I. Kashmir: The Epicenter of Nuclear Risk
There are places on Earth where geography becomes destiny. Kashmir is undoubtedly one of them. Nestled at the intersection of three nuclear powers—India, Pakistan, and China—this volatile region has often been described by analysts as the most dangerous place on the planet. Former CIA Director David Petraeus was not exaggerating when he said so. Here, not only tectonic plates but also historic tensions, religious passions, and geopolitical ambitions clash daily, with wounds dating back to the 1947 Partition still festering.
The terrorist attack of April 22, 2025, in the Baisaran Valley has reignited this geopolitical powder keg. Twenty-six people were killed and at least seventeen wounded when a heavily armed squad opened fire on a group of Indian tourists at the height of the holiday season. The attack was claimed by The Resistance Front (TRF), a barely disguised proxy for Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), a jihadist group based in Pakistan. Both Indian and Western intelligence agencies point to the same conclusion: this was yet another operation orchestrated by Pakistan’s infamous cross-border apparatus, with the military and its shadowy ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence) pulling the strings of terror.
II. Terrorism as an Instrument of Statecraft
Few nations have institutionalized terrorism as a central pillar of their foreign and neighborhood policy as brazenly as Pakistan. From the horrific Mumbai attacks in 2008—where jihadists laid siege to the Taj Mahal Palace and Oberoi hotels—to the 2016 assault on Pathankot Air Force Base, the pattern is painfully clear: well-trained terrorist cells, armed and dispatched from Pakistani soil, execute operations in India with near-military precision. Intercepted communications, confessions, ballistic analyses, and financial trails all point to the same entity: the ISI.
The Baisaran massacre fits squarely within this grotesque logic. Pakistan, true to form, denied any involvement—even when past attacks have led to the capture of perpetrators bearing irrefutable proof. This duplicitous conduct has become a hallmark of Pakistan’s military elite: simultaneously calling for peace while offering sanctuary and strategic support to organizations whose sole raison d’être is to destabilize India and the region.
III. From Outrage to Reprisal: India Strikes Back
Today’s India, under the leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, is not the same India of two decades ago. While the nation still upholds its constitutional pledge not to engage in nuclear first strikes—an extraordinary act of restraint for a nuclear power—it has shifted toward a doctrine of proportional and highly visible retribution when it comes to terrorism.
In the immediate aftermath of the April 22 attack, India launched a coordinated diplomatic and economic response. Most strikingly, it suspended the Indus Waters Treaty—a foundational agreement regulating the flow of water into Pakistan. This was no idle threat. With nearly 70% of Pakistan’s agriculture depending on the Indus system, the message was clear: if terrorists weaponize infiltration via geography, India will not hesitate to use that same geography to apply pressure.
India shut down the Attari-Wagah border crossing, revoked Pakistani visas, and expelled several diplomats. And then came the inevitable: the missiles.
IV. May 6: The Night the Skies Spoke
On May 6, 2025, Indian Air Force Rafale jets—regaining the aerial superiority once lost by aging MiG-27s against Pakistani F-16s—carried out surgical airstrikes using precision-guided munitions. At least nine high-value terrorist infrastructure sites in Pakistani-controlled Kashmir and adjoining regions were hit. Islamabad, predictably, retaliated with artillery fire and rhetorical outrage, invoking the now familiar narrative of “Indian aggression.”
The facts, however, speak for themselves. The targets were long-identified Lashkar-e-Taiba encampments and logistical hubs. Indian military intelligence had been monitoring these sites for years—a fact I can personally confirm. The strike was measured and intentional.
Yet the risk of escalation remains dangerously real. Pakistan’s military immediately raised the stakes, hinting at possible nuclear retaliation. Such irresponsibility is staggering. Any nuclear conflict in the subcontinent would not remain regional. Strategic war games conducted by both sides project tens of millions of deaths within the first 24 hours of a full-scale nuclear exchange. These grim scenarios are not speculative—they are catalogued in the classified manuals of both militaries.
V. Pakistani Belligerence as a Smokescreen
Pakistan’s foreign policy cannot be understood in isolation from its domestic turmoil. The country has, for years, faced a perfect storm of crises: a collapsing economy, mass protests brutally suppressed, and a political opposition—led by figures like Imran Khan—either imprisoned or exiled. The military, which has long operated as the de facto ruling institution, thrives on maintaining an external threat to justify its stranglehold on power. And India is the ideal scapegoat.
