted Hindu tourists, Kashmiri Muslim leaders, both religious and political, were among the first to condemn the attack. That solidarity denied terrorists the communal backlash they were hoping to provoke.
Modi’s Red Line
Prime Minister Narendra Modi has set the tone for India’s new approach with sharp and consistent messaging. “Let there be no doubt—any act of terrorism on Indian soil will receive a massive response,” he said, repeatedly. This is no longer just political rhetoric, it reflects a structural shift in India’s deterrence doctrine. Ambiguity has given way to predictability.
On May 29, from West Bengal, Modi made it clear that Operation Sindoor, India’s military response, is not over. “After Pahalgam, India has told the world: if there is a terror attack on India, the enemy will pay a heavy price. Pakistan should understand, we have entered your house and hit you thrice. We destroyed the cross-border terror infrastructure which you thought was untouchable.”
Earlier, Pakistan would deny the presence of terrorist camps or India’s precision strikes. But this time, satellite imagery and reluctant admissions from Pakistani leadership confirmed that both terrorist and military targets had been hit. “Pakistan, the country that nurtures terrorism, has nothing positive to offer the world. Since its inception, it has been a breeding ground for terror,” Modi reiterated in Sindoor Khela. “India has changed. We no longer tolerate such cowardly acts.”
Delhi’s strategic community is increasingly convinced that the cost of terrorism must be raised across all dimensions, military, diplomatic, and economic. That means not just launching strikes, but ensuring that terror sponsors pay a price in global forums, in trade deals, and diplomatic standing. Ironically, while the ceasefire agreement of 2021 along the Line of Control (LoC) still holds, India-Pakistan political ties have plummeted to new lows. Backchannel talks are frozen. Trade remains suspended. High commissions are further scaling down. Cultural and sporting exchanges are on ice. The relationship is now one of strategic silence, not active engagement, except for DGMO’s hotline on demand.
India has made its position unambiguous: it does not seek war with Pakistan. But it will no longer tolerate cross-border terrorism. As Prime Minister Modi said while launching development projects worth ₹53,400 crore in Gujarat: “India’s fight is against terrorism coming from across the border, not against the people of Pakistan.” “Our enmity is with those who nurture and feed terrorists,” he added.
He then addressed the people of Pakistan directly: “What have you gained? Today, India is the world’s fourth-largest economy. Where are you? Who destroyed the future of your children? Who forced you to wander from place to place?” Accusing Pakistan’s leadership of profiting from bloodshed, Modi said: “The masterminds of terrorism and the people of Pakistan must listen, your government and army are promoting terrorism. For them, terrorism has become a source of income.”
A Doctrine in Transition
What this post-Pahalgam moment reveals is a more confident and assertive India, unwilling to be paralysed by fears of escalation but fully aware of the strategic value of restraint. With growing diplomatic leverage, clear strategic goals, and rare political unity at home, India is now shaping the global conversation. It is redrawing the rules overtly. The Modi government’s post-Pahalgam approach is not just reactive: it is doctrinal, deliberate, and designed to reset the regional equation. Whether the world listens, or continues to let Pakistan play both arsonist and firefighter, will define the next chapter in the fight against global terrorism.
Author is National Editor, Greater Kashmir
