How will India respond to killing Kashmir

The bloodshed on Tuesday in Paalgam – where at least 26 tourists in Hail have been killed – represented a hard -line attack in Kashmir since 2019.

The victims were not soldiers or officials, but civilians were on vacation in one of the most picturesque valleys in India. This alone makes this strike brutally and symbolically: the calculated attack is not only on lives, but a fragile feeling of normal life, the Indian state worked hard for the project in the disputed region.

Looking at the fragrant history of Kashmir – it is demanded by both India and Pakistan, but each of them is only partially ruled – the response of India is likely to be formed by the precedent, such as pressure, as experts say.

For beginners, Delhi quickly took a series of Revenge stepsClose the main border crossing, suspend the critical water sharing treaty, and expel diplomats.

More importantly, Defense Minister Rajnath Singh pledged “Strong response,” The pledge not only against the perpetrators, but also the mastermind behind the “nefarious verbs” on Indian soil.

Analysts say that the question is not whether there will be a military response – but when, how it will be calibrated, at any cost.

“We are likely to see a strong response-a response indicating both the local masses and the actors in Pakistan. Since 2016, especially after 2019, the threshold of revenge in border or air strikes has been determined,” Military historian Sernaeth Rajavan told the BBC.

“It will be difficult for the government to act below now. Pakistan is likely to respond, as happened. The risks, as always, is a miscalculation – on both sides.”

Mr. Raghavan is alluded to two main revenges previously by India in 2016 and 2019.

after The deadly Uri attack In September 2016, when 19 Indian soldiers were killed, India launched what was called “surgical strikes” across the realistic border – also known as the LOC line – targeting what it said was the launching platforms of militants in Kashmir, which relied on Pakistan.

In 2019, after At least 40 paramilitary members were killed in Poloamaand India struck an alleged camp in Balkot with air strikes – The first such blow in the depths of Pakistan since 1971. Pakistan has responded with air strikes, which led to a battle and shortening an Indian pilot. Both sides showed strength, but avoiding widespread war.

Two years later, in 2021, they are He agreed to a ceasefireWhich was largely held – despite repeated repeated attacks in the Indian director Kashmir.

Michael Kojman, a foreign policy analyst, believes that a mixture of high deaths and targeting Indian civilians in the last attack “indicating a strong possibility of an Indian military response against Pakistan, if Delhi decides or assumes only any level of Pakistani collusion.”

“The main advantage of such a reaction to India will be political, as there will be strong general pressure until India will respond strongly,” he told the BBC.

“Another advantage, if revenge has led to the removal of terrorist targets, it will restore deterrence and rid the threat of the fight against India. Deprivation is that revenge would risk a serious crisis and even a conflict.”

What are India’s options?

Christopher Clary of the university in Albani in the United States says that secret measures provide rejection but may not fulfill the political need to clear deterrence.

This leaves India with potential tracks, as noticed.

First, the ceasefire in 2021 was roaming, and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi could shine a return to the cross -border fire.

Second, there are air strikes or even traditional missile strikes, as in 2019, on the table – each of which bears the risk of a vertical vortex, as shown in the air affirmations that followed.

“There is no path without risks. The United States is also dispersed and may not be ready or be able to help manage crisis,” Mr. Clary, who studies South Asia’s policy, told the BBC.

One of the most dangerous risks in any crisis in India Pakistan is that both sides are nuclear armed. This fact raises a long shadow on every decision, not only constitutes the military strategy but rather political accounts.

“Nuclear weapons pose both danger and control-forcing decision makers on both sides to act with caution. Any response is likely to be provided as accurate and targeted. Pakistan may be somewhat divided, then they are looking for an award outside the slope, says Mr. Raghavan.

“We have seen this style in other conflicts as well, such as Israel-calibration strikes, followed by efforts to cancel the escalation. But the risks are always that things will not go according to the text.”

“Every country is comfortable using limited counter -revenge,” says Mr. Kojmanman.

“India will need the weight of political and tactical advantages to take revenge with the risk of a serious crisis or conflict.”

Hussein Haqqani, a former Pakistani ambassador in the United States, believes that this time is possible, as India is likely to be considered limited “surgical strikes” as in 2016.

“The advantage of such strikes from the point of view of India is that they are limited in the range, so Pakistan does not have to respond, yet it proves to the Indian public that India has acted,” said Mr. Hakani, a older colleague at the Anwar Garagash Diplomatic Academy and the Hudson Institute.

“But such strikes can also call for revenge on Pakistan, which says that he is blamed for a knee reaction, without any investigation or evidence.”

Whatever the path that India chooses – however, Pakistan responds – every step fraught with risks. The threat of escalation waving on the horizon, and with it, the fragile peace slip in Kashmir away from hand.

At the same time, India must count the security failures that allowed the attack in the first place. Mr. Raghavan pointed out that “this attack took place at the height of the tourism season,” indicates “a dangerous ending – especially in the territory of the Federation, where the federal government directly controls the law and order.”