Escalating tensions between India and Pakistan following last week's horrific terror attack in the Indian part of Kashmir, have pushed the region to the brink of war. In the middle of the week (in the small hours of Wednesday, Apr. 30) a top Pakistani official claimed to have "credible intelligence" that New Delhi will carry out a military action against Islamabad within the next two days.

The claim came as the United States, China and other world powers rushed to urge restraint between two nations armed with nuclear bombs.

"Pakistan has credible intelligence that India intends carrying out military action against Pakistan in the next 24-36 hours," Pakistan's Information Minister Attaullah Tarar said in an unusual middle of the night post on X. He did not elaborate on what evidence Pakistan had used to make the claim.

Tarar's comments came just one week after militants massacred 26 tourists in the mountainous town of Pahalgam in Indian-administered Kashmir, a rampage that has sparked widespread outrage. India has accused Pakistan of being involved in the attack - a claim Islamabad denies. Pakistan has offered a neutral investigation into the incident.

In one hopeful sign, the Directors General of Military Operations of the two countries did speak over a hotline on Tuesday, India's state broadcaster and Pakistan's military confirmed - the first conversation between the military officials since the Pahalgam attack. The Indian side is said to have warned their counterparts against what they described as unprovoked violations by Pakistan Army along the Line of Control - the military control line between the Indian- and Pakistani-controlled parts of Kashmir that serves as the de facto border.

The armies of the two nuclear-armed neighbours have exchanged gunfire across the LoC everyday since the attack in the scenic tourist spot of Baisaran, also known "the Switzerland of India."

Kashmir, one of the world's most dangerous flashpoints, is controlled in part by India and Pakistan but both countries claim it in its entirety. The two nuclear-armed rivals have fought three wars over the mountainous territory since their independence from Britain nearly 80 years ago.

How the attack unfolded

The Pahalgam massacre, the deadliest terrorist attack in the region since at least 2019, is understood to have been planned over several weeks. According to officials of India's National Investigation Agency involved in the investigation, members of the Resistance Front, apparently an offshoot of the notorious Lashkar e Taiba, arrived in Pahalgam on April 15. They conducted reconnaissance at four tourist-heavy locations including Baisaran, Aru Valley, Betaab Valley, and a local amusement park, reports NDTV. The group ultimately targeted Baisaran, citing lesser security deployment in the area.

Intelligence gained from detained Over Ground Workers (OGWs) by the NIA revealed that the terrorists stayed in the Baisaran Valley for at least two days before executing the attack. On April 22, at around 1:15 PM, they launched their assault, emerging from the surrounding pine forests. Witnesses reported that the attackers interrogated some victims, asking them to recite Islamic verses. Those who failed were shot at point-blank range.

Among the 26 killed were 25 tourists and a local pony handler. Two security personnel, one from the Navy and another from the Intelligence Bureau, were among the victims. The entire assault lasted less than ten minutes.

The four terrorists have been on the run since - evading a massive manhunt involving the military and local police - and were likely still in the area, sources in the National Investigation Agency told NDTV on Thursday (May 1).

NIA sources said the terrorists may be 'self-reliant', i.e., be carrying provisions, and therefore stay hidden in the dense forests, which could explain why they had avoided detection so far.

The NIA believes surviving so long in the forests would also obviate the need for external logistical support that would most likely be provided by Pakistan, which New Delhi has accused of involvement in the Pahalgam attack.

NIA sources said OGWs, said to be terrorist sympathisers, interrogated after the attack said they conducted reconnaissance at four locations. These included the Aru and Betaab valleys. But all of the others were heavily guarded and so the terrorists picked Baisaran. Questions have naturally been asked by the opposition in India, and on foreign media, about the lack of military presence at such a popular site, as a deterrent.

Indian intelligence agencies believe the terrorists had advanced communications equipment, Major General Yash Mor, a retired defence expert who served in Kashmir, told NDTV. The equipment used did not need SIM cards and was capable of short-range encrypted transmissions, making it difficult, if not impossible, for it to be intercepted.

