Operation Sindoor

On April 22, India was rocked by a deadly terrorist attack at a popular tourist destination a near the hill station of Pahalgam. The attackers reportedly targeted Hindu tourists, allegedly forcing them to recite verses from the Quran. The assault, which claimed 26 lives, is believed to have been carried out by The Resistance Front (TRF), a relatively obscure militant group operating in the Kashmir region.

The international community strongly condemned the attack, with the United Nations emphasizing the importance of holding those responsible including perpetrators, organizers, financiers, and sponsors accountable and bringing them to justice. In response, India launched a military operation two weeks later, triggering heightened tensions and an escalation in violence with Pakistan. Though a fragile ceasefire has since been established, New Delhi’s more assertive approach may signal a significant shift in its counterterrorism policy.

This analysis provides context on the situation in Kashmir, explores the identity and motives of the suspected perpetrators, examines the responses of both India and Pakistan, and considers potential strategies for combating terrorism moving forward.

The Status of Kashmir

Kashmir, often referred to as the “Switzerland of Asia,” was once a princely state and has long been a focal point of conflict between India and Pakistan since the partition. The region is known for its rich religious and cultural diversity, home to Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists. During the 1947 partition of British India, princely states were given the option to join either India or Pakistan. Although the Kashmir Valley had a Muslim majority, its Hindu ruler, Maharaja Hari Singh, chose to accede to India in return for military assistance against tribal invasions from Pakistan.

Following three wars between India and Pakistan, the 1972 Shimla Agreement led to the division of Kashmir into two regions administered separately by each country. This agreement also established the Line of Control (LoC), which still functions as the de facto border and stipulates that any disputes must be resolved bilaterally, without third-party involvement.

India-administered Kashmir (IaJK) includes the regions of the Kashmir Valley, Jammu, and Ladakh. Pakistan-administered Kashmir comprises Azad Jammu and Kashmir along with Gilgit-Baltistan. A third, smaller area in the northeast Shaksgam Valley and Aksai Chin is under Chinese control, though claimed by India. Aksai Chin holds particular strategic significance for China as it serves as a key connection between Tibet and Xinjiang.

In August 2019, India revoked Article 370 of its Constitution, which had granted special autonomous status to Jammu and Kashmir. Originally intended as a temporary provision, Article 370 allowed the region to govern itself in areas such as education, healthcare, and property rights, as well as to maintain its own constitution and flag.

With the article’s removal, the region was brought under direct rule from New Delhi, a move the Indian government argued would boost development and security. In anticipation of unrest, the government imposed a prolonged internet blackout and heavily restricted information access. The Supreme Court of India later ruled that internet access is a fundamental part of free expression and that such shutdowns must be necessary and proportionate, not indefinite. At that point, the shutdown had lasted over 150 days. Additional reforms, including the removal of Article 35A, have allowed non-residents to settle in the region.

In the past two years, approximately 85,000 residency permits have reportedly been granted to non-locals, fueling resentment among many Kashmiri Muslims. This tension has also been intensified by efforts to resettle displaced Kashmiri Hindus known as Kashmiri Pandits around 40,000 families of whom fled the region during militant violence in the 1990s.

In 2024, after a six-year gap, elections were held in India-administered Kashmir. While the elections proceeded relatively peacefully, the new local government, led by Omar Abdullah, holds only limited authority in practice.

Pakistan’s denial of involvement in the terrorist attack is met with skepticism, given its historical support for extremist groups  including sheltering Osama Bin Laden and providing resources such as weapons to the Taliban and the Haqqani network in Afghanistan. Both Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), which are designated as terrorist organizations by the United Nations, are based in Pakistan.”For over seventy years, the Kashmir conflict has persisted, with each terrorist incident triggering a predictable pattern of military retaliation, diplomatic tensions, and strategic positioning.

While both India and Pakistan claim success and seek international backing for their respective narratives, these events have bolstered the domestic standing of Pakistan’s military leadership and Prime Minister Modi. However, the increasingly aggressive rhetoric amplified by the media raises a serious risk of renewed conflict, as both nations appear willing to escalate tensions further.

A lasting reduction in terrorist threats requires more than just security measures; it demands addressing core grievances, human rights concerns, and governance challenges in both regions of Kashmir. The past two decades of the global fight against terrorism have demonstrated that military responses alone are insufficient for long-term security. Effective counterterrorism efforts must combine immediate security actions with longer-term strategies that tackle the root causes of extremism.

As active members of the Global Counter Terrorism Forum, both India and Pakistan have contributed to the development of best practices focused on curbing radicalisation and recruitment—through community policing, education, and rehabilitation programs. Given their deep understanding of the local context, both countries are well positioned to implement a comprehensive range of measures to combat terrorism more effectively.

Addressing terrorism and underlying grievances

In the short term, India must thoroughly investigate and prosecute those responsible for the Pahalgam terrorist attacks. In the aftermath of the violence, six suspected militants were killed during a counter-insurgency operation, including a Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) commander involved in recruitment. While courtrooms can sometimes be misused by the accused to present themselves as victims or spread propaganda, they also provide an important platform for the prosecution to counter such narratives, deliver justice to the victims, and demonstrate that terrorism can be addressed through fair and independent judicial processes.

At the same time, India should examine the intelligence failure that allowed the attack to occur. Enhancing inter-agency coordination and improving detection capabilities is vital, but must be balanced against the risk of excessive surveillance, particularly targeting minority communities. India’s growing digital surveillance infrastructure has already drawn criticism for infringing on privacy rights and lacking independent oversight. A deeper understanding of regional variations in radicalisation across Kashmir, Jammu, and Ladakh is also necessary to develop targeted, long-term strategies that address the root causes of extremism and community grievances.

Pakistan’s denial of involvement in the attack is met with scepticism, given its longstanding history of supporting terrorist groups. The country harboured Osama Bin Laden and has backed the Taliban and Haqqani network in Afghanistan. Both LeT and Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), which are based in Pakistan, are designated terrorist organisations by the United Nations. Although the leader of JeM has been arrested twice, he remains uncharged and is believed to be at liberty. In contrast, the founder of LeT has been convicted of financing terrorism and is currently serving a 31-year sentence. 

Just two days after the ceasefire, Prime Minister Modi declared that any future terrorist attack would be met with a strong response, suggesting that further military action was likely and that the current halt was only temporary. This statement could be interpreted as a signal that might provoke one of the Kashmiri militant groups to launch an attack.