As renowned analyst Ayesha Siddiqa has aptly noted, “Pakistan’s deep state perpetuates conflict with India to reinforce a siege mentality and legitimize internal authoritarianism.” In other words, terrorism is not an aberration—it is a method.
VI. Kashmir: Between Counterterrorism and Civil Strain
India responded by launching one of its most sweeping counterterrorism campaigns in Kashmir. Over 1,500 individuals were detained, and numerous houses used as terrorist hideouts were selectively demolished, based on verified intelligence. Dozens of madrasas linked to jihadist indoctrination were shuttered. Additionally, imports from Pakistan were banned.
While human rights organizations voiced concerns over these actions, they often overlook the context: passivity in the face of terrorism is itself a form of complicity. Most serious analysts agree—firm, legal action is necessary to break the cycle of repeated attacks.
Prime Minister Modi left no room for ambiguity: Kashmir will not be allowed to become a hostage of extremism financed and directed from across the Line of Control (LoC), a boundary neither side officially recognizes as a legitimate frontier.
VII. Between Deterrence and Limited War
Strategic stability in South Asia rests on a fragile nuclear deterrent—what scholars call a localized version of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD). India and Pakistan possess comparable arsenals—approximately 160 and 170 nuclear warheads respectively, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). Since 1971, when India decisively defeated Pakistan and facilitated the birth of Bangladesh, full-scale war has been avoided.
Yet the emergence of “surgical strikes” and the increased use of precision missiles mark a paradigm shift: the advent of limited but high-intensity warfare. Wars of this kind are easy to start—and terrifyingly difficult to contain.
Recent missile tests underscore this dangerous trend. Pakistan launched its short-range Abdali missile (450 km range), while India conducted multiple BrahMos trials. Tensions along the LoC—already one of the most militarized borders in the world—have intensified. The risk of accidental or uncontrollable escalation looms ever larger.
VIII. China’s Silence and the Global Echo
International responses have been nuanced. The United States, the European Union, and Russia have condemned the Baisaran attack and expressed support for India’s right to self-defense. Russia’s backing is particularly notable given its historically close ties with India, dating back to the Cold War and undiminished despite New Delhi’s growing alignment with the West.
China, on the other hand, offered tacit support to Pakistan—unsurprising, given its strategic partnership under the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). Beijing sees Islamabad as a proxy in its broader rivalry with India, which suffered its only post-independence military defeat to China in the 1962 war.
IX. Strategic Fallout: Water, Tourism, and Economic Paralysis
The economic impact of the current crisis is far-reaching. Kashmir’s tourism industry—boasting 3.5 million visitors in 2024—has ground to a halt. Bilateral trade has collapsed. And the specter of a full breakdown of the Indus Waters Treaty threatens a humanitarian disaster in Pakistan, whose agricultural lifeline depends almost entirely on this river system.
India, for its part, has incurred reputational and humanitarian costs. But its firm posture reinforces its image as a sovereign state unwilling to capitulate to terrorism.
X. Conclusion: Kashmir, a Tragic Microcosm
The post-April 2025 escalation is not an isolated event—it is the symptom of a structural disease. As long as Pakistan continues to use terrorism as a geopolitical lever and allows its military to usurp civilian authority, the subcontinent will remain locked in a perpetual cycle of provocation and reprisal.
The international community must abandon its ritualistic calls for “restraint” and instead hold Pakistan accountable for its persistent complicity with terror. Groups like LeT are not fringe actors; they are instruments of state policy operating with institutional blessing.
India has sent a decisive message: covert attacks will be met with overt and calibrated response. But the real danger lies in the unpredictability of a Pakistan beset by internal collapse—one that may prefer external chaos to the difficult path of reform and democratization.
Kashmir, once again, stands as a chilling metaphor for a region where peace has never been more than a fleeting illusion—interrupted, time and again, by the drumbeat of low-intensity conflict. Seventy-eight years after Partition, South Asia still awaits a durable peace. The abyss remains wide open.