As many as three satellite phones were reportedly used by the terrorists, possibly to mask their positions and keep Indian security forces off guard till the attack, which began at 1.15 pm. The attack plan was simple - three terrorists sprang from hiding places around Baisaran to open fire at the tourists, while the fourth stayed hidden to provide back-up, if necessary.

Sources have said there may even have been other terrorists hiding nearby. Witnesses reported the terrorists interrogated some victims - all of whom were men - asking them to recite Islamic verses. Those who failed were shot at point-blank range.

Horrific videos from after the attack soon emerged online, showing women with their faces covered in the blood of their husbands and partners, pleading for help. One terrorist sneered at a woman whose husband he had just killed, saying, "Go tell (Prime Minister Narendra) Modi."

Among the 26 men who were killed was a Nepali citizen. Another was a Navy officer on his honeymoon; he had been married less than a week ago. Yet another was a 70-year-old man from Andhra Pradesh. A fourth was a 35-year-old Karnataka family man who begged for his life.

India's initial response was a flurry of diplomatic restrictions, including expelling Pak nationals from the country and suspending the Indus Waters Treaty. The IWT is a critical water-sharing deal that supplies Pakistan, also an agrarian nation, with over 80 percent of its fresh water needs.

Pakistan responded by also expelling Indians and suspending the Simla Agreement - signed as a resolution to the Bangladesh war, of which the principal concession from the Pakistan side was to accept the principle that India and Pakistan would always seek to sort out their issues bilaterally - not seek to 'internationalise' the issues, say by involving third party mediators in the form of countries or multilateral organisations like the UN. The two countries have also shut their airspaces to the other's planes.

On Wednesday (Apr. 30), Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi chaired a high-level meeting with Defence Minister Rajnath Singh, National Security Advisor Ajit Doval, and Chief of Defence Staff General Anil Chauhan. Sources told NDTV and other Indian media houses that Modi gave the armed forces the greenlight to plan and execute a counterattack.

This move by Modi has been seen by some as a way to manoeuvre himself out of a difficult spot. According to Sadanand Dhume, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, Modi is facing pressure to mount a tough response.

"The Indian public is outraged by last week's terrorist attack in Kashmir, and Prime Minister Narendra Modi is under immense pressure to respond to the atrocity by striking Pakistan, which has long sponsored attacks on India," Dhume said.

Since coming to power in 2014, the BJP has taken pride in its 'muscular foreign policy', that mandates a proportionate military response to terrorist attacks. But in reality, these responses have attained dubious success in the past, and there may be no good military options on the table. Nevertheless, some sort of action is widely expected, given the mood in Modi's largely right-wing voter base.

"An Indian military response is likely reflecting the more muscular foreign policy of the Modi government as noted by its actions following previous terrorist attacks," Chietigj Bajpaee, senior research fellow for South Asia at Chatham House, told Fox News in an interview.

Bajpaee noted that a surgical strike or airstrike is the most likely form of retaliation, and the response will likely take a calibrated approach to limit collateral damage and civilian casualties and to control the escalation ladder in order to keep the conflict below the nuclear threshold.

"However, this is easier said than done given the possibility of accidental escalation" and a "broader tit-for-tat military escalation cannot be ruled out," he warned.

The lost art of de-escalation

The attack comes at a time when the Pakistani military is on the back foot following a string of terrorist attacks inside Pakistan and eroding public support for the army following the arrest and imprisonment of former prime minister Imran Khan and the persecution of his supporters. Pakistani army chief General Asim Munir has sought to reaffirm the importance of the military to the preservation of the Pakistani state. In a rambling, divisive speech delivered in the week preceding the attack, he also referred to Kashmir as Pakistan's 'jugular vein', and declared that "Pakistan would never abandon Kashmiris in their historic struggle."

