India and Pakistan Stand on the Brink of War Following Kashmir Terror Attack

Two nuclear-armed nations now stand at the precipice of all-out war. Following a shocking terror attack against Hindu tourists in the disputed region of Kashmir, the bitter South Asian rivals India and Pakistan have leapt at each other’s throats, exchanging fire, cutting off a critical water supply, and moving military assets in a way that suggests large-scale violence may be imminent. India appears to be building a pretext to strike Pakistan directly, Pakistan is making clear that it will defend itself at any cost, and attempts by the entire rest of the world to bring a stop to the crisis have failed. The fragile peace between India and Pakistan is crumbling, raising urgent questions about what comes next in one of the world’s most dangerous flashpoints.

The Pahalgam Massacre: A Terror Attack That Changed Everything

The current crisis began approximately one week ago, on April 22, in a meadow called the Baisaran Valley located a few kilometers from the resort town of Pahalgam. This town sits in the Himalayan mountains within the region known as Jammu and Kashmir, which has been the focus of a dispute between India and Pakistan for nearly a century. While India and Pakistan have agreed to split the region along a mutually accepted Line of Control, it has remained the site of both ongoing insurgencies and bitter geopolitical rivalry between the two nations.

Pahalgam is located in the India-controlled part of Kashmir and, despite the broader conflict in the region, has been a safe and popular tourist destination where fighting is typically kept well away from tourist areas. On April 22, however, the tranquility of Pahalgam was shattered when five armed gunmen attacked a large group of tourists in the nearby Baisaran Valley.

Wielding assault rifles and wearing military-style fatigues, the gunmen snuck through the sparse local security and began to interrogate the tourists they encountered. Muslims were separated out through a two-stage process: first, if they could recite a verse of Islamic prayer, and then, when the gunmen forced the remaining men to show whether or not they were circumcised, an established practice in the Muslim world. Hindu men who did not pass these two tests were then executed at close range, while women and children present at the scene were spared.

Twenty-six people were executed in the attack, including twenty-four Hindus, a Christian, and a local Muslim man who had tried to intervene. Twenty others were wounded, and the insurgents escaped, at least initially. The deliberate targeting of Hindu civilians based on religious identity would prove to be a critical factor in the severity of India’s response and the rapid escalation that followed.

The Resistance Front and Links to Pakistan

Credit for the attack was claimed publicly by a group called The Resistance Front, or TRF, a recently established organization that first became active in 2019. The group is an offshoot—described by some accounts as a subsidiary and by others as a splinter group—of a well-established, Pakistan-based jihadist insurgent group called Lashkar-e-Taiba.

Lashkar-e-Taiba has a long and violent history of attacks on India, including the days-long siege of the city of Mumbai in 2008, when over 160 people were killed and Westerners were specifically hunted down. Like The Resistance Front, Lashkar-e-Taiba’s primary objective is to break India’s control over Kashmir, thus allowing it to be annexed by Pakistan. The Resistance Front is somewhat less overtly religious in its messaging and is prominent on social media for recruiting purposes, but in terms of its overall goals, it and Lashkar-e-Taiba are fundamentally on the same page.

Critically, India accuses Pakistan of directly supporting these groups, fomenting attacks, granting them safe harbor, and benefiting from their violent work to advance Pakistan’s long-held objectives in Kashmir. This accusation forms the basis of India’s justification for the severe retaliatory measures that would follow in the days after the Pahalgam massacre.

India’s Immediate Retaliation: Breaking Historic Precedents

From the moment that news of the Pahalgam massacre began to spread across the globe, it was clear that the geopolitical implications could be major. India immediately accused Pakistan of being behind the attack, citing digital evidence and intelligence intercepts that implicated Pakistani operatives in a supporting role. India has yet to produce conclusive evidence for the world to see, but that did not stop a first round of reprisal measures against Pakistan from coming within just a day’s time.

India announced five retaliatory steps in total, including the closure of the primary border crossing that links India and Pakistan, the expulsion of Pakistani diplomats, a travel ban on all Pakistani nationals to India, and an order for Pakistani visa holders to leave India immediately. India formally downgraded its ties with Pakistan and issued information on three suspects, two of whom it claims to be Pakistani.

