Charing a meeting after a terror attack in Kashmir, Prime Minister said that the Armed Forces have “complete operational freedom to decide on the mode, targets, and timing of response”
All eyes on the subcontinent are on a meeting between India’s Defence Minister Rajnath Singh, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Chief of Defence Staff General Anil Chauhan, the Chiefs of the Indian Army, Navy, Airforce as well as National Security Advisor Ajit Doval.
The high-level meeting is likely to have been the critical juncture where strategic options, including kinetic responses, were likely evaluated. The Prime Minister reportedly said that the Indian Armed Forces have “complete operational freedom to decide on the mode, targets, and timing of our response.”
Though no formal announcement or declaration of war has followed, the gravity of the situation is unmistakable. The backdrop is a brazen terror assault in India’s Pahalgam region of its Jammu and Kashmir state that claimed 25 Indian and 1 Nepali civilian lives.
Modi’s words could indicate India launching asymmetric surgical strikes. According to reports, an ongoing investigation into the attack has revealed that at least one of the attackers was a former Pakistani Special Services Group (SSG) commando, a detail which, if accurate, has further given credence to the Pakistani military’s complicity if not outright orchestration of the attack against India. Indian opposition leaders have also called for a joint session of Parliament to deliberate on the unfolding crisis.
Indian National Congress Party leader Rahul Gandhi, in a post on X (formerly Twitter), described the national mood as “grave” and urged an all-party consensus before any potential escalation. While India has never declared war in such a setting, such a move is legally viable and politically symbolic. Despite the procedural rarity, this could serve to rally public support, legitimise military action, and place the opposition on the record as being sensitive to broader national sympathies.
On the other side of the border, Pakistan’s Defence Minister Khawaja Asif initially stated in an interview that an Indian military incursion was “imminent.” However, within 24 hours, Asif tempered his remarks, saying that his words were twisted, that “the threat still exists,” and that the next few days would be critical. However his colleague Pakistan’s Information Minister Attaullah Tarar later again claimed that “Pakistan has credible intelligence that India intends to launch a military strike within the next 24 to 36 hours”.
The flip-flop in the Pakistani government narrative could be interpreted as a sign of internal uncertainty and calibrated signalling aimed at dissuading India from acting while also preparing the Pakistani public for potential escalation.
According to a report, over 1,700 personnel from the Pakistani Army—1,450 enlisted soldiers and 250 officers—have resigned in the past 72 hours, reportedly anticipating the outbreak of war. While these figures remain unverified, they point to turbulence within Pakistan’s military ranks at a critical juncture.
Perhaps most surprising is the diplomatic realignment emerging from Kabul. Afghanistan’s Taliban-led government has formally condemned the Pahalgam attack and expressed solidarity with India, a rare public stance that could signal a strategic recalibration in South Asia. This tacit support from Kabul disrupts Islamabad’s traditional strategic depth narrative and may limit its options for tactical alliances or rear-area fallback support, especially if cross-border conflict intensifies.
In a move interpreted as both a symbolic and practical escalation, India has begun withdrawing its Army, Navy, and Air Force advisers along with their support staff from its High Commission in Islamabad. This effectively annuls India’s military liaison capacity in Pakistan and marks a decisive downgrade in bilateral military-to-military communication channels – which although not a decisive signal could be prelude to a conflict. It also narrows the already-limited scope for de-escalation through backchannel military diplomacy.
Furthermore, after India’s suspension of the Indus Water Treaty, the high water level in Jhelum river which also flows through Pakistan occupied Kashmir has caused a flood like situation. Islamabad has accused India for deliberately causing the crisis as a hybrid war tactic aimed at penalising it for the Pahalgam attack.
As part of its efforts to secure its national interest in the digital space, India has also banned 16 Pakistani Youtube accounts which it alleged of carrying misinformation aimed at sowing social discord and undermining trust in India’s armed forces and security institutions.
Meanwhile, Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif held a telephonic conversation with UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and pleaded for a neutral investigation into the Pahalgam incident.
“Had a telephone conversation with UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres. I reaffirmed Pakistan’s condemnation of terrorism in all its forms, rejected baseless Indian accusations, and called for a transparent and neutral investigation into the Pahalgam incident…Pakistan remains committed to peace, but will defend its sovereignty with full force if challenged,” Sharif wrote on X.
While a full scale conflict remains a possibility especially with almost 6 days of continuous ceasefire violations along the Line of Control(LOC), but given the potential cost of escalation—economically, militarily, and diplomatically—both sides may ultimately be playing a dangerous game of brinkmanship, hoping to extract concessions or deterrence without crossing the point of no return.
