India-Pakistan Tensions: Risk of War After Pahalgam Attack

Introduction: A Ticking Time Bomb in South Asia

The April 22, 2025, terrorist attack in Pahalgam, Kashmir, which claimed 26 lives—mostly Hindu tourists—has reignited the smoldering tensions between India and Pakistan, two nuclear-armed neighbors with a history of conflict over the disputed region of Kashmir. This brutal assault, attributed to The Resistance Front (TRF), a proxy of the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba, has plunged South Asia into a crisis reminiscent of past flashpoints like the 2001 Indian Parliament attack and the 2019 Pulwama bombing. As India suspends the Indus Waters Treaty, conducts civil defense drills, and engages in skirmishes along the Line of Control (LoC), while Pakistan test-fires missiles and warns of imminent Indian strikes, the specter of war looms large. But how likely is an all-out India-Pakistan war, and what could it mean for the region and the world?

This blog delves into the likelihood of war, analyzing historical precedents, current escalatory dynamics, nuclear deterrence, domestic pressures, and international responses. It explores the catastrophic potential of a nuclear exchange, as outlined in a 2019 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists study, and questions whether diplomacy can avert disaster. Keywords like Kashmir, nuclear war, India-Pakistan conflict, terrorism, escalation, deterrence, and global consequences will guide our exploration, making this a compelling and thought-provoking examination of a crisis that could reshape the geopolitical landscape.

Historical Context: Kashmir as a Nuclear Flashpoint

The India-Pakistan rivalry, rooted in the 1947 partition of British India, has made Kashmir a perennial flashpoint. The two nations have fought four wars (1947, 1965, 1971, and 1999) and engaged in countless skirmishes, with Kashmir’s Line of Control serving as a volatile de facto border. The region, claimed in its entirety by both but divided between Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir and Pakistan-administered Azad Kashmir, has fueled insurgencies, terrorism, and cross-border violence for decades.

Past terrorist attacks have brought the nations to the brink of war. The 2001 attack on the Indian Parliament killed 12 and led to massive troop mobilizations, with both sides deploying forces along the border. The 2019 Pulwama attack, which killed 40 Indian paramilitary personnel, prompted Indian airstrikes on alleged terrorist camps in Pakistan’s Balakot, followed by a Pakistani counterstrike and the capture of an Indian pilot. Diplomacy, including Pakistan’s release of the pilot, averted further escalation, but these incidents highlight the fragility of peace.

The Pahalgam attack, one of the deadliest civilian assaults in Kashmir since 2000, has reignited these tensions. India’s accusation of Pakistan’s involvement, supported by claims that two of the three suspected terrorists were Pakistani nationals trained by Pakistan’s Special Service Group, has fueled calls for retaliation. Pakistan’s denial and counteraccusations of Indian aggression, coupled with its suspension of the Simla Agreement, have escalated the crisis to unprecedented levels. The question is whether this cycle of provocation and retaliation will spiral into war or be contained by deterrence and diplomacy.

The Pahalgam Attack: Catalyst for Crisis

On April 22, 2025, terrorists struck Baisaran Valley in Pahalgam, a picturesque tourist destination known as “Mini Switzerland.” The attack killed 25 Indian nationals and one Nepali citizen, with gunmen reportedly segregating victims by religion, targeting Hindus to maximize communal tensions. The National Investigation Agency (NIA) identified three terrorists—Hashim Musa and Ali Bhai from Pakistan, and Adil Hussain Thoker from Anantnag—linked to Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Mohammed, or Hizbul Mujahideen. Intelligence suggests the attackers received elite military training in Pakistan, with Musa, a former Pakistani para-commando, implicated in multiple prior attacks.

India’s response was swift and severe. Prime Minister Narendra Modi vowed to “identify, track, and punish” the perpetrators, granting the armed forces “complete operational freedom” to plan strikes. The government suspended the Indus Waters Treaty, a 1960 agreement that survived previous wars, banned Pakistani imports, closed the Wagah-Attari border, and barred Pakistani ships from Indian ports. Civil defense drills, the first since 1971, were ordered across 244 districts on May 7, signaling preparation for potential conflict.

Pakistan, in turn, expelled Indian diplomats, suspended the Simla Agreement, closed its airspace to Indian aircraft, and test-fired the Abdali missile, capable of carrying nuclear warheads. Skirmishes along the LoC, ongoing since April 24, have involved small arms fire, drone incidents, and the capture of soldiers, with both sides accusing the other of provocation. Pakistan’s Defense Minister Khawaja Asif warned of an imminent Indian strike, while Indian Home Minister Amit Shah declared that no terrorist would be spared.

Escalation Dynamics: From Skirmish to War

The current crisis exhibits classic escalation dynamics, driven by tit-for-tat actions and miscalculation risks. India’s punitive measures, particularly the IWT suspension, have been labeled an “act of war” by Pakistan, escalating the stakes beyond previous crises. The LoC skirmishes, now in their 12th day as of May 6, 2025, risk expanding into broader military engagements, especially if India launches surgical strikes or airstrikes, as it did in 2016 and 2019.