The most important retaliatory measure, by far, was the suspension of a critical agreement called the Indus Waters Treaty, a compact first signed in 1960 to establish control and sharing arrangements over the waters of the Indus River and several other important rivers. Up until now, the treaty has never been suspended despite multiple violent conflicts, and it has been hailed as one of the most successful water-sharing arrangements worldwide.

Importantly, the water of the Indus River and the other governed water sources flows from India into Pakistan, giving India practical leverage over the rivers if it ever chose to take action. Pakistan has long regarded the potential suspension of the treaty as a major national security threat, both because India could withhold water from Pakistan and cause crippling droughts, and because it could release the water in massive floods traveling downstream. Eighty percent of farms in Pakistan rely on waters governed by the treaty, and the nation has already suffered consecutive years of drought, meaning that a long-term cutoff of water could be crippling for Pakistan in the long term.

For India to suspend the treaty in the wake of the Pahalgam attack sent two very frightening signals at once. First, it indicated that India’s assessment of the terror attack must have either showed conclusively that Pakistan was responsible, or, to take a cynical view, it had decided to use the attack as pretext for major escalation. And second, given the magnitude of the threshold that India just crossed, India most likely wants to make it clear that it will not be backing down.

Pakistan’s Counter-Measures and the Suspension of Peace Agreements

Pakistan issued its own series of retaliations in short order, closing its airspace to Indian airlines and giving a sharp condemnation of India’s decision to suspend the water treaty. The nation suspended a special visa category granted to Indians, with the exception of Sikh pilgrims, and suspended all trade with India, including trade that deals in goods exchanged through third nations.

Most significantly, Pakistan suspended its own historic treaty, the Simla Agreement signed in 1972, which establishes principles governing the carefully managed peace between the two nations—including a ceasefire in Kashmir. Pakistan accused India of “fomenting terrorism inside Pakistan” and stated that it would consider all bilateral agreements and treaties with India to be suspended until India ended its alleged sponsorship of terrorism.

Perhaps most important of all, going back to the Indus Waters Treaty, Pakistan vowed to consider any attempt to stop or divert water allotted for Pakistan as an act of war, one that would draw full military retaliation from Pakistan. This declaration raised the stakes considerably, transforming what had been a diplomatic and economic confrontation into a situation where military conflict could be triggered by actions related to water management.

Military Escalation: From Skirmishes to Naval Deployments

Following the diplomatic rupture, provocations began in earnest. Overnight on April 24, troops of both nations exchanged fire across the mutually agreed Line of Control, particularly in an area called the Leepa Valley. The shooting continued on the next night, and on the next, with soldiers using small arms to fire into each other’s vicinity in a growing number of locations. By the night of April 26, Pakistan had deployed self-propelled artillery, and the skirmishes showed no signs of stopping.

The Indian aircraft carrier INS Vikrant was dispatched to the Arabian Sea, while its latest guided-missile destroyer, the Surat, conducted a live-fire missile interception and shot down a sea-skimming target in a signal of India’s military readiness. Ongoing exercises by the Indian Air Force intensified, and military assets began moving rapidly across the country.

In India, in Pakistan, and among the diaspora of both nationalities worldwide, protests began around diplomatic locations, with protesters supporting each nation clashing abroad at times. Meanwhile in India-controlled Kashmir, Indian security forces cracked down on suspected terrorists, with skirmishes breaking out that have left several soldiers and several militants dead. In the process, security forces destroyed the homes of people suspected of being involved with the attack.

The Water Weapon: India’s First Strike Against Pakistan’s Lifeline

India demonstrated that it was willing to meddle with the rivers governed by the Indus Waters Treaty. Although India cannot immediately cut off the flow of water—because it is only allowed by treaty to build installations that cannot dam those rivers—it released much of the water that it can store on a river called the Jhelum.

According to the Times of India, water was released from a dam without notice after heavy rains, sending floodwaters downstream to Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. Residents were able to evacuate, and Pakistan appears not to have interpreted that threat as the act of war that it warned against, but it may be only a glimpse of what is to come.

