The terrorist attack that took place on April 22, 2025 in the Baisaran Valley of Pahalgam town in the Kashmir region of India has led to a serious diplomatic and military crisis between India and Pakistan. 26 people lost their lives in the attack. 25 of them were Indian tourists and 1 was Nepalese. The targeting of tourists, especially on the basis of their religious beliefs, has seriously disturbed India.
The Pahalgam attack has triggered the most serious tension between the two countries since the Pulwama crisis in 2019. Both countries have nuclear weapons and have a long-standing dispute over sovereignty over the Kashmir region. So what were the reactions of India, Pakistan and the international community after the Pahalgam attack?
India’s Reactions
India claimed that the attack was carried out by terrorist groups based in Pakistan. In response, it closed Pakistani airspace, suspended diplomatic relations and deported 208 Pakistanis. It also banned 16 Pakistan-based YouTube channels and the Instagram accounts of several Pakistani celebrities. The most significant step India took was to suspend the 1960 Indus River water-sharing agreement, which Pakistan described as a “act of war.”
Prime Minister Modi has given full authority to the Indian army. On May 7, 2025, it launched a comprehensive air and missile attack under the name “Operation Sindoor”. The operation hit nine targets covering terror zones in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir. According to India’s statement, more than 80 terrorists were neutralized.
Major Muslim organisations in India have strongly condemned the Pahalgam attack. The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) has described the attack as “terrorism” and said it contradicts the peaceful teachings of Islam. The organisation has suspended its protests against the Waqf Act for three days following the attack.
The Indian media has criticised the failure to take necessary precautions despite warnings from intelligence agencies ahead of the attack. A terrorist from Pakistani-administered Kashmir had made threatening statements against India a few days before the attack, but these warnings were ignored and the attack took place. This has highlighted India’s security and intelligence vulnerabilities.
Pakistan’s Reactions
Pakistan’s Foreign Minister called India’s accusations “revolutionary” and argued that the incident was being politicized by India. Pakistan demanded an independent international investigation, but India rejected the suggestion. However, as tensions escalated, Pakistan closed its airspace to India, expelled Indian diplomats and closed all border crossings except the Kartarpur Corridor. It also cancelled all visas to India and called on Indian diplomats to leave the country by April 30. It also suspended the Simla Agreement, signed with India in July 1972, which recognized the Line of Control in Kashmir. It conducted two nuclear missile tests.
Pakistan said India’s Operation Sindoor targeted civilian infrastructure and killed many civilians. Pakistan condemned the attack and rejected India’s accusations. Pakistan said it would respond to the attacks using its right to self-defense. Pakistan also claimed to have shot down five Indian aircraft and captured Indian soldiers.
International Reactions
The United Nations, China and the US have called on India and Pakistan to exercise restraint. China has supported Pakistan’s call for an independent investigation. However, India has rejected these calls, emphasizing national unity in the “fight against terrorism.” The US, Russia, France, Israel and the UK have supported India’s security concerns. The international community is concerned about further escalation and is calling on the parties to engage in dialogue and diplomacy.
Why Is India Blaming Pakistan?
To understand why India claims that Pakistan is responsible for the terrorist attack in Pahalgam in April 2025, it is necessary to look at the history of terrorist incidents in the country.
India has been subjected to terrorist attacks in Kashmir and other parts of the country since the 1990s. It claims that the terrorist organizations carrying out these attacks are supported by Pakistan. India has accused Pakistan of several incidents, including the attack on the Parliament Building by the terrorist organization Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) on December 13, 2001; the bomb attacks in Gujarat by the terrorist organizations Indian Mujahideen and Harkat-ul-Jihad-al-Islami (HuJI) on July 26, 2008; the attack on the Pathankot Air Base of the Indian Air Force by the terrorist organizations JeM and United Jihad Council on January 2-5, 2016; the attack on the base of the Indian Army in Uri by the terrorist organization JeM on September 18, 2016; the attack on the convoy of the Indian Central Reserve Police (CRPF) by a Kashmiri suicide bomber named Adil Ahmad Dar, a member of the terrorist organization JeM, on Pulwama on February 14, 2019 and the attack by the terrorist group Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) on a bus carrying Hindu pilgrims in Reasi on June 9, 2024, which have caused tensions between the two countries, although Pakistan denies the allegations.
The allegations that Pakistan created and supported terrorist organizations have become systematic since the late 1970s. With the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan, Pakistan’s intelligence agency ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence) began supporting the Afghan mujahideen together with the US and Saudi Arabia. Pakistan played a leading role in training, arming and transferring the mujahideen to Afghanistan. After the Soviets withdrew, some of the Pakistan-backed mujahideen were directed to Kashmir. Pakistan’s support for terrorist organizations began with anti-Soviet jihadism and then turned into a strategic tool targeting Kashmir. Over time, this structure directly affected the emergence and growth of organizations such as the Taliban, JeM and LeT. These relations are still controversial today. The aim was to wage a proxy war against India in Kashmir. The capture of Bin Laden in Abbottabad in 2011 strengthened the allegations that Pakistan was abetting terrorism. The Wikileaks documents stated that Pakistan both acts as a partner in the fight against terrorism and uses certain groups as strategic tools. Pakistan was placed on the grey list between 2018 and 2022 for failing to prevent terrorist financing. Today, JeM and LeT are still active and are alleged to be behind attacks in India. Terrorism continues to be seen as a low-cost, deniable proxy war tool for Pakistan. The US, India and the UN are pressuring Pakistan to sever ties with these groups. While Pakistan denies the allegations of supporting terrorism, India maintains that this support continues.
