A United Indian Approach to Counter Pakistan's Proxy War in J&K

By Col CM Chavan

Pakistan has consistently pursued a strategy aimed at destabilizing India, often through proxy warfare. The losses it suffered—most notably the secession of East Pakistan in 1971 and defeats in 1965, 1971, and Kargil wars—continue to cast a long shadow over its military establishment. In its efforts to "bleed India by a thousand cuts," Pakistan has found it expedient to support terrorist organizations operating under its umbrella. These groups require minimal state investment, as they are largely financed through illicit activities, including drug trafficking.

In the context of the recent Pahalgam attack, there were enough indicators to raise alarms—the provocative statements from the Pakistan Army Chief and the high-profile visit of the U.S. Vice President to India should have prompted heightened security. That said, it is impractical for any nation to maintain maximum vigilance across all fronts at all times. The incident underscores the urgent need to further strengthen our intelligence apparatus.

In response, the Indian government has taken decisive measures designed to impose long-term costs on Pakistan. These actions are expected to influence global perceptions, reinforcing the view that Pakistan functions as a state sponsor of terrorism. This perception, in turn, may hinder its efforts to seek financial assistance from institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), especially given its already fragile economy. To date, Pakistan has availed itself of 24 IMF bailouts. Notably, the international community—including several Muslim-majority nations and even the Taliban—has condemned Pakistan’s role in fostering terrorism.

However, such attacks are likely to persist. The Indian government is aware of Pakistan’s strategic playbook and must ensure that potential threats across the border remain under constant surveillance. Swift and targeted responses are essential to demonstrate our resolve, while longer-term punitive measures should continue in parallel.

One deeply concerning aspect of the Pahalgam attack is the ideology underpinning such violence, which promotes religious extremism and intolerance. It is imperative that the global community addresses the roots of radicalization. As an initial step, religious schools (madrasas) that propagate extremist ideologies should be either reformed or integrated into mainstream education systems, ensuring that children receive balanced and secular education.

Domestically, India must remain vigilant about developments in some of its states. True secularism does not equate to appeasement or selective privilege for any single community. When matters of national security are at stake, the central government must be empowered to intervene decisively. National symbols such as the flag must remain sacrosanct, and there should be no tolerance for separatist expressions.

Our institutions—particularly the judiciary and legislature—must work in tandem to draft and enforce effective laws. Judicial reforms are urgently needed to enhance accountability and improve the efficiency and work culture within the judiciary.

A positive outcome of the Pahalgam incident is the growing unity among local populations against terrorism. As the attack has directly impacted their livelihoods, public sentiment has turned against the perpetrators. Without local support, terrorist elements will find it increasingly difficult to operate—this shift in ground reality is both encouraging and vital for the success of counter-terror operations.