The Pahalgam terror attack on April 22, 2025, which killed 26 tourists in Jammu and Kashm ir , marks a significant escalation in India-Pakis...
Context and Immediate Fallout
The Pahalgam attack, attributed to The Resistance Front (TRF)—an offshoot of the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and involving both Pakistani and Kashmiri militants—was one of the deadliest in Kashmir in recent years. India’s response was swift and unprecedented: the suspension of the IWT, closure of the Attari-Wagah border, expulsion of Pakistani diplomats, and revocation of visas for Pakistani nationals. These measures signal a deliberate shift from diplomatic restraint to a hardline stance, with India holding Pakistan responsible for cross-border terrorism. Pakistan’s countermeasure—suspending the Simla Agreement, closing its airspace to Indian aircraft, and halting all trade—further escalates the crisis by nullifying the 1972 peace treaty that committed both nations to resolve disputes bilaterally and respect the Line of Control (LoC).
The suspension of these agreements removes critical guardrails. The IWT, in place since 1960, survived multiple wars and ensured water-sharing stability, with India controlling only 20% of the Indus basin’s flow while Pakistan relied on the remaining 80% for its agriculture and hydropower. Its suspension, though not immediately actionable due to India’s limited infrastructure to divert water, signals a long-term threat to Pakistan’s economic survival. Similarly, the Simla Agreement’s suspension undermines the legal framework governing the LoC, potentially legitimizing unilateral actions in contested areas like PoK.
Strategic Leverage for India
The collapse of these agreements provides India with a strategic window to pursue aggressive objectives, including the potential to seize PoK, for several reasons:
- Weakened Diplomatic Constraints: The Simla Agreement’s suspension by Pakistan effectively voids the commitment to resolve the Kashmir dispute through bilateral talks and respect the LoC. This gives India a legal and political pretext to argue that Pakistan has forfeited its claims to PoK, as the agreement no longer binds India to the status quo. Indian leaders could frame military action as a response to Pakistan’s “unilateral abrogation” of a foundational treaty, coupled with its alleged support for terrorism.
- Economic Pressure via IWT Suspension: While India cannot immediately halt water flows, the IWT’s suspension threatens Pakistan’s agricultural heartland and major cities like Karachi and Lahore, which depend on the Indus system. This creates a long-term economic chokehold, potentially destabilizing Pakistan’s economy and weakening its military preparedness. The Karachi-100 index’s 1,500-point crash following the IWT suspension reflects immediate economic panic, which could erode Pakistan’s ability to sustain a prolonged conflict.
- Domestic and International Justification: The Pahalgam attack, targeting civilians, has galvanized Indian public opinion and strengthened the Modi government’s resolve to act decisively. Prime Minister Modi’s statements vowing to pursue the perpetrators “to the ends of the earth” and Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri’s assertion that the IWT suspension is contingent on Pakistan ending cross-border terrorism frame India’s actions as a defensive response to provocation. Internationally, India’s briefing of countries like China and Canada on the attack suggests an effort to build a coalition of support, potentially neutralizing criticism of aggressive moves.
- Military Advantage: India’s military superiority, bolstered by recent modernization and a defense budget nearly four times Pakistan’s, positions it favorably for localized operations in PoK. Reports of 130 terrorists active on 42 launch pads in PoK provide a pretext for preemptive strikes. India’s recent success in repelling Pakistani incursions along the LoC further underscores its tactical edge. The closure of Pakistan’s airspace to Indian airlines limits commercial fallout but does little to impede India’s air force, which can operate from domestic bases.
Pathways to PoK Seizure
India could pursue PoK through several scenarios, each leveraging the current crisis:
- Surgical Strikes and Limited Incursions: India could launch targeted operations to neutralize terrorist launch pads in PoK, as it did in 2016 and 2019. These could escalate into broader incursions if Pakistan retaliates, allowing India to capture strategic areas under the guise of “defensive” operations. The absence of the Simla Agreement weakens Pakistan’s ability to appeal to international mediators like the UN, as the LoC’s sanctity is no longer mutually recognized.
- Full-Scale Offensive: A more ambitious scenario involves a rapid offensive to seize key PoK territories, such as Muzaffarabad or Gilgit-Baltistan, exploiting Pakistan’s economic and military vulnerabilities. India could justify this as reclaiming territory integral to Jammu and Kashmir, especially after the 2019 revocation of Article 370, which asserted India’s claim over all of Kashmir. The IWT suspension could serve as a psychological weapon, forcing Pakistan to divert resources to manage water crises rather than mount a robust defense.
- Proxy and Hybrid Warfare: India could intensify support for dissident groups in PoK, where local discontent with Pakistani governance is well-documented, while conducting cyberattacks or economic sabotage to weaken Pakistan’s resolve. This low-cost approach could destabilize PoK without direct military engagement, paving the way for Indian influence or eventual control.