In the short term, monsoon season is coming, and Pakistan would be powerless to stop a rush of surplus water into the nation unannounced. India could divert water to its own canals in just a matter of months, choking off the supply to Pakistan in the short term, while large-scale dams could take anywhere from a couple of years to the better part of a decade to finish. India has indicated that it will not share flood warnings with Pakistan in the future, and it will withhold any information from Pakistan that would indicate how much water is coming downstream, or when it will arrive.

Modi’s Diplomatic Campaign: Building International Support for Military Action

At the time of this analysis, India and Pakistan have not entered a large-scale conflict, but according to most expert observers in the region, a harsh retaliation by India seems to be an inevitability. Reporting by the New York Times suggests that Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi is working overtime to explain its justifications for a strike on Pakistan to the international community.

Per the Times, Modi has received and spoken with over one hundred representatives of other nations, and according to diplomatic sources, he is working to secure either approval, or at least a tacit agreement not to get in the way, from the officials he is meeting with. Publicly, Modi has vowed severe retaliation and threatened to destroy areas that militants in Kashmir rely on for safe haven.

Modi’s harsh response has been well-received domestically, with much of India outraged over the deliberate targeting of Hindu civilians in the terror attack in Pahalgam. For years, Modi’s political movement has drawn on the power of Hindu nationalism in the world’s most populous nation, and now, anti-Muslim sentiment in India is rising rapidly. Abroad, few nations have the type of meaningful leverage over Modi that could prevent India’s leader from escalating if he so chooses, and those nations that could put a stop to what is happening do not appear inclined to do that.

Historical Context: Past Wars Between India and Pakistan

India and Pakistan have fought several wars since the Partition of India in 1947, with varying results. Their first war, fought over Kashmir in 1947 and 1948, ended with a stalemate that is sometimes interpreted as a partial victory for India, establishing the Line of Control in Kashmir that still governs affairs to this day.

In 1965, India got the better of a six-week-long war, while in 1971, India was able to beat back an initial Pakistani assault and force the surrender of over ninety thousand Pakistani troops. In a more limited engagement, the Kargil War of 1999, Pakistan provoked a war that was quickly drawn down due to international pressure, in yet another defeat for the Pakistani military. Other engagements since that time have consisted of smaller skirmishes, before a rather hurried return to the status quo.

The good news to take away from that quick history is that these two nuclear-armed nations have proven adept at avoiding a nuclear exchange so far. Pakistan gained the ability to detonate a nuclear weapon around 1984, India tested its first nuclear weapon a full decade earlier, and today, each side possesses an arsenal at or above 170 warheads. Neither side has yet launched a nuclear weapon in anger, and for now, the current conflict does not outwardly seem to be on track for a nuclear exchange.

Modern Military Capabilities: A More Dangerous Confrontation

Both in terms of their nuclear and their conventional weapons, the most important factor that may differentiate this conflict from prior exchanges for India and Pakistan is the degree to which their respective militaries have evolved. Pakistan has acquired hundreds of modern main battle tanks, quite a bit of heavy artillery, and advanced Chinese fighter aircraft since the turn of the twenty-first century.

India, meanwhile, has rapidly modernized its military over the last several years, fielding an aircraft carrier, new top-of-the-line combat jets, and a small but significant number of other advanced pieces of military hardware, along with a high volume of older weapons and vehicles.

Notably, both sides have enhanced their delivery mechanisms for nuclear weapons, meaning that if either side does choose to escalate toward a nuclear exchange, then each side will need to treat the other’s capabilities with immense care in order to avoid provoking a first strike. Again, it is not likely that a nuclear exchange will happen over the course of this conflict, but when discussing a direct confrontation between two nuclear-armed nations, an exchange simply cannot be ruled out completely.

India’s Options: From Symbolic Strikes to Full-Scale War

India has a precedent for responding to attacks like these. In 2016, an attack killed nineteen Indian soldiers, and in retaliation, India launched targeted airstrikes on militant targets on the Pakistan side of the Kashmir Line of Control. In 2019, at least forty Indian paramilitaries were killed, and again, India’s response came by way of airstrikes—although on that occasion, Indian and Pakistani pilots got into a dogfight over the region.