Although Indian analysts have seized upon those comments to assert that they acted as a signal for the massacre to go ahead, it does beggar belief that Pakistan would do something that risks war with India at this point, given the state of its economy. Those who do believe Pakistan was behind the attack however, will tell you their apparently desperate situation is precisely why the Pakistani establishment might do something like this now.

New Delhi describes all militancy in Kashmir as Pakistan-backed terrorism, a charge Pakistan rejects. Many Muslim Kashmiris consider the militants to be part of a home-grown freedom struggle. Rebels have been fighting Indian rule since 1989 for uniting the territory, either under Pakistani rule or as an independent country.

The civilian government in Islamabad has denied involvement, but there is precedent for attacks on India taking place during periods when the Pakistani military feels it is being marginalised. In 1999, an attempt at rapprochement between the civilian governments in Islamabad and New Delhi - referred to as the Lahore bus diplomacy - was derailed after Pakistani military-backed militants launched attacks in the Kargil area of Kashmir, leading both countries to war for the fourth time.

The Pahalgam attack also took place while US Vice President JD Vance was visiting India, suggesting it was timed to draw international attention to the Kashmir issue while the spotlight was on India.

Aimed at the narrative?

In August 2019, the Modi government withdrew the semi-autonomous status of Indian-administered Kashmir without consultation with either the political opposition or Kashmiris. That special status had been a critical condition for Kashmir to join India following independence from the British in 1947.

The Modi government argued that successive governments had failed to truly integrate Jammu and Kashmir with the rest of India, and that the semi-autonomous status had played into the hands of secessionist forces that sought to break the region from India.

The abrogation of the constitutional provision that gave Kashmir its special status was accompanied by a major crackdown. Thousands of civilians were arrested, including leaders of mainstream political parties - even those that view Kashmir as a part of India. Phone and internet connections were cut for months. Kashmir was shut out from the rest of the world, in one of the longest internet shutdowns witnessed anywhere in the world.

Yet, the Modi government argued that the pain was temporary and needed to restore Kashmir to what multiple officials described as a state of "normalcy".

Since then, the arrests of civilians, including journalists, have continued. Borders of electoral constituencies were changed in a manner that saw Jammu, the Hindu-majority part of Jammu and Kashmir, gain greater political influence than the Muslim-majority Kashmir valley, according to an analysis by Al Jazeera. Non-Kashmiris have been issued residency cards - which was not allowed before 2019 - to settle there, sparking fears that the Modi government might be attempting to change the region's demography.

And though the region held the first election to its provincial legislature in a decade in late 2024, the newly elected government of Chief Minister Omar Abdullah has been denied many of the powers other regional governments enjoy - with New Delhi, instead, making key decisions.

Amid all of that, the Modi government pushed tourism in Kashmir, pointing to a surge in visitors as evidence that normalcy had returned to the region after four decades of armed resistance to Indian rule. In 2024, 3.5 million tourists visited Kashmir, comfortably the largest number in a decade, according to government figures.

But long before the Pahalgam attack, in May 2024, Abdullah - now, the chief minister of the region, then an opposition leader - had cautioned against suggesting that tourism numbers were reflective of peace and stability in Kashmir. His predecessor as chief minister, Mehbooba Mufti of the People's Democratic Party, more recently described Kashmir as "an open-air prison", and "a zoo for outsiders".

New Delhi however will point to the fact that for the first time in 35 years, that is since the insurgency began, the Kashmir Valley experienced a complete shutdown in protest against separatist terrorism, the day after the attack took place. Citizens from every corner of society came out on the street to condemn the violence. From Srinagar to Anantnag, and Shopian to Baramulla, the entire Kashmir echoed with calls for peace and accountability, according to the Times of India.

The Mirwaiz of Kashmir denounced the Pahalgam terror attack from the pulpit of the Jamia Masjid, previously associated with Pakistan-backed separatism, during his sermon on the Friday following the attack. All of this was said to be unprecedented, and indicative of the increased interest in India among a growing proportion of the Kashmiri youth, according to the Observer Research Foundation, a think tank.

