On April 22, 2025, the picturesque meadows of Baisaran in Jammu and Kashmir’s Pahalgam turned into a scene of horror when gunshots rang out. Terrorists, whom Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba’s offshoot The Resistance Force claimed as their gunmen, attacked a group of tourists. They killed 26 people and injured 17 others. This wasn’t a random act—it was a planned attack meant to shock the country, provoke a response and create more tension in the region.STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS ADThe brutal terrorist attack in Pahalgam has reignited national outrage and strategic debate. This was not an isolated strike but part of a continuing pattern of cross-border terrorism that has plagued India for decades.More from India
Identify and expel all Pakistani nationals, Amit Shah tells states after a high-level meeting
‘Would take a bullet’: Meet the brave Pahalgam guide who saved the lives of children and BJP worker
‘Mahatma Gandhi used words ‘your faithful servant’ to British’: SC pulls up Rahul Gandhi over Savarkar remarks
Pulwama to Pahalgam: Rafale jets with Scalp missiles give India edge over 2019 Balakot strikeWhile India has historically responded with restraint, often choosing diplomatic isolation and surgical precision over full-blown retaliation, this time the strategic calculus feels different. The questions now are not only whether to retaliate, but how, when and with what blend of strategy, force and foresight.The place they chose was important. Attacking innocent tourists there was done to spread fear, stop life from returning to normal and disturb the peace that was slowly coming back to the area.India reacted quickly. It reduced its diplomatic relations with Pakistan. It also paused the Indus Waters Treaty, an agreement about sharing river water that had been in place since 1960. These steps were not ordinary—they showed that India was taking a tougher stand.Real war is no Rambo’s game. Real war is nothing like the stylised heroism of cinema. It is brutal, complex and deeply strategic. If the enemy knows you are coming, the cost of attack increases exponentially. Despite having lost conventional wars in 1965, 1971 and Kargil, Pakistan cannot be underestimated.Since its inception, its military has remained singularly focussed on conflict with India. With 75 years of sustained investment in conventional and unconventional warfare—including proxy tactics and terrorism—Pakistan is far from a novice adversary.STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS ADIndia, however, is not without options. It holds a robust suite of military capabilities that range from surgical operations to full-scale offensives. Yet, these options must be measured not just in terms of capability, but in terms of consequence.Warrior’s dilemma: What should India do?India is facing a tough but familiar situation. There is a strong moral reason to take action. But at the same time, India has to be very careful, especially because it is in a region where countries have nuclear weapons.India has many powerful military options—like airstrikes in high mountain areas and secret missions. But deciding when and how to use them is not easy. People are angry and want justice, but making a wrong move could cause bigger problems. If India reacts in a way that feels good now but harms its long-term goals, it would be, as Sun Tzu—the famed ancient philosopher from China, incidentally, Pakistan’s so-called “iron brother”—once said, “a victory that sows the seeds of future defeat”.Options on the table: A strategic inventoryAir Strikes: Spectacle and substanceIndia’s air force, especially its Rafale and Mirage 2000 fighter jets, provides a strong option for precise strikes on terrorist camps or important supply points across the Line of Control(LoC). India used this option effectively in Balakot in 2019, giving Pakistan a psychological shock without starting a full war. But things are different this time.STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS ADPakistan is alert this time. Its air defences are stronger now, their leaders are saying in non-stop television interviews aired in Pakistan. The world would be watching closely. Also, launching strikes now could lead to a bigger air conflict—something both countries might find hard to control.Ground offensives: Limited war on difficult terrainAnother option lies across the Line of Control (LoC). Pakistan’s recent disregard for the Simla Agreement coupled with LoC violations could justify targeted incursions to dismantle forward terror infrastructure. These would need to be swift, sharp and surgical to avoid slipping into a war of attrition. The terrain, heavily militarised and fortified, makes this option high-risk and logistically demanding.Surgical strikes: No longer the element of surpriseIndia’s 2016 surgical strikes were a paradigm shift—they proved that India could, and would, respond with lethal precision. But their repetition now would lack the element of surprise. Pakistan’s forces are on high alert and the strike corridors are monitored. The strategic advantage is diminished and the risks of failure or entrapment are higher.STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS ADSniper and artillery operationsLow-scale, high-impact options like sniper operations, artillery shelling and targeted mortar fire have remained largely dormant since 2021. These