Although a wider war was averted in both instances, and that is a reason for limited optimism, the precedent also makes it difficult for India not to launch airstrikes this time, as a bare minimum. Both the targeting of civilians this time around, and the scale and scope of India’s response thus far, suggest that the response will be considerably larger.

Among the non-nuclear options available to India, if the nation is interested in a resolution that does not start a full-scale war, is the possibility of a covert operation inside Pakistan or Pakistani Kashmir. Those could target known militant bases or other concentrations of Lashkar-e-Taiba fighters or assets, or it could target the Pakistani military or its intelligence service, depending on the message India wants to send and the intended severity of that message when it arrives.

Alternately, India could engage in cross-border shelling, targeting either uninhabited areas for purely symbolic purposes, or targets associated with either non-state militants or the military proper. India could also engage in wider airstrikes, either with aircraft or cruise missiles, but counterweight a higher volume of strikes or the selection of higher-powered munitions by targeting irrelevant or minimally important locations.

Or, India can launch an attack that will lead to a wider conflict, demonstrating its willingness to challenge Pakistan directly, and then leaving it up to Pakistan to either back down or retaliate in kind.

The Risks of Miscalculation and Unintended Escalation

The problem with even limited strikes, however, is that they can very easily be misinterpreted or received by Pakistan in a way that India does not anticipate. Depending on what India does and how Pakistan reacts, there is no telling whether even a carefully calibrated symbolic attack could lead to a much larger exchange.

Indeed, there is no telling that Pakistan will even wait for India to act first. With India seeming to be on the war path, Pakistan may choose to act first and gain an advantage, if the nation’s leaders believe that a more significant conflict is in store. It is the same dynamic that has played out within just the last year between Israel and Iran: strikes can be carefully prepared to send a specific message, but there are no guarantees that the message will be received as intended.

Pathways to De-Escalation: Unlikely but Not Impossible

There is, however, room for de-escalation on both sides. Pakistan has the option to institute its own crackdowns in Kashmir, identifying and prosecuting militants, or potentially even cooperating with India in its investigations. To be clear, that is not likely to happen, but it is an option. Pakistan can appeal to either the United States or China to help mediate the situation, or it can decline to strike back in the event that India attacks, although that decision would come with political costs back home.

India could opt for a long-term retaliation rather than a short-term strike, deciding instead to manipulate the waters of the Kashmir region, build dams over the next few years, and pressure Pakistan that way. Or, it could even make limited moves in pursuit of that course, before letting the crisis calm down naturally with time, and making a graceful exit from this cycle of escalation.

Unfortunately, the more likely scenario is that any de-escalation talk is wishful thinking. If the reports on India’s diplomatic efforts are accurate, then the nation may strike Pakistan within days, it may strike within hours, or by the time this analysis is read, that strike may already have happened. All indicators are that India intends to treat this situation with grave seriousness, and its decision to take retaliatory steps that New Delhi has stayed away from for decades would suggest that this time is different. How bad it gets, how Pakistan reacts, and how many lives are ultimately lost will only be revealed with time.

The Immediate Future: A Crisis in Real Time

Everything discussed in this analysis is current as of sunrise, Monday, April 28, in New Delhi and Islamabad. Anything that has happened since that time is not accounted for in this assessment, and in this case, that is especially important to bear in mind. Judging by the pace of escalation on both sides, it is not safe to assume that this conflict will remain in a phase of preparation and build-up for any length of time.

The fragile peace between India and Pakistan is crumbling in real time. The suspension of treaties that have held for decades, the weaponization of water resources, the movement of military assets, and the diplomatic preparations for military action all point toward an imminent confrontation. Whether that confrontation remains limited or spirals into a larger war depends on decisions being made in New Delhi and Islamabad at this very moment—decisions whose consequences could reverberate far beyond South Asia.

Related Coverage

• The UAE is Destabilizing the Entire Middle East
• How the UAE’s Regional Meddling Triggered a Historic Realignment Across the Middle East
• The UAE’s Regional Ambitions Collapse as Middle East Powers Push Back

FAQ

What happened in the Pahalgam attack?

