At the heart of India’s shift lies a rejection of the doctrine of appeasement that has shaped much of its post-1947 policy towards Pakistan. While successive Indian governments have condemned terrorist attacks,
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
they have often hesitated or have been unwilling to escalate militarily or impose long-term costs on Islamabad. This time is different. The power differential between India and Pakistan is great enough that the current administration is treating this as an inflection point.
Military strikes on terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan-administered territory are reportedly imminent. Internationally, India’s actions are putting pressure on global powers to reassess their positions. While many
Western governments have long urged India to “exercise restraint,” the persistence of cross-border attacks has begun to shift international sympathies. The growing recognition that Pakistan uses terror groups as proxies for state policy
could lead to a realignment of diplomatic support—especially if India can demonstrate the effectiveness of its countermeasures without escalating into full-scale war. This is doubly important since Pakistan in a #nuclear armed state.
The Kashmir Massacre and India’s retaliation have brought the India-Pakistan conflict to a new inflection point. It is not just a response to one incident, but a broader assertion of sovereignty, security, and moral clarity.
India is no longer playing defense; it is crafting a long-term strategy to end the cycle of provocation and appeasement. If Pakistan continues on its current path, it may find itself increasingly isolated, diplomatically and economically.
Comments