Risks and Countervailing Factors
While the situation tilts in India’s favor, several risks could derail or complicate an attempt to seize PoK:
- Nuclear Escalation: Both nations possess nuclear arsenals, and Pakistan’s doctrine of “full-spectrum deterrence” includes tactical nuclear weapons for battlefield use. Any significant Indian advance into PoK could trigger a nuclear response, especially if Pakistan perceives an existential threat to its territorial integrity or water supply.
- International Backlash: Despite India’s diplomatic outreach, a unilateral military move could alienate key allies like the United States, which has stakes in regional stability, or China, Pakistan’s close partner. China’s control of parts of Aksai Chin and its investments in the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) in PoK could prompt Beijing to intervene diplomatically or militarily, escalating the conflict into a broader regional war.
- Economic and Humanitarian Costs: Seizing PoK would strain India’s economy and military resources, especially if it leads to a protracted insurgency. The IWT suspension, while a strategic tool, risks humanitarian fallout in Pakistan, potentially radicalizing its population and fueling anti-India sentiment. India’s own water management could also face challenges if infrastructure projects to divert Indus waters are not expedited.
- Pakistan’s Resilience: Pakistan’s military, despite economic woes, remains formidable in defensive operations, particularly in familiar terrain like PoK. Its planned missile tests off Karachi and rejection of India’s IWT suspension as “water warfare” signal readiness to escalate. Pakistan’s alliances with China and Turkey could also provide diplomatic or material support, complicating India’s plans.
Forecast: A High-Stakes Gamble
In the short term (3-6 months), India is likely to maintain economic and diplomatic pressure on Pakistan while conducting limited military operations, such as surgical strikes, to neutralize terrorist infrastructure in PoK. The IWT suspension will serve as a psychological and economic weapon, with India possibly accelerating dam projects on the Chenab or Jhelum to signal intent to control water flows. A full-scale offensive to seize PoK is less probable in this timeframe due to the risks of nuclear escalation and international intervention.
Over the medium term (6-18 months), the situation could escalate if Pakistan fails to curb terrorism or retaliates militarily, such as through ceasefire violations or proxy attacks. India’s domestic political climate, with strong public support for action post-Pahalgam, could push the Modi government toward bolder moves, especially if Pakistan’s economy continues to falter. A limited seizure of strategic PoK areas, framed as a response to terrorism, could be attempted, but sustaining control would require significant resources and risk prolonged conflict.
In the long term (18+ months), the trajectory depends on international mediation and the ability of both nations to de-escalate. If India consolidates control over PoK, it could reshape the Kashmir dispute but at the cost of permanent enmity with Pakistan and potential isolation in global forums. Conversely, a stalemate could force both sides to renegotiate frameworks like the IWT or Simla Agreement, though trust deficits make this challenging.
Critical Perspective
The narrative that India now has “full ammunition” to seize PoK oversimplifies a complex geopolitical reality. While the suspension of key agreements provides strategic leverage, it also places India on a precarious path. The establishment narrative, as reflected in Indian media, portrays these actions as justified retribution for terrorism, but this ignores the broader implications of destabilizing a nuclear-armed neighbor. Pakistan’s suspension of the Simla Agreement, while reckless, is a desperate attempt to regain agency, not a blank check for Indian aggression. The risk of miscalculation—such as Pakistan interpreting water diversion as an “act of war”—looms large.
Moreover, India’s ability to control PoK hinges on more than military might. PoK’s population, while discontented with Pakistan, may not welcome Indian rule, potentially fueling a new insurgency. The international community, particularly China and the UN, is unlikely to endorse unilateral territorial changes, especially if they disrupt CPEC or violate UN resolutions on Kashmir. India’s suspension of the IWT, while symbolically powerful, lacks immediate impact without infrastructure to redirect water, and any attempt to build such capacity could take years, giving Pakistan time to seek legal or military recourse.
Conclusion
The Pahalgam attack and the subsequent unraveling of the IWT and Simla Agreement have created a volatile environment where India holds significant strategic advantages but faces immense risks. The suspension of these agreements provides India with the political and legal pretext to pursue aggressive actions in PoK, backed by domestic support and Pakistan’s economic vulnerabilities. However, the path to seizing PoK is fraught with dangers, including nuclear escalation, international isolation, and the challenges of governing a restive region. India’s most likely course is a combination of economic pressure, limited military strikes, and diplomatic maneuvering to weaken Pakistan without triggering a broader war. The outcome hinges on both nations’ ability to avoid missteps in this high-stakes confrontation, as the threat of regional instability remains significant.
Apple News, Google News, Feedly, Flipboard, and WhatsApp Channel