On April 22, five armed gunmen attacked tourists in the Baisaran Valley near Pahalgam in India-controlled Kashmir. They separated Muslims from non-Muslims through prayer recitation tests and circumcision checks, then executed 26 people at close range, including 24 Hindus, one Christian, and one Muslim man who tried to intervene. Twenty others were wounded.

Who claimed responsibility for the attack?

The Resistance Front (TRF) claimed responsibility. TRF is a recently established organization (active since 2019) that is an offshoot of Lashkar-e-Taiba, a well-established Pakistan-based jihadist insurgent group responsible for previous attacks including the 2008 Mumbai siege that killed over 160 people.

What is the Indus Waters Treaty and why does its suspension matter?

The Indus Waters Treaty, signed in 1960, governs water sharing arrangements over the Indus River and other important rivers flowing from India into Pakistan. It has never been suspended despite multiple wars. The suspension is critical because 80% of Pakistani farms rely on these waters, Pakistan has suffered consecutive years of drought, and India can potentially cause either crippling droughts or devastating floods by controlling water flow.

What retaliatory measures has India taken?

India closed the primary border crossing with Pakistan, expelled Pakistani diplomats, banned Pakistani nationals from entering India, ordered Pakistani visa holders to leave immediately, suspended the Indus Waters Treaty, formally downgraded diplomatic ties, and released floodwaters downstream to Pakistan without warning.

How has Pakistan responded?

Pakistan closed its airspace to Indian airlines, suspended special visa categories for Indians (except Sikh pilgrims), suspended all trade with India, suspended the 1972 Simla Agreement governing peace principles, deployed self-propelled artillery, and declared that any water diversion would be considered an act of war warranting full military retaliation.

Sources

• https://www.csis.org/blogs/examining-extremism/examining-extremism-lashkar-e-taiba
• https://www.reuters.com/world/india/kashmir-resistance-group-that-claimed-attack-tourists-indian-kashmir-2025-04-23/
• https://www.reuters.com/world/india/india-calls-all-party-meet-summons-top-pakistani-diplomat-after-kashmir-attack-2025-04-24/
• https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/apr/25/kashmir-attack-pahalgam-india-pakistan-army-chief-visit-srinagar
• https://www.crisisgroup.org/asia/south-asia/india-pakistan-kashmir/deadly-kashmir-militant-attack-raises-temperature-between
• https://apnews.com/article/india-pakistan-kashmir-explainer-c45cae691eea394e80d468918b038edb
• https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwynx7kgyqvo
• https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce8g2njm2d2o
• https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/panic-pakistan-india-vows-cut-off-water-supply-over-kashmir-2025-04-27/
• https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/india/panic-and-chaos-in-pok-after-jhelums-water-surges-india-blamed-for-opening-uri-dam-without-warning/articleshow/120657480.cms?from=mdr
• https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/24/world/asia/pakistan-india-kashmir-attack.html
• https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/what-steps-have-india-pakistan-taken-against-each-other-after-kashmir-attack-2025-04-24/
• https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/24/world/asia/india-pakistan-indus-waters-treaty.html
• https://www.france24.com/en/video/20250425-kashmir-crisis-deepens-as-pakistan-sees-suspension-of-water-treaty-by-india-as-an-act-of-war
• https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2025/4/27/kashmir-attack-live-india-pakistan-troops-exchange-fire-for-third-day
• https://apnews.com/article/kashmir-india-pakistan-pahalgam-tourist-attack-tensions-242c7a600a51793f5484e4f620402fdd
• https://apnews.com/article/kashmir-tourist-attack-india-pakistan-ccd23b998333211849c587b9e3f4ac27
• https://www.nbcnews.com/world/asia/kashmir-attack-tourists-pushes-india-pakistan-ties-brink-rcna202941
• https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy9vyzzyjzlo
• https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/27/world/asia/india-pakistan-kashmir.html
• https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/26/world/asia/india-pakistan-military-kashmir-attack.html
• https://www.cfr.org/global-conflict-tracker/conflict/conflict-between-india-and-pakistan
• https://armscontrolcenter.org/history-of-conflict-in-india-and-pakistan/
• https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/26/world/asia/india-pakistan-kashmir-airstrikes.html