After the Pahalgam attack in April 2025, former Pentagon official Michael Rubin demanded that the US officially recognize Pakistan as a state sponsor of terrorism. An interesting statement came from Pakistan’s Defense Minister Khwaja Asif, who said that Pakistan has been supporting and financing terrorist groups for the US for the last 30 years.
Terrorism and India’s Changing Security Doctrine
These attacks directly affected India’s security policies, military strategies and diplomatic relations. In response to the increasing terrorist activities since the 1990s, India was giving diplomatic and defense-oriented responses to the terrorist attacks in Kashmir. Instead of punishing Pakistan directly with war, it was trying to isolate it in international platforms. This policy of India continued for many years. Reasons such as the risk of nuclear war, the priority of economic stability, international pressure and political divisions caused India to follow such a strategy. However, India’s transition to cross-border operations after terrorist attacks such as Uri in 2016 and Pulwama in 2019 shows that it has now adopted a tougher doctrine. On September 29, 2016, India conducted its first “cross-border surgical operation”. This was the first time India gave a direct military response and targeted terrorist camps on Pakistani soil. This situation showed that India was following a new doctrine: “Deterrent punishment”. India has now demonstrated that it can use military force not only in defence but also as a preventive and retaliatory force when necessary.
Following the 2019 Pulwama attack and the Balakot airstrike, India launched an airstrike in Pakistan’s Balakot district on February 26, 2019. This was the first time that Pakistan had struck its interior. With Pakistan’s retaliation, the two sides nearly entered a full-fledged conflict. India had now shown that it could strike targets not just along the Line of Control but also deep inside Pakistan. This was interpreted as a powerful symbol of resolve in Indian domestic politics. Six months later, the Indian government under Prime Minister Narendra Modi unilaterally abrogated Article 370, stripping Jammu and Kashmir of its semi-autonomous status. Pakistan condemned the move as a violation of the Simla Agreement. The decision led to widespread protests in the valley. India deployed 500,000 to 800,000 troops, quarantined the region, shut down internet services and detained thousands of people.
The hardening of the security doctrine under the BJP administration, the increasing expectation of “retaliation” among the Indian public, the modernization of India’s military capacity, and efforts to establish a stronger balance with China and the US in the diplomatic arena have all been effective in this change.
Under the BJP rule, India’s security doctrine has shifted to a more harsh, nationalist and interventionist line, especially after Narendra Modi became prime minister in 2014. This change is evident not only in the military field, but also in foreign policy, internal security and intelligence strategies. Within the framework of the “New India” vision and nationalist security doctrine, the main principle is to be a state that demonstrates its power, based on strong national defense, the sanctity of borders and tough security policies. This hardening of the security strategy, especially border security, Kashmir policy and attitude towards Pakistan, has been presented as defending India’s national honor. Modi defines security not only as a matter of defense but also honor and deterrence. For this reason, the past policy of “strategic patience” against threats from Pakistan is being rejected. The emphasis on zero tolerance against terrorism, “One India, united India” including Kashmir and cross-border interventions against terrorist bases demonstrate this. This doctrine has also found support in the Indian public opinion. The tough stance against Pakistan was perceived as a unifying force rather than increasing the public’s security concerns. The government presented these steps as “eliminating national security threats against terrorism.” This approach has largely reinforced confidence in India’s internal security. The Modi administration presented the changes in its security strategy by connecting directly with the public. By transforming the army into a more strengthened and modernized structure, a strong message was sent that the public would be safe. Especially in the 2019 elections, Modi’s “strong stance against Pakistan” was an important part of his election manifesto. In short, he has fundamentally redefined India’s perception of security.
When we look at the reflections of India’s new security doctrine on foreign policy, the strategy of “isolate and push back” was followed, especially against Pakistan. Diplomatic pressure was exerted in regional forums such as SAARC to exclude Pakistan. Pakistan was accused of supporting terrorism in international institutions such as FATF (Financial Action Task Force) and the UN. Defense partnerships with the US, Israel and France were expanded. A balance was established against the China and Pakistan axis with QUAD (US, Japan, Australia, India).
On the other hand, the change in Modi’s security doctrine has further deepened the social polarization within the country. Opposition parties have treated this change as a political strategy, not a national security issue. The opposition has claimed that “the Modi government is heading towards war” and that such military interventions could create regional instability. In the face of the expansion of operations in Kashmir and the harsh stance against Pakistan, the opposition has said that peaceful solutions are being ignored. Again, the opposition has argued that with the removal of Kashmir’s special status in 2019, the freedoms of the local people in the region have been restricted and they have been isolated from the outside world. They have claimed that this change threatens India’s democratic structure and disrespects the will of the Kashmiri people. Muslim minorities in India have entered an atmosphere of oppression that has expanded from policies that have become harsher against Pakistan to religious polarization within the country. Following the Pahalgam terror attack, anti-Muslim violence has occurred in the states of Uttarakhand, Karnataka, Uttar Paradesh and Madhya Pradesh.
Despite the past criticisms of the opposition, it is clear that India’s changing security doctrine has shaped the current policy it has been following since the Pahalgam attack. The internal pressure on the Modi government to respond to the attack is also the result of the changing security policies reflected in domestic politics and public opinion. Therefore, it is not only Pakistan’s or international reactions that will shape the Indian government’s future steps, but also the Indian public opinion will have a large share.