Realising the danger

Beyond the impact on Kashmir and India-Pakistan relations, this incident will also have broader regional implications. South Asia is among the least economically integrated regions of the world. The South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) has not held a summit in over a decade, attributed in large part to mistrust in the India-Pakistan relationship.

While New Delhi has tried to develop workaround solutions, such as promoting other regional initiatives, South Asian countries, not least Bangladesh, continue to lobby for the resumption of SAARC as the region's most inclusive and all-encompassing regional forum. But the Pahalgam attack makes this even less likely to happen anytime soon.

The Bangladesh government in a statement said it "strongly condemns the terror attack in Jammu and Kashmir in India resulting in the tragic loss of innocent lines" (see next story).

Chief Adviser Muhammad Yunus said the current tension between India and Pakistan is alarming, and called on Bangladesh's own armed forces to be prepared, reasoning that not being prepared in such a situation would be "suicidal" for Bangladesh.

"The India-Pakistan situation remains extremely volatile," Yunus said on Wednesday during a visit to the Bangladesh Air Force exercise at Bir Uttam AK Khandakar base in Dhaka. "In this situation, we have to design our overall strategy. We must always extend our hand towards peace. But we must also be prepared. Not being prepared in such a situation would be suicidal. There is no place for half-preparedness."

Describing himself as "anti-war," Yunus said, "We do not wish for war anywhere in the world." But he objected to the belief that preparing for war makes it more likely, stating that such assumptions are misguided.

The Chief Adviser said we live in a world where the threat of war is constant, and so it becomes impossible, or suicidal, to remain unprepared for it.

After initially appearing to give India free hand to respond to the attack as it saw fit, Washington seemed to be ready to play a more responsible role by April 30, eight days after the attack, as it urged India and Pakistan to work together to "de-escalate tensions". Secretary of State Marco Rubio held separate talks with India's foreign minister and Pakistan's prime minister and called on them to "maintain peace and security in South Asia".

The "perpetrators, backers and planners" of the Pahalgam attack "must be brought to justice", Indian Foreign Minister S Jaishankar wrote on X after speaking to his US counterpart by telephone, as Rubio expressed his sorrow and reaffirmed Washington's support in India's fight against terrorism.

Meanwhile, the top US diplomat expressed the need to "condemn the terror attack" in his talks with Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif. Senior Pakistani officials did condemn the attack during a news conference, but they added that India had provided no credible evidence of Pakistani involvement. Rubio urged Islamabad to cooperate "in investigating this unconscionable attack", according to the BBC.

During the call, Sharif rejected "Indian attempts to link Pakistan to the incident", a statement issued by his office read. The Pakistani prime minister also urged the US to "impress upon India to dial down the rhetoric and act responsibly".

The UN secretary general, António Guterres, also spoke with the Pakistani prime minister and the Indian foreign minister. Guterres underscored the "need to avoid a confrontation that could result in tragic consequences" and offered to help mediate, according to a UN statement. Other countries, including Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, have urged India and Pakistan to use diplomacy to address their issues. The UK too has called for de-escalation and dialogue.

As Dhaka Courier went to press this week, a semblance of sense seemed to be returning, as even the usually rabble-rousing Indian media started publishing op-eds that urged calm and collected posturing, instead of jingoism and false bravado. Writing in the Indian Express, Abhijit Singh, a senior fellow at the Observer Research Foundation provided unusually wise counsel, that decisionmakers in Delhi would do well to heed.

He correctly points out that war, however cathartic it may seem, "would be an error without strategic purpose." Instead, he advocates a patient, determined campaign - "one that imposes costs, builds leverage, and denies the adversary strategic space."

Because even as the resolve in New Delhi to strike back across the border gathers force, and military posturing intensifies along the Line of Control and in the Arabian Sea, he reminds us that it is worth asking: "To what end?"