could now be revived as a way to degrade enemy morale and infrastructure without committing to full engagement. But these tactics are slow-burn—they hurt, but rarely incapacitate. Their use must therefore be paired with a broader diplomatic or cyber strategy.Sun Tzu’s shadow: What ancient strategy teaches modern statesTo make smart decisions, India needs to think beyond the battlefield—and turn to an ancient Chinese book called The Art of War. Written by Sun Tzu more than 2,500 years ago, his ideas still make sense today, even in a world with missiles and nuclear weapons. His main message is: “The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.”After the attack in Pahalgam, India must think carefully about its goals. Does it want to punish, stop future attacks or change things for good? Each goal will require different actions. Sun Tzu would warn against reacting with anger. Instead, he would suggest taking actions that break the enemy’s will, mess with their plans and take advantage of their weaknesses.Deception, unpredictability and indirect actionSun Tzu writes, “Appear weak when you are strong, and strong when you are weak.” India’s public anger might be a trick—or it could become a problem if it leads to actions that Pakistan expects.STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS ADIf Pakistan is ready for a response across the LoC, maybe India should consider attacking from a different place—like disrupting terror funding through cyberattacks, using information warfare to show Pakistan’s dishonesty or carrying out secret operations in other countries that support terror financiers.Being predictable makes you less effective. Sun Tzu says surprise is a powerful tool. “Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected.”Psychology of warfareKinetic strikes, like airstrikes, damage infrastructure. But psychological warfare breaks the enemy’s will. If India can show, through diplomacy, media and secret actions, that no one who sponsors terror will go unpunished—and that any increase in violence will be met with strong and unpredictable responses—it can rebuild deterrence without needing to launch full-scale attacks.Sun Tzu said, “To capture the enemy’s entire army is better than to destroy it.” Similarly, weakening Pakistan’s ability to spread violence, even indirectly, is better than starting a full war.STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS ADAvoiding the trap of rageOne of Sun Tzu’s teachings is also useful here: “If your opponent is of choleric temper, seek to irritate him.” This can apply to Pakistan as well. Pakistan’s economy is weak and its military relies on conflict stories. India should avoid falling into a trap where Pakistan’s actions draw India into a long or internationally unpopular war.Sun Tzu also says, “The wisest general wins first, and then goes to war.” India must first create the right conditions for victory—international support, readiness at home and confusion for the enemy—before taking action. Not the other way around.Strategy over sentimentThe pain of Pahalgam is raw, and rightly so. But a nation’s greatness lies not in its capacity for anger, but in its ability to channel that anger into strategic strength. India’s options are many—but the best ones will not be those that merely “reply” to Pakistan, but those that reshape the conflict’s terms, leaving Pakistan reactive and India in control.Sun Tzu’s wisdom does not reject warfare. It redefines it. For him, warfare is not just about terrain or troops—it is about timing, deception, will, and clarity of objective. India must now embody those values—not to avenge this attack with fury, but to respond to it with foresight.In the end, the real victory will not be measured in bombed camps or disrupted supply lines. It will be in restoring a sense of security to every Indian citizen—and in ensuring that no meadow in Kashmir is ever stained with innocent blood again.Lessons from KurukshetraNowhere is the strategic mind more finely illustrated than in the role played by Lord Krishna in the Kurukshetra war in The Mahabharata.Lord Krishna never picked up a weapon but orchestrated the war’s outcome through an intricate blend of diplomacy, misdirection, moral persuasion and battlefield cunning. He used strategic guile—disarming Karna of his divine protection, staging illusions like eclipses to outwit opponents and employing warriors like Shikandi in ways the enemy could not counter.These moves were not unethical, they were contextual. Likewise, India’s response must be purpose-driven, not just punitive. Strategy must serve statecraft, not sensationalism.Krishna manipulated timelines, chose symbolic positions and executed an entire war campaign as psychological theatre. These are the tools India must now wield: combining real and symbolic moves, economic and kinetic strikes, public and classified messaging.Beyond revenge and toward strategic dominanceThe attack on Pahalgam demands a response, but not one governed by rage. Strategy—not sentiment—must lead. India has the tools. It needs the clarity. India can do more than retaliate. It can reshape the theatre, redefine deterrence and reinforce its position not just as a military power, but as a force that understands when to wield the sword and when to sheathe it.TagsIndiaPakistanEnd of Article
Source:
PM Modi said won’t spare culprits of Pahalgam: What military options India has
