ISLAMABAD: In an editorial published this week, the Economist argues that India must provide concrete evidence of Pakistan’s involvement before taking any military action in response to the deadly April 22 attack in Jammu & Kashmir, which claimed 26 lives.
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi condemned the assault, which primarily targeted Hindu tourists, calling it the deadliest attack on visitors to the region in decades. The terrorists singled out their victims by forcing them to identify as Hindus and recite Islamic verses before killing them.
The attack is the most severe since the insurgency began in 1989 and follows a pattern of violence that has marred the region for years. On April 27, India conducted long-range missile drills and expelled several Pakistani diplomats. India also suspended the Indus Water Treaty, signed in 1960, and exchanged gunfire with Pakistan over several nights, intensifying regional tensions.
While Modi has the right to defend Indian citizens, The Economist highlights the importance of ensuring that any retaliation is based on verified evidence. The Indian government has claimed that the Resistance Front (TRF), a separatist group linked to Kashmir’s separatist movement, was responsible for the attack.
However, TRF initially denied responsibility, stating that its social media accounts had been hacked. India’s intelligence agencies also allege that TRF may have ties to Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), a Pakistan-based militant group.
Before responding, India must establish a clear link between TRF and Pakistan, as retaliation without this proof could escalate the conflict. India’s previous military actions, such as airstrikes in 2016 and 2019, were in response to similar attacks. However, as The Economist suggests, any confrontation could easily spiral out of control, particularly with both India and Pakistan possessing nuclear weapons.
Pakistan has already shot down an Indian drone, and its defense minister has warned of possible strikes in retaliation. With tensions running high, it is crucial for India to carefully consider its response. Beyond military action, India could release evidence to build international pressure on Pakistan or disrupt its recent $7 billion IMF bailout. While the suspension of the water treaty may not immediately affect water flow, it sends a strong message to Pakistan.
In the long term, The Economist notes that India’s regional ambitions must be weighed against the risk of conflict. A regional war would hinder India’s broader strategic objectives, especially in light of its rivalry with China. Rather than escalating the situation with Pakistan, India should focus on modernizing its military and strengthening its position as the leading power in South Asia.
