Optimal Pakistan Scenario for India, Region, and World Post-Pahalgam Terror Attack

Summary

The April 22, 2025, terror attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, killing 26–28 civilians and injuring 17–20, underscores Pakistan’s role in fueling instability through proxies like The Resistance Front (TRF), linked to Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT). This brief evaluates four scenarios for Pakistan’s state—strong, weak, perpetually unstable, or non-existent—to determine which best serves India, the region, and the world. Analysis finds that keeping Pakistan on the verge of collapse aligns with India’s immediate security interests, leveraging its military and diplomatic strengths, but poses risks of terrorism blowback. A strong Pakistan benefits regional and global stability but requires unlikely Pakistani cooperation. India should maintain strategic pressure on Pakistan while fostering diplomatic and local measures to mitigate terror, balancing short-term security with long-term stability.

Issue

The Pahalgam attack, executed by four to six militants with Pakistani and local operatives, targeted tourists to disrupt Kashmir’s economy, inflame communal tensions, and gain global attention. Pakistan’s denial of involvement, despite intelligence linking TRF to PoK bases, highlights ongoing tensions. India must navigate Pakistan’s state to secure its borders, stabilize Jammu and Kashmir, and advance regional and global interests. 

Four scenarios are assessed:

1. Strong Pakistan: Stable, prosperous, with effective governance.
2. Weak Pakistan: Economically strained, politically fragmented, but functional.
3. Perpetually Unstable Pakistan: Kept on the brink of collapse, chaotic but intact.
4. No Pakistan: Dissolved into smaller entities or absorbed.

Background

• Pahalgam Attack: On April 22, 2025, TRF militants killed 26–28 civilians in Baisaran Valley, Pahalgam, using military-grade weapons and selective targeting (non-Muslims). Intelligence traces planning to PoK, with local grievances (e.g., 83,000 domicile certificates post-2019) amplifying radicalization.
• India-Pakistan Dynamics: Since 1947, conflicts over Kashmir have fueled militancy, with Pakistan backing groups like LeT. Post-2019, Kashmir’s violence dropped (46 incidents in 2023 vs. 153 in 2019), but attacks like Pahalgam signal renewed threats.
• Regional Context: Pakistan’s instability affects Afghanistan, Iran, and Central Asia, with China’s CPEC investment complicating dynamics.
• Global Stakes: Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal and jihadist networks pose risks, drawing US, Russian, and UN attention post-Pahalgam.

Analysis of Options

Option 1: Strong Pakistan

• Implications for India: Could reduce terrorism if Pakistan curbs LeT, enhancing trade (e.g., SAARC). However, historical aggression (e.g., 1999 Kargil War) and Pahalgam’s PoK links suggest a stable Pakistan may still pursue hostility.
• Regional Impact: Fosters cooperation, stabilizing Afghanistan and SAARC, but risks Pakistani dominance