The Indian Navy test-fired missiles on Sunday, signaling its formidable ability to execute “long-range, precision offensive” strikes, as military tensions between India and Pakistan reached new heights in the aftermath of last week’s terrorist attack in Indian-administered Kashmir. The attack, which resulted in the deaths of 26 civilians, targeted a popular tourist site and marked the deadliest assault on civilians in the region in over 25 years.

The Indian Navy’s missile test served as a message, confirming its readiness to respond with precision and power.

“Indian Navy ships undertook successful multiple anti-ship firings to re-validate and demonstrate readiness of platforms, systems, and crew for long-range precision offensive strike,” the Navy stated on X.

The message, carefully timed, resonated against the backdrop of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s promise of a “harsh response” to the attack. The statement was not an empty threat; it was part of Modi’s broader strategy of rallying global support and building domestic consensus for a more aggressive stance.

In his monthly radio address, Modi remarked that the attack had left every Indian’s blood “on the boil,” an expression of national outrage and a clear indication that the government was not going to let the killings go unpunished. His words echoed past promises of retribution, he had previously vowed to hunt down the perpetrators “to the ends of the Earth” and to reduce terrorist hideouts to “dust.”

These declarations were a strategic attempt to not only justify retaliation but to also bolster national sentiment during a time of heightened emotions. While Modi was quick to express his anger, he was also aware that such rhetoric would carry significant weight on the international stage, influencing foreign leaders’ positions on the issue.

The missiles launched were a direct demonstration of India’s military capabilities. These weapons, designed for long-range precision strikes, serve as a warning shot to Pakistan. The Navy emphasized that the exercises were essential for maintaining “operational readiness,” particularly in an environment where military tensions are rapidly escalating. As India flexed its military muscles, Pakistan, already on edge, responded with equally intense rhetoric, indicating its own nuclear prowess.

On the weekend, Pakistan’s railway minister, Hanif Abbasi, issued a chilling statement about the country’s nuclear arsenal. “It is not kept as models,” Abbasi said. “These ballistic missiles, all of them are targeted at you.”

The comment underscored the ever-present threat of nuclear conflict between the two countries, who have fought three wars, two of them over the contested Kashmir region. Both nations possess nuclear weapons, and the reality of that fact weighs heavily on the region’s geopolitical arena.

Abbasi’s remarks stoked fears that the nuclear-armed neighbors were once again edging closer to a larger confrontation, a sentiment shared by many analysts around the world.

The Kashmir Issue

The long-standing conflict over Kashmir has seen both sides on the brink of war multiple times. The region, which both India and Pakistan claim in full, has served as the flashpoint for decades of military confrontations. The former U.S. president Bill Clinton once called Kashmir the world’s “most dangerous place,” given the nuclear capabilities of both nations and their seemingly unending rivalry.

The contrasting military doctrines of the two nations add a layer of volatility to the already fragile peace. Pakistan’s military strategy, known as Full Spectrum Deterrence, emphasizes the use of tactical nuclear weapons to deter conventional threats, while India’s Cold Start doctrine seeks to launch swift conventional strikes before tensions can escalate to nuclear warfare. This sharp divergence in strategies has led to concerns that any military engagement could quickly spiral out of control.

Michael Kugelman, a prominent foreign policy author and analyst, commented on the likelihood of military escalation. “From Delhi’s perspective, given public pressure, the egregiousness of last week’s attack, and a desire to restore deterrence, some type of military response is quite likely,” Kugelman said.

He also warned that Pakistan, feeling the need to maintain its credibility in the region, would almost certainly retaliate. “And given that these are nuclear-armed rivals, the stakes are quite high,” he added. While Kugelman suggested that an all-out war was unlikely, he also acknowledged that the risk of miscalculation or unintended escalation could never be completely ruled out, particularly if military actions on either side are not carefully calibrated.

Riding On The Back Of Terrorism

India has accused Pakistan of being complicit in the attack, citing the historical links between Islamabad and militant groups that have targeted India in the past. The government has pointed to the country’s long-standing support for anti-Indian terrorist organizations. The attack’s brutality, targeting Hindu men in particular, has further fueled accusations of Pakistan’s role in fomenting such violence.

In response, India has undertaken a series of punitive actions: suspending the Indus Waters Treaty, expelling Pakistani diplomats, and canceling visas. These measures have escalated the tensions, with Pakistan retaliating by expelling Indian diplomats, closing its airspace, and suspending the 1972 Shimla Agreement.

While Modi’s government remains steadfast in its commitment to retaliation, Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif has taken a more measured approach. In a speech, Sharif expressed Pakistan’s “strong desire for peace” and offered to cooperate with neutral investigators to probe the attack. However, he reiterated that Kashmir remains Pakistan’s “jugular vein,” a sentiment famously articulated by the country’s founder, Muhammad Ali Jinnah.

Sharif’s diplomatic overtures, while conciliatory, are likely a response to mounting pressure from both domestic and international sources to de-escalate the situation. At the same time, his remarks suggest that Pakistan will not back down on the Kashmir issue, which remains a core element of the nation’s identity and foreign policy.

As the situation deteriorates, both Indian and Pakistani troops have exchanged fire along the Line of Control (LoC) in Kashmir for three consecutive days, further complicating efforts to reach a peaceful resolution.

The LoC, a heavily militarized border that divides Kashmir between the two countries, has long been a flashpoint for skirmishes and clashes. The exchange of fire comes as speculation mounts about the possibility of a larger military response from India. In anticipation of such action, India’s Information Ministry issued a media advisory, warning against live broadcasts of military operations. The move reflects concerns over the risks posed by real-time coverage, which could compromise military strategies and escalate tensions, as seen in previous crises like the 1999 Kargil War and the 2008 Mumbai attacks.

On the ground, India has launched a broad crackdown in Kashmir, targeting suspected militants and dismantling what it refers to as the “terrorism ecosystem.” The operation has resulted in the demolition of at least 10 homes linked to militants and the detention or questioning of approximately 1,500 young men.

Rights groups have raised alarm over the widespread detentions, accusing Indian forces of using heavy-handed tactics that could exacerbate the already volatile situation. The crackdown also reflects India’s determination to disrupt the networks that feed anti-Indian sentiment in the region.

Tensions have also spilled over into the water dispute between the two nations. India’s decision to release water from the Uri Dam, which caused the Jhelum River to surge and flood parts of Pakistan-administered Kashmir, has sparked further anger in Islamabad. The release of water was seen as a direct violation of the Indus Waters Treaty, which governs the distribution of water resources between India and Pakistan. Pakistan has warned that any further interference with water would be considered an “act of war,” adding another layer of complexity to an already volatile situation.