I. Kashmir: The Epicenter of Nuclear Risk
There are places on Earth where geography becomes destiny. Kashmir is undoubtedly one of them. Nestled at the intersection of three nuclear powers—India, Pakistan, and China—this volatile region has often been described by analysts as the most dangerous place on the planet. Former CIA Director David Petraeus was not exaggerating when he said so. Here, not only tectonic plates but also historic tensions, religious passions, and geopolitical ambitions clash daily, with wounds dating back to the 1947 Partition still festering.
The terrorist attack of April 22, 2025, in the Baisaran Valley has reignited this geopolitical powder keg. Twenty-six people were killed and at least seventeen wounded when a heavily armed squad opened fire on a group of Indian tourists at the height of the holiday season. The attack was claimed by The Resistance Front (TRF), a barely disguised proxy for Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), a jihadist group based in Pakistan. Both Indian and Western intelligence agencies point to the same conclusion: this was yet another operation orchestrated by Pakistan’s infamous cross-border apparatus, with the military and its shadowy ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence) pulling the strings of terror.
II. Terrorism as an Instrument of Statecraft
Few nations have institutionalized terrorism as a central pillar of their foreign and neighborhood policy as brazenly as Pakistan. From the horrific Mumbai attacks in 2008—where jihadists laid siege to the Taj Mahal Palace and Oberoi hotels—to the 2016 assault on Pathankot Air Force Base, the pattern is painfully clear: well-trained terrorist cells, armed and dispatched from Pakistani soil, execute operations in India with near-military precision. Intercepted communications, confessions, ballistic analyses, and financial trails all point to the same entity: the ISI.
The Baisaran massacre fits squarely within this grotesque logic. Pakistan, true to form, denied any involvement—even when past attacks have led to the capture of perpetrators bearing irrefutable proof. This duplicitous conduct has become a hallmark of Pakistan’s military elite: simultaneously calling for peace while offering sanctuary and strategic support to organizations whose sole raison d’être is to destabilize India and the region.
III. From Outrage to Reprisal: India Strikes Back
Today’s India, under the leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, is not the same India of two decades ago. While the nation still upholds its constitutional pledge not to engage in nuclear first strikes—an extraordinary act of restraint for a nuclear power—it has shifted toward a doctrine of proportional and highly visible retribution when it comes to terrorism.
In the immediate aftermath of the April 22 attack, India launched a coordinated diplomatic and economic response. Most strikingly, it suspended the Indus Waters Treaty—a foundational agreement regulating the flow of water into Pakistan. This was no idle threat. With nearly 70% of Pakistan’s agriculture depending on the Indus system, the message was clear: if terrorists weaponize infiltration via geography, India will not hesitate to use that same geography to apply pressure.
India shut down the Attari-Wagah border crossing, revoked Pakistani visas, and expelled several diplomats. And then came the inevitable: the missiles.
IV. May 6: The Night the Skies Spoke
On May 6, 2025, Indian Air Force Rafale jets—regaining the aerial superiority once lost by aging MiG-27s against Pakistani F-16s—carried out surgical airstrikes using precision-guided munitions. At least nine high-value terrorist infrastructure sites in Pakistani-controlled Kashmir and adjoining regions were hit. Islamabad, predictably, retaliated with artillery fire and rhetorical outrage, invoking the now familiar narrative of “Indian aggression.”
The facts, however, speak for themselves. The targets were long-identified Lashkar-e-Taiba encampments and logistical hubs. Indian military intelligence had been monitoring these sites for years—a fact I can personally confirm. The strike was measured and intentional.
Yet the risk of escalation remains dangerously real. Pakistan’s military immediately raised the stakes, hinting at possible nuclear retaliation. Such irresponsibility is staggering. Any nuclear conflict in the subcontinent would not remain regional. Strategic war games conducted by both sides project tens of millions of deaths within the first 24 hours of a full-scale nuclear exchange. These grim scenarios are not speculative—they are catalogued in the classified manuals of both militaries.
V. Pakistani Belligerence as a Smokescreen
Pakistan’s foreign policy cannot be understood in isolation from its domestic turmoil. The country has, for years, faced a perfect storm of crises: a collapsing economy, mass protests brutally suppressed, and a political opposition—led by figures like Imran Khan—either imprisoned or exiled. The military, which has long operated as the de facto ruling institution, thrives on maintaining an external threat to justify its stranglehold on power. And India is the ideal scapegoat.
