The brutal killing of 26 Hindu male civilians in Pahalgam, Kashmir, was no random act of terror.
It was a surgical strike by the Resistance Front (TRF), an offshoot of Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), the same group responsible for the 26/11 Mumbai attacks.
In Pahalgam, the terrorists meticulously singled out Hindu male victims from all over India. The only Muslim, Kashmiri, to die was a local pony operator – murdered while defending the tourists.
The message was unmistakable: this was a sectarian slaughter, planned to inflame.
The timing was telling. Just days earlier, Pakistan’s army chief Gen. Munir had delivered an incendiary speech in Islamabad, defining Pakistan as the only country born from the Quran in 1300 years since the Prophet formed the first Islamic Emirate and calling Kashmir Pakistan’s “jugular vein.” His tone – brimming with religious nationalism – barely concealed contempt for India and its secular identity.
Pakistani-Indian relations and Kashmir
The Indian government argues that Pakistan has long used terrorism to disrupt the return of stability to Kashmir. While some Western analysts view India’s narrative of “normalcy” with skepticism, few deny that Kashmir has seen growing economic integration with the rest of India – through investment, tourism, and business. Modi’s revocation of Article 370, once deeply controversial, has visibly brought economic gains to the valley embraced by a majority of Kashmiris.
Across the Line of Control, Pakistan’s story is starkly different. Economic collapse, mounting unrest in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, and the failure of key projects, such as the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), have left Islamabad increasingly desperate. The Taliban, once a creation of Pakistan’s secret service ISI, has now turned against its mentor and tensions abound on the Durand line.
Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia and the UAE – once Islamabad’s financial lifelines – are pivoting toward India, increasing investments with the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC), deepening Pakistan’s isolation. In this context, the Pahalgam attack was calculated. It targeted only Hindu men – sparing women and children – echoing Hamas’ tactics in the October 7 attacks against Israel. The terrorists aimed to personalize the killings and ignite anger, yet avoid the global backlash that the murder of women and children would bring. Targeted killings would also prevent Muslim and Kashmiri deaths, important to earn the support of Muslims and Kashmiris.
This wasn’t just an assault on Kashmir’s peace. It was a direct provocation – a bid to draw India into a military confrontation with Pakistan and fracture India internally by stoking Hindu-Muslim tensions at a time the Indian Muslims were protesting the passing of the 2025 Waqf (Amendment) Act [aimed at enhancing transparency and accountability, while undermining the Muslim community’s religious autonomy]. But the attackers’ strategy has misfired.
Instead of division, the attack has triggered an unprecedented show of unity across India. Opposition leaders, including AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi – a sharp critic of the Modi government – condemned the massacre in the strongest terms. Owaisi even called on Muslims to mourn publicly and demanded Pakistan be held accountable.
Across the political and religious spectrum, Indian Muslims rejected the terrorists’ narrative. In contrast to what the attackers hoped, there was no major communal fallout – only a steely resolve to stay united.
Yet the question remains: Was Gen. Munir simply reacting to pressure from Pakistan’s collapsing domestic scene? Or was he nudged toward escalation by external players with more global stakes?
The answer matters.
Over the past decade, India has become a magnet for global investment, precisely as China’s international standing has slipped. Major companies, such as Apple, are shifting supply chains to India. As Bangladesh destabilizes, its manufacturing base too is tilting toward India and Vietnam.
With President Donald Trump’s new tariff wars to redefine economic geopolitics, India has emerged as the alternative to China for manufacturing, as well as an important market for the US and Europe. The Trump White House has actively admitted to prioritizing trade deals with Asian allies who can counter China such as India, Vietnam and South Korea.
A war between India and Pakistan – two nuclear-armed nations – would disrupt global supply chains, frighten investors, and slow India’s rise.
It would create precisely the kind of chaos that benefits Beijing, Tehran, Ankara, and others wary of India’s ascent. With a third war in Asia after one in Europe and another in the Middle East, global powers would be stretched and distracted to counter China, allowing it more time to consolidate its position and eliminating India as an alternative for the time being.
Pakistan, with little left to lose, may be gambling recklessly. But for India, the stakes are higher. The government must craft its response with precision: punishing the perpetrators without falling into the broader strategic trap set for it.
India’s resilience is being tested, not just by terrorism but by a larger game unfolding on the world stage.
The writer is the president of Glocal Cities. He is a political researcher, consultant, and entrepreneur, and has worked in Europe, the Middle East, and Africa for two decades.