Domestic pressures amplify these risks. In India, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) faces intense public and political pressure to act decisively. Protests across India, including by hardline groups like Hindu Sena, demand retaliation, while opposition leaders like Rahul Gandhi and Sachin Pilot call for justice. The BJP’s narrative of “zero tolerance” for terrorism, coupled with Modi’s strongman image, suggests a military response is likely, potentially targeting militant camps in Pakistan.

Pakistan, despite economic constraints and a reported artillery shortage limiting its warfighting capacity to four days, is under pressure to respond to any Indian action. The military, a dominant force in Pakistani politics, views Kashmir as its “jugular vein” and has promised a “tit-for-tat kinetic response.” Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s call for a neutral investigation contrasts with the military’s nuclear posturing, highlighting internal tensions but also the risk of escalation if Pakistan feels cornered.

Miscommunication and intelligence failures further heighten risks. The 2019 crisis exposed India’s vulnerabilities, such as outdated equipment, which may embolden Pakistan or lead to misjudgments. Pakistan’s lower nuclear threshold, as noted in the Bulletin scenario, could trigger tactical nuclear use if it perceives an existential threat, such as an Indian ground incursion. The 1988 “No Attack on Nuclear Facilities” agreement offers limited restraint, but its relevance in a fast-moving crisis is questionable.

Nuclear Deterrence: A Double-Edged Sword

Both India and Pakistan possess significant nuclear arsenals, with India estimated to have 172 warheads and Pakistan 170, according to SIPRI. A nuclear exchange using even 30% of these arsenals (approximately 103 warheads) could kill tens of millions instantly and trigger a nuclear winter, with global temperatures dropping 2-5°C due to soot from firestorms. The Bulletin study estimates that a full-scale exchange could kill 50-125 million and inject 16.1-36.6 teragrams of black carbon into the stratosphere, disrupting agriculture and causing famines for billions.

India’s “no first use” policy contrasts with Pakistan’s willingness to use nuclear weapons if conventional defenses fail, as outlined in the Bulletin scenario where Pakistan deploys tactical nuclear weapons to repel an Indian invasion. This asymmetry heightens escalation risks, as India’s conventional superiority could push Pakistan toward nuclear options. The Bulletin warns of global climatic effects, with net primary productivity—a proxy for food production—plummeting, leading to widespread starvation.

Yet, nuclear deterrence also serves as a brake on all-out war. Both nations are aware of the catastrophic consequences, and past crises have de-escalated due to this mutual understanding. The question is whether deterrence will hold under the current strain, especially if domestic pressures or miscalculations override strategic restraint.

International Diplomacy: A Fragile Safety Net

International responses have been vocal but limited in impact. UN Secretary-General António Guterres condemned the attack and urged both nations to avoid military confrontation, offering his “good offices” for peace talks. The UN Security Council, chaired by Greece, met on May 5 at Pakistan’s request, but no concrete actions emerged. Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi attempted mediation, visiting Islamabad and planning a trip to New Delhi, while Russia’s Vladimir Putin and Qatar’s Amir expressed solidarity with India.

The U.S., China, and other powers have issued travel advisories and called for restraint, but global distractions—such as ongoing crises in the Middle East and Ukraine—limit active engagement. Former U.S. National Security Advisor John Bolton supported India’s right to retaliate but urged diplomatic efforts, suggesting pressure on Pakistan via China. President Donald Trump’s dismissive comment about the conflict as a “1,500-year fight” indicates limited U.S. willingness to intervene.

Pakistan’s allies, including China and Turkey, may deter India, but their influence is uncertain. China’s growing presence in Pakistan, particularly through the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, complicates India’s calculations, as any strike risks provoking Beijing. However, China’s own regional ambitions may limit its willingness to escalate. The international community’s fragmented response underscores the need for robust crisis mechanisms, which, as Pakistan’s former NSA Moeed Yusuf noted, are currently lacking.

Socioeconomic Impacts: A Region on Edge

The crisis is already reshaping the region’s socioeconomic landscape. Pakistan’s stock market (KSE-100) has dropped 4% since the attack, reflecting investor fears of conflict, while India’s Sensex has risen 1.5%, buoyed by confidence in its crisis management. India’s ban on Pakistani imports, though negligible given Pakistan’s 0.5% share of Indian exports, signals economic warfare. The IWT suspension threatens Pakistan’s agriculture, which relies heavily on Indus River waters, potentially exacerbating its economic woes.

In Kashmir, the attack has shattered the BJP’s narrative of “normalcy” post-2019, when India revoked the region’s autonomy. Indian authorities have detained thousands, demolished homes of suspected militants, and booked 90 people under the Public Safety Act, deepening local alienation. Former Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti criticized the crackdown, warning of arbitrary detentions, while residents like Shakeela fear prolonged detentions of political prisoners. The attack’s targeting of tourists has also crippled Kashmir’s tourism industry, a key economic driver.

