The attack, executed with chilling precision, exposed the persistent threat of cross-border terrorism, a menace India has grappled with for decades. However, India’s response was unprecedented in its scope and audacity, signaling a paradigm shift in its strategic posture. Within days, the Cabinet Committee on Security, chaired by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, announced a series of retaliatory measures: suspending the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), closing the Attari-Wagah border, expelling Pakistani diplomats, downsizing high commissions, and barring Pakistani nationals from SAARC visa exemptions. These actions, described as a “multidimensional” response, were not merely reactive but a calculated assertion of India’s escalatory credibility.
The suspension of the IWT, a 1960 World Bank-brokered agreement that allocates 80% of the Indus River system’s waters to Pakistan, was particularly seismic. By leveraging its position as the upper riparian state, India sent a clear message: it could wield geographic and resource advantages to impose costs on adversaries. The diplomatic and economic measures—border closure, visa restrictions, and personnel expulsions—further isolated Pakistan, amplifying its global condemnation following statements from the US, Russia, and other powers.
This response marks a departure from India’s historically restrained approach, as seen in the surgical strikes post-Uri (2016) or airstrikes post-Pulwama (2019), toward a broader, non-kinetic strategy that redefines deterrence. Beyond Pakistan, India’s actions carry implications for the region, including a subtle but significant warning to Bangladesh as the Ganges Water Treaty nears its 2026 renewal.
Strategic Signaling Through Treaty Suspension
The IWT suspension until Pakistan takes credible action against terrorism is a masterstroke of strategic signaling, blending psychological warfare with tangible economic pressure. The treaty, signed in 1960, is a cornerstone of India-Pakistan relations, governing the use of the Indus River system, which sustains 65% of Pakistan’s agriculture and supports its energy needs through hydropower.
Pakistan relies heavily on the three western rivers—Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab—allocated to it under the treaty, while India controls the eastern rivers—Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej. By suspending the treaty, India has not immediately halted water flows but has created uncertainty, a potent tool in geopolitical strategy. This move underscores India’s willingness to escalate beyond traditional military or diplomatic measures, leveraging its upper riparian status to signal that continued support for terrorism will exact a steep price.
It is also a calculated escalation, as it avoids outright abrogation, which could invite international backlash. Pakistan’s agriculture, already strained by climate change and mismanagement, faces the spectre of reduced water security, potentially disrupting food production and exacerbating domestic unrest. The World Bank, a guarantor of the IWT, has expressed concern, but India’s invocation of national security and the treaty’s Article XII (allowing modification under exceptional circumstances) provides legal cover.
This bold maneuver not only pressures Pakistan but also sets a precedent for India to use resource diplomacy as a tool of coercion, redefining the rules of engagement in South Asia. It signals to adversaries that India’s patience has limits and that it can weaponise its geographic advantages in ways that resonate far beyond the battlefield.
Diplomatic Isolation of Pakistan
India’s diplomatic offensive post-Pahalgam is designed to isolate Pakistan on the global stage, amplifying the costs of its alleged sponsorship of terrorism. The closure of the Attari-Wagah border, a symbolic and practical link between the two nations, halts trade and cultural exchanges, including the iconic flag-lowering ceremony that draws thousands of tourists. This move, coupled with the expulsion of Pakistani defense advisors and the downsizing of high commissions from 55 to 30 personnel, severely restricts diplomatic channels. India’s revocation of SAARC visa exemptions for Pakistani nationals and issuance of 48-hour exit notices further curtails people-to-people contact, effectively freezing bilateral engagement.
These measures are not merely symbolic; they aim to deepen Pakistan’s pariah status. The attack’s global condemnation, with statements from the US, Russia, and even China urging Pakistan to curb terrorism, provides India with diplomatic leverage. By framing Pakistan as a state complicit in terrorism, India has galvanised international support, contrasting with past incidents where global responses were muted. The suspension of SAARC privileges also weakens Pakistan’s regional influence, as SAARC remains a key platform for South Asian cooperation. This diplomatic blitz underscores India’s intent to impose long-term costs, forcing Pakistan to confront the consequences of its asymmetric warfare strategy.
Latent Threat of Military Retaliation
While India’s diplomatic and economic measures send a powerful message, there is no reason to assume military retaliation is off the table. India’s response to Pahalgam has been non-kinetic, focusing on diplomacy, trade, and resource leverage, but this does not preclude future military action. India’s history of calibrated military responses—surgical strikes post-Uri (2016) and Balakot airstrikes post-Pulwama (2019)—demonstrates its capacity for precise, escalatory operations. The Pahalgam attack, given its civilian toll and audacity, could prompt covert or overt military measures if Pakistan fails to curb terrorism. India’s military modernization, including enhanced border surveillance and drone capabilities, positions it to execute targeted strikes with minimal escalation risks.
The Modi government’s domestic political imperatives, with a strong nationalist base, further suggest that military action remains a viable option to reinforce deterrence. While the current response prioritises long-term pressure, the Indian Army’s heightened alert status along the Line of Control signals readiness. This latent threat ensures Pakistan cannot misinterpret India’s restraint as weakness, maintaining escalatory pressure across multiple domains.
— The author, Prof. Sayantan Ghosh (@sayantan_gh), is a political observer and columnist who teaches journalism at St. Xavier’s College, Kolkata. The views expressed are personal.
Read his previous articles here
