Indian Council of World Affairs

Abstract: The article sheds light on the Pahalgam terrorist attack and India’s military response, bursting Pakistan’s nuclear bluff and long-drawn narratives.

On 22 April 2025, four heavily armed terrorists opened fire and killed 26 tourists in the Baisaran Valley of Pahalgam in Kashmir.[i] The attack came at a time when the tourism sector was booming and the local economy was gradually recovering in Kashmir. After two weeks, the Indian Armed Forces launched Operation Sindoor and targeted terrorist camps in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK). India’s military response to the Pahalgam terrorist attack burst Pakistan’s bubble of nuclear blackmail and escalation threats. Since establishing nuclear weapons, Islamabad has been threatening New Delhi with tactical nuclear use in case of an armed conflict between the two countries.

However, behind its nuclear rhetoric, Pakistan has been playing a game of nurturing and sponsoring terrorist activities and anti-India sentiments for years. After the horrors of Pahalgam, Operation Sindoor, launched on 07 May 2025, curbed Pakistan’s aggressive posture and reinstated India’s zero tolerance of terrorism.[ii] The four-day operation (07 May to 10 May) achieved multiple objectives in uncovering Pakistan’s nuclear rhetoric used for over two decades to verbally threaten India and the world community with nuclear escalation and consequences.

Terror and Talk Cannot Go Together

Since the Kargil conflict (1999), India and Pakistan have avoided indulging in another serious conflict despite several occasions, such as the attack on the Indian Parliament (2001), the 26/11 Mumbai attack (2008), the Uri attack (2016) and the Pulwama attack (2019), where military escalation seemed inevitable.[iii] In these incidents, Pakistan has used the nuclear bluff as a shield to ward off India’s retaliation. New Delhi’s diplomatic posture and goodwill approach towards its neighbours, along with its alignment towards peaceful resolution of bilateral disputes, may have been misinterpreted by Pakistan as an indication of India’s fear of a nuclear attack. However, the Indian military response post-Pahalgam has signalled that no one can stop India from acting against the terrorists and their sponsors.

India has been outspoken for decades against Pakistan-sponsored proxy wars and terrorism in Indian territories, mainly Jammu & Kashmir. However, after the Uri attack in 2016, India modified its stance and preferred “action over talk” vis-à-vis Pakistan-sponsored terrorist attacks. The Indian military operation on 07 May 2025 has broken Pakistan’s illusion that it could eliminate any scope for retaliation from India’s side. Following Operation Sindoor, India updated and redefined its stance on strictly considering “future acts of terror as an act of war,” a shift in India’s response culture and approach towards handling terrorism.[iv] The same was also indicated during Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s address: "Terror and talk cannot go together.”[v] The stance is a signal, not only to Pakistan but to all who sponsor terrorism, that any terrorist or proxy attack on Indian soil would be met with a sharp military response. 

Figure: Targets of the Indian Security Forces during Operation Sindoor

Source: Chakra Dialogues Foundation

The Nuclear vs. Conventional Debate

After pricking Pakistan’s nuclear bubble, India has settled the debate over the nuclear-armed conflict. India’s conventional military capabilities demonstrate exceptional precision and pinpoint targeting, effectively neutralising numerous terrorist camps and critical military assets in Pakistan. India, possessing significant nuclear capabilities, has indicated that its conventional military strength is sufficient to confront a nuclear-armed Pakistan. After India’s strike, Pakistan began enhancing its conventional military capabilities with assistance from China and Turkey,[vi] which suggests that its nuclear posturing may be more bluster than substance.

India has also exposed Pakistan’s behaviour as a futile and irresponsible nuclear power, against which New Delhi has appealed to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to take supervision of Islamabad’s nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, despite Islamabad’s multiple nuclear threats, India has shown the behaviour of a responsible and credible nuclear power, which is also reflected by its No First Use (NFU) nuclear doctrine.

It is imperative for Pakistan to understand that having a nuclear weapon is a big responsibility, which demands maturity and an obligation to keep it away from the wrong hands. Contrarily, Pakistan has used nuclear narratives irresponsibly to support their proxy wars in the Indian territories. For Pakistan, India’s response is a wake-up call not to cross certain boundaries.

The Long-Drawn Narrative War

Globally, the threat of nuclear exchange and the principle of mutual assured destruction, which are both inherent in the concept of total war, are frequently cited as the reasons for the decline in full-scale armed conflict amongst nuclear-armed states. Although the idea is inconclusive, states with nuclear arms often avoid indulging in a limited conflict due to the potential for catastrophic escalation and collateral damage. Pakistan has employed this narrative for three distinct purposes. The first goal is to continue Zia-ul-Haq’s dark vision of “bleeding India by a thousand cuts” under the shadow of a nuclear umbrella. Secondly, Pakistan aims to halt India’s retaliation by threatening a nuclear attack. The third objective involves intensifying the debate and discussion about potential nuclear escalation to attract the interest of global entities and organisations. Overall, threatening India with a nuclear attack has been a strategy employed by Pakistan to let the international community intervene in the India-Pakistan issues, which are purely bilateral.

