A Fragile Peace Shattered: The Escalating Crisis in Kashmir

By Chetna Gill

Cover Image Attribute: A security personnel stands guard a day after a terrorist attack in Pahalgam Wednesday morning, April 23, 2025. / Source: Press Trust of India

The serene meadows of Pahalgam, a picturesque valley in Indian-administered Kashmir often dubbed "mini Switzerland," became a scene of unimaginable horror on April 22, 2025, when gunmen opened fire on tourists, killing 26 civilians—25 Indians and one Nepali national. This brutal attack, the deadliest in the region since 2019, has not only shattered lives but also reignited the volatile tensions between India and Pakistan, two nuclear-armed neighbors with a long history of conflict over the disputed Himalayan territory. As both nations exchange retaliatory measures—diplomatic expulsions, border closures, and the unprecedented suspension of a decades-old water-sharing treaty—the specter of escalation looms large, threatening a fragile peace and raising questions about the security failures that allowed such a tragedy to unfold.
The attack, claimed by The Resistance Front (TRF), a militant group India links to the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba, targeted civilians on holiday in Baisaran, a valley accessible only by foot or horseback. Eyewitnesses described scenes of chaos as gunmen singled out men and accused families of supporting Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi before opening fire. “Photos and videos of the aftermath—showing lifeless bodies strewn on the ground and grieving loved ones wailing in fear—have reverberated across social media, a vivid portrayal of the pain and suffering endured by families whose holidays ended in horror,” reported CNN. The brutality of the assault, targeting tourists rather than soldiers or officials, was both a calculated act of violence and a symbolic blow to India’s efforts to project normalcy in Kashmir, a region at the heart of its territorial dispute with Pakistan.
India’s response was swift and multifaceted. Prime Minister Modi, speaking in Bihar, vowed to pursue the attackers “to the ends of the earth,” declaring, “India’s spirit will never be broken by terrorism. Terrorism will not go unpunished. Every effort will be made to ensure that justice is done.” New Delhi downgraded diplomatic ties with Islamabad, expelled Pakistani military attachés, closed the Attari border crossing, and suspended visas for Pakistani citizens. Most significantly, India announced the suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), a 1960 agreement that has governed the sharing of the Indus River system’s waters between the two nations. Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri stated, “The Indus Waters Treaty of 1960 will be held in abeyance with immediate effect, until Pakistan credibly and irrevocably abjures its support for cross-border terrorism.” This move, condemned by Pakistan as “an act of warfare,” marks the first time the treaty, which survived four wars and decades of hostility, has been suspended.
Pakistan, in turn, mirrored India’s diplomatic measures, suspending visas for Indian citizens and reducing Indian diplomatic staff in Islamabad to 30. However, the suspension of the IWT poses a far graver threat to Pakistan, a lower riparian state heavily dependent on the waters of the Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab rivers. Pakistan’s government warned that any attempt to stop or divert these waters “will be considered as an Act of War and responded with full force across the complete spectrum of national power.” In a provocative escalation, Pakistan also claimed the right to suspend all bilateral agreements, including the 1971 Simla Agreement, which established the Line of Control (LoC) separating the two nations’ forces in Kashmir. Such a move could undermine the legal framework governing the LoC, further destabilizing the region.
The IWT’s suspension has far-reaching implications. While India lacks the immediate infrastructure to halt water flows to Pakistan, the decision frees New Delhi from treaty obligations, allowing it to stop sharing water flow data, undertake reservoir flushing, and potentially build storage facilities on the Western Rivers. P.K. Saxena, former Indian Commissioner for Indus Waters, noted, “India can now create storage on the Western Rivers, Indus, Jhelum and Chenab.” However, Pakistan’s legal recourse is limited. Ahmer Bilal Soofi, a former Pakistani law minister, explained in 2016, “In case India ‘revokes’ the treaty, it literally means it has shunned it. The dispute resolution mechanism under Article IX and Annexes F and G of the IWT will be of no use and assistance to Pakistan.” The treaty’s lack of an exit clause and India’s reservation at the International Court of Justice further constrain Pakistan’s options.