Communal tensions are rising in India, with 42 arrests in Assam for “defending Pakistan” and protests by the Indian diaspora condemning the attack. The BJP’s call for citizens to join civil defense drills reflects a nation bracing for conflict, while opposition leaders like Ashok Gehlot emphasize unity but defer to Modi’s leadership. These dynamics highlight the domestic stakes of the crisis, with potential for further polarization if escalation continues.

The Path to War: Scenarios and Triggers

Several scenarios could lead to war, each with distinct triggers:

1. Surgical Strikes or Airstrikes: India, under pressure to act, could launch targeted strikes on militant camps in Pakistan, as in 2016 or 2019. Pakistan’s promised retaliation could escalate into broader clashes, especially if casualties are high or nuclear facilities are inadvertently hit.
2. Ground Incursion: A more aggressive Indian response, such as a limited ground operation in Pakistan-administered Kashmir, could trigger Pakistan’s use of tactical nuclear weapons, as envisioned in the Bulletin scenario. This would likely spiral into a full-scale nuclear exchange.
3. Miscalculation: An LoC skirmish escalating due to miscommunication, a downed aircraft, or a high-profile casualty could force either side to escalate beyond initial intentions. The lack of crisis communication channels exacerbates this risk.
4. Terrorist Provocation: Another attack, potentially by rogue elements, could push India to abandon restraint, especially if it targets a major city or critical infrastructure.

Conversely, de-escalation is possible if India opts for diplomatic pressure, such as isolating Pakistan economically or securing international sanctions, or if Pakistan takes verifiable action against terrorist groups. However, the current trajectory—marked by IWT suspension, LoC violence, and nuclear posturing—leans toward escalation.

The Global Stakes: Beyond South Asia

The Bulletin study underscores the global stakes of an India-Pakistan nuclear war. A conflict injecting 27.3 teragrams of black carbon (from 50-kiloton weapons) would lower global temperatures by 2-5°C, reduce precipitation, and disrupt agriculture for years. Maize harvests could drop 20% in the U.S. and 50% in Russia, while wheat and soybean production would plummet, triggering famines for millions or billions. Ozone depletion would increase ultraviolet radiation, harming ecosystems and human health.

These consequences would not be confined to Asia. Food shortages would destabilize economies, exacerbate global inequalities, and fuel migration crises. The U.S., China, and Europe would face supply chain disruptions, while developing nations dependent on food imports would suffer most. The Bulletin’s warning of a “nuclear winter” serves as a stark reminder that no nation is immune to the fallout of a South Asian conflict.

A Call for Action: Averting Catastrophe

The Pahalgam crisis demands urgent action to prevent catastrophe. Both India and Pakistan must prioritize de-escalation, starting with a ceasefire along the LoC and the restoration of diplomatic channels. India should reconsider the IWT suspension, given its humanitarian and escalatory implications, while Pakistan must crack down on terrorist groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba to rebuild trust. A joint investigation into the attack, as proposed by Pakistan, could provide a face-saving mechanism, though India’s skepticism of Pakistan’s sincerity poses challenges.

The international community, particularly the U.S. and China, must play a proactive role. The U.S. could leverage its influence to mediate, as it did in 1999, while China could pressure Pakistan to curb militancy. The UN should establish a permanent crisis mechanism for India-Pakistan tensions, addressing the gap highlighted by Moeed Yusuf. Civil society, including Indian and Pakistani citizens, can advocate for peace, countering nationalist rhetoric with calls for dialogue.

Long-term, both nations must address Kashmir’s root causes. India’s heavy-handed policies, including mass detentions and autonomy revocation, fuel insurgency, while Pakistan’s support for militant proxies perpetuates violence. A bilateral dialogue, potentially facilitated by neutral parties, could explore confidence-building measures, such as demilitarizing the LoC or reviving trade. The 2017 UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, though not signed by either nation, offers a framework for eventual disarmament, reducing the nuclear threat.

Conclusion: Standing at the Precipice

The Pahalgam attack has pushed India and Pakistan to the brink of war, with the potential for catastrophic consequences. While nuclear deterrence and international pressure reduce the likelihood of all-out conflict, the risk of limited military action—escalating through miscalculation—remains high. Domestic pressures, historical animosities, and the absence of robust crisis mechanisms amplify this danger, making diplomacy the only viable path forward.

The world cannot afford to ignore this crisis. A nuclear war in South Asia would not only devastate India and Pakistan but also unleash global climatic and humanitarian disasters. As the Bulletin warns, the stakes are existential, demanding that leaders, citizens, and the international community act with urgency and wisdom. The question is not just whether India and Pakistan can step back from the precipice but whether humanity can afford the cost of their failure.

Join our Discord for real-time talk.

Click here to read our latest article- India-Pakistan War Risk Fallout.