Apart from that, Pakistan has historically been playing the victim card for decades to gain policy and economic benefits from various countries, such as the US, China and Turkey. Internationalising India’s internal affairs was also a part of their broad agenda. Militarily, a similar strategy was laid by Pakistan during the Cold War years, when Islamabad formed close ties with the US to gain financial and military assistance by citing a security threat from the erstwhile Soviet Union.[vii] Similarly, during the post-Cold War era, Pakistan presented itself as a victim of terrorism and demanded military and economic assistance from the US to fight against it.[viii] By playing the victim card, it has acquired several offensive and highly sophisticated weapons and platforms from the US, such as the F-16 aircraft and a million-dollar package to fight against terrorism.[ix] Meanwhile, it is evident that Pakistan military forces and Pak-based terrorist groups have been using these weapons against India.[x]

However, after the Pahalgam attack, Pakistan’s narrative of playing the victim card in the international media, portraying India’s aggressive behaviour and strikes on its civilians, was busted. India’s Operation Sindoor was a controlled, calculated and non-escalatory military response, targeted at multiple terrorist camps and their launch pads in Pakistan and the PoK. Nikki Haley, the former US ambassador to the United Nations, acknowledged India’s right to retaliate and defend its territorial integrity by expressing that Pakistan does not get to play the victim card amid India’s strikes.[xi]

Conclusion

Pakistan has proved its persona as an irresponsible nuclear power. Not only did the Pakistani military and its intelligence services promote terrorist and anti-India sentiments, but they also used nuclear rhetoric to bulwark against India’s retaliation. However, India’s military response to the Pahalgam terror attack has brought into the broad light what India had hitherto claimed about the unholy relationship between the Pakistani military and the terrorists. Through the military operation, India has also warned the terrorist sponsor states to strongly consider future acts of terrorism as acts of war, that they will not go unanswered and will see a befitting response from India.

Besides bursting the nuclear bluff, India has also exposed Pakistan’s strategy of portraying itself as a victim in international media and multilateral forums to garner sympathy and support. From Operation Sindoor, Pakistan must draw three key lessons for the future: first, that terror and dialogue cannot go hand in hand; second, that it must refrain from interfering in India’s internal affairs and adhere to bilateral norms in resolving any outstanding issues; and third, the world has seen through its dubious victim card.

*****

*Mukesh Kumar, Research Associate, Indian Council of World Affairs, New Delhi.
Disclaimer: Views expressed are personal.

Endnotes 

[i] The Hindu. “Unity and Resolve: On the Terror Attack in Pahalgam.” Editorial. April 23, 2025. https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/editorial/unity-and-resolve-on-the-terror-attack-in-pahalgam/article69484027.ece.

[ii] “PIB Headquarters.”. Ministry of Defence. Accessed July 16, 2025. http://www.pib.gov.in/PressNoteDetails.aspx?NoteId=154448.

[iii] The Times of India. “Kashmir to Kargil: Timeline of Indo-Pak Conflicts since Independence.” May 8, 2025. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/kashmir-to-kargil-timeline-of-indo-pak-conflicts-since-independence/articleshow/120962294.cms.

[iv]“PM Modi Has Redefined India’s Policy against Terrorism, Any Attack on Indian Soil Will Be Considered as an Act of War: Raksha Mantri in Srinagar.” Accessed July 16, 2025. https://www.pib.gov.in/www.pib.gov.in/Pressreleaseshare.aspx?PRID=2128840.

[v] PTI. “Talks and Terror Cannot Go Together: India on Pakistan PM Sharif’s Call.” The Print, May 29, 2025. https://theprint.in/india/talks-and-terror-cannot-go-together-india-on-pakistan-pm-sharifs-call/2641425/.

[vi] Kantha, Ashok K. “The New Battle Challenge of China-Pakistan Collusion.” Lead. The Hindu, July 6, 2025. https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/the-new-battle-challenge-of-china-pakistan-collusion/article69780786.ece.

[vii] Memon, Marvi. “Reorientation of Pakistan’s Foreign Policy After the Cold War.” Pakistan Horizon 47, no. 2 (1994): 45–61. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41393472.

[viii] Awan, Prof Engr. Zamir Ahmed. “Pakistan Is a Victim of Terrorism.” Modern Diplomacy, September 10, 2022. https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2022/09/10/pakistan-is-a-victim-of-terrorism/.

[ix] Brookings. “Why Pakistan Supports Terrorist Groups, and Why the US Finds It so Hard to Induce Change.” Accessed July 26, 2025. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/why-pakistan-supports-terrorist-groups-and-why-the-us-finds-it-so-hard-to-induce-change/.

[x] Singh, Brijesh. “Pakistan’s Complex Web of Terror Networks.” India. The Hindu, May 8, 2025. https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/pakistans-complex-web-of-terror-networks/article69550587.ece.

[xi] The Economic Times. “‘Pak Does Not Get to Play Victim’: Trump Ally Nikki Haley Backs India’s Operation Sindoor.” May 9, 2025. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/global-trends/us-news-pak-does-not-get-to-play-victim-trump-ally-nikki-haley-backs-indias-operation-sindoor/articleshow/121035986.cms?from=mdr.