The Pahalgam attack has exposed vulnerabilities in India’s security apparatus, particularly in a region under direct federal control since the revocation of Kashmir’s autonomy in 2019. “That such an attack occurred at the peak of tourist season points to a serious lapse—especially in a Union Territory where the federal government directly controls law and order,” said military historian Srinath Raghavan. The massacre has shattered the illusion of calm that Modi’s government has sought to project, prompting anti-Pakistan protests in Delhi and raising fears of anti-Kashmiri and anti-Muslim sentiment. In Kashmir, demonstrations of solidarity erupted in Srinagar’s Lal Chowk, with resident Umar Nazir Tibetbaqan stating, “We all could not just sit by and watch. We came out to show emotion, solidarity, and condemn the killings.” Yet, the attack has also devastated the local economy, with tour operator Mohsin reporting “80-90% cancellation of all our tours and travels in the coming days and weeks.”
Analysts warn that the crisis could escalate militarily, given the precedents set by India’s responses to previous attacks. In 2016, after the Uri attack killed 19 soldiers, India conducted “surgical strikes” across the LoC, targeting militant launch pads. In 2019, following the Pulwama attack that killed 40 paramilitary personnel, India launched airstrikes on a militant camp in Balakot, Pakistan, prompting a Pakistani counterattack and a tense standoff. “We are likely to see a strong response—one that signals resolve to both domestic audiences and actors in Pakistan,” Raghavan predicted. Michael Kugelman, a foreign policy analyst, added, “The combination of high fatality levels and the targeting of Indian civilians in the latest attack suggests a strong possibility of an Indian military response against Pakistan, if Delhi determines or merely assumes any level of Pakistani complicity.”
India faces a delicate balancing act. Covert action may not satisfy domestic pressure for a visible response, while cross-border firing or airstrikes risk retaliation. Christopher Clary of the University at Albany noted, “No path is without risks. The US is also distracted and may not be willing or be able to assist with crisis management.” The nuclear capabilities of both nations cast a long shadow, acting as both a restraint and a danger. “Nuclear weapons force decision-makers on both sides to act with caution. Any response is likely to be presented as precise and targeted,” Raghavan observed, citing the calibrated strikes and de-escalation efforts seen in other conflicts, such as between Israel and Iran.
Pakistan’s denial of involvement and its accusation that India is “fomenting terrorism” inside its borders complicate the path to de-escalation. Hussain Haqqani, a former Pakistani ambassador, suggested that India might opt for limited “surgical strikes” to demonstrate action without provoking a full-scale response. “The advantage of such strikes from India’s point of view is they are limited in scope, so Pakistan does not have to respond, and yet they demonstrate to the Indian public that India has acted,” he said. However, Pakistan’s warning of a “full force” response to water diversion and its threat to suspend the Simla Agreement signal a readiness to escalate if pushed.
The Pahalgam attack has not only reignited the India-Pakistan rivalry but also underscored the human cost of their unresolved conflict over Kashmir. For the families of the victims, the pain is immediate and personal, their holidays turned into nightmares. For the region’s residents, the attack threatens livelihoods and deepens uncertainty. “There has been 80-90% cancellation of all our tours and travels in the coming days and weeks,” Mohsin lamented. As both nations weigh their next steps, the risk of miscalculation looms large. “Absent strategic restraint or third-party intervention, the chances of uncontrolled escalation in the coming days is thus not insignificant,” warned Fahd Humayun, a political science professor at Tufts University.
The international community watches anxiously as India and Pakistan navigate this crisis. The suspension of the IWT, described by Humayun as a “violation of international treaty obligations,” and Pakistan’s threat to upend the Simla Agreement signal a dangerous unraveling of diplomatic norms. Yet, the memory of past crises—where both sides pulled back from the brink—offers a glimmer of hope. The question now is whether restraint will prevail or if the bloodshed in Pahalgam will mark the beginning of a broader conflict, one that neither side can fully control. For Kashmir, caught in the crossfire, the path to peace remains as elusive as ever.
With reporting by BBC, CNN, and The Indian Express

IndraStra Global is now available on
Apple News, Google News, Feedly, Flipboard, and  WhatsApp Channel

COPYRIGHT: This article is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

REPUBLISH: Republish our articles online or in print for free if you follow these guidelines. https://www.indrastra.com/p/republish-us.html