Editorial 1: ​ Not revenge or retaliation, but a paradigm shift 

Context

Converting the Line of Control into an International Border remains a practical solution to end Pakistan’s ongoing proxy war against India.

Introduction

The Pahalgam terror attack on April 22 has pushed Delhi and Islamabad onto a new strategic path, demanding the attention of the entire security community. As the deadliest civilian attack since Mumbai 2008, its brutality — including religious profiling and executions — aims to terrorise Indians, destabilise Kashmir’s economy, and fuel communal tensions nationwide. Unlike past “fidayeen” missions, this assault was precise, with a planned exfiltration. While a full probe is pending, India has responded with diplomatic steps like suspending the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) and authorising the military to plan a response operation.

A response that is not just revenge

Strategic Goal

Craft a long-term response to terror attacks that:

• Goes beyond revenge or retaliation
• Acts as a short-term deterrent
• Alters cross-border patterns and behaviour in the long run

Step 1: Study Past Indian Responses

To design an effective strategy, evaluate which past responses best served India’s national security.

Step 2: Evaluate the Pahalgam Attack Context

• Seen as a deliberate provocation, unlike earlier attacks
• Likely pre-planned exfiltration, not a “fidayeen” attack
• Aims to:
  • Terrorise civilians
  • Disrupt Kashmir’s economic recovery
  • Incite communal tensions across India

Step 3: Required Response Strategies

Indian planners must move beyond past templates. Three distinct yet coordinated strategies are required:

1. Counter-Terror Strategy
   • Enhance intelligence penetration
   • Target infrastructure and networks facilitating cross-border terrorism
   • Strengthen internal coordination
2. Retaliatory Strategy
   • Execute precision and asymmetric operations
   • Maintain element of surprise
   • Consider economic, cyber, and covert options
3. Counter-Counter Strategy
   • Anticipate Pakistan’s retaliation spectrum
   • Prepare diplomatic, military, and narrative management responses
   • Build international support and redundancy

Step 4: Watch for 3 Strategic Wild Cards

1. Pakistan’s Military Leadership – Gen. Asim Munir

• Advocates escalatory doctrines, referencing:
  • A "hard state" framework
  • Revival of the "two-nation theory"
  • Kashmir as the "jugular vein"
• Background and motivations:
  • Commissioned during Zia-ul-Haq’s radical phase (1986)
  • Promotes the ideology of “Jihad fi Sabeelillah”
  • Under pressure to avenge the Jaffar Express attack (March 2025)
  • Faces internal pressure due to Imran Khan’s lingering popularity
  • Will remain powerful until at least 2027 under amended Pakistani law

2. China’s Role

• Must factor in China's response if India’s action impacts:
  • The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC)
  • Broader China-Pakistan strategic alignment

3. Indian Political Pressure

• Increasing calls in India for:
  • A "decisive war"
  • "Cartographic changes" through territorial capture in PoK
• Risks:
  • Overreaction could lead to strategic miscalculations
  • Might close diplomatic space and invite international scrutiny

The diplomatic road ahead

LoC as the border

• Time to reconsider the idea of turning the LoC into a formal border, a proposal abandoned two decades ago.
• Pakistan's military has exploited the LoC’s permeability and temporary status to conduct proxy warfare.
• The LoC serves as a route for recruiting, training, and infiltrating terrorists into India.
• The TRF claimed the Pahalgam attack was meant to resist “demographic changes” in Jammu & Kashmir.
• On its side, Pakistan has already altered demographics in PoK by settling non-Kashmiris and army personnel.
• Gilgit-Baltistan has been integrated federally, making it difficult for India to govern, even if taken by force.

Conclusion

It is, therefore, essential to declare the end of Rawalpindi’s ‘jugular vein’ theory and its aspirations of reuniting the now fragmented regions of Jammu and Kashmir or annexing the Kashmir Valley. New Delhi must reconsider the 2007 LoC agreement proposals, which aimed to transform the Line of Control (LoC) or ceasefire line into a de-facto border, eventually leading to its recognition as a permanent International Border. The international community’s role, if any, would be to ensure that Pakistan commits to this arrangement — if it seeks to promote a lasting equilibrium in the region.