As renowned analyst Ayesha Siddiqa has aptly noted, “Pakistan’s deep state perpetuates conflict with India to reinforce a siege mentality and legitimize internal authoritarianism.” In other words, terrorism is not an aberration—it is a method.
VI. Kashmir: Between Counterterrorism and Civil Strain
India responded by launching one of its most sweeping counterterrorism campaigns in Kashmir. Over 1,500 individuals were detained, and numerous houses used as terrorist hideouts were selectively demolished, based on verified intelligence. Dozens of madrasas linked to jihadist indoctrination were shuttered. Additionally, imports from Pakistan were banned.
While human rights organizations voiced concerns over these actions, they often overlook the context: passivity in the face of terrorism is itself a form of complicity. Most serious analysts agree—firm, legal action is necessary to break the cycle of repeated attacks.
Prime Minister Modi left no room for ambiguity: Kashmir will not be allowed to become a hostage of extremism financed and directed from across the Line of Control (LoC), a boundary neither side officially recognizes as a legitimate frontier.
VII. Between Deterrence and Limited War
Strategic stability in South Asia rests on a fragile nuclear deterrent—what scholars call a localized version of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD). India and Pakistan possess comparable arsenals—approximately 160 and 170 nuclear warheads respectively, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). Since 1971, when India decisively defeated Pakistan and facilitated the birth of Bangladesh, full-scale war has been avoided.
Yet the emergence of “surgical strikes” and the increased use of precision missiles mark a paradigm shift: the advent of limited but high-intensity warfare. Wars of this kind are easy to start—and terrifyingly difficult to contain.
Recent missile tests underscore this dangerous trend. Pakistan launched its short-range Abdali missile (450 km range), while India conducted multiple BrahMos trials. Tensions along the LoC—already one of the most militarized borders in the world—have intensified. The risk of accidental or uncontrollable escalation looms ever larger.
VIII. China’s Silence and the Global Echo
International responses have been nuanced. The United States, the European Union, and Russia have condemned the Baisaran attack and expressed support for India’s right to self-defense. Russia’s backing is particularly notable given its historically close ties with India, dating back to the Cold War and undiminished despite New Delhi’s growing alignment with the West.
China, on the other hand, offered tacit support to Pakistan—unsurprising, given its strategic partnership under the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). Beijing sees Islamabad as a proxy in its broader rivalry with India, which suffered its only post-independence military defeat to China in the 1962 war.
IX. Strategic Fallout: Water, Tourism, and Economic Paralysis
The economic impact of the current crisis is far-reaching. Kashmir’s tourism industry—boasting 3.5 million visitors in 2024—has ground to a halt. Bilateral trade has collapsed. And the specter of a full breakdown of the Indus Waters Treaty threatens a humanitarian disaster in Pakistan, whose agricultural lifeline depends almost entirely on this river system.
India, for its part, has incurred reputational and humanitarian costs. But its firm posture reinforces its image as a sovereign state unwilling to capitulate to terrorism.
X. Conclusion: Kashmir, a Tragic Microcosm
The post-April 2025 escalation is not an isolated event—it is the symptom of a structural disease. As long as Pakistan continues to use terrorism as a geopolitical lever and allows its military to usurp civilian authority, the subcontinent will remain locked in a perpetual cycle of provocation and reprisal.
The international community must abandon its ritualistic calls for “restraint” and instead hold Pakistan accountable for its persistent complicity with terror. Groups like LeT are not fringe actors; they are instruments of state policy operating with institutional blessing.
India has sent a decisive message: covert attacks will be met with overt and calibrated response. But the real danger lies in the unpredictability of a Pakistan beset by internal collapse—one that may prefer external chaos to the difficult path of reform and democratization.
Kashmir, once again, stands as a chilling metaphor for a region where peace has never been more than a fleeting illusion—interrupted, time and again, by the drumbeat of low-intensity conflict. Seventy-eight years after Partition, South Asia still awaits a durable peace. The abyss remains wide open.
Gustavo de Arístegui is a Spanish Diplomat and was Spain’s ambassador to India (2012-2016).
(Cover Photo Credit: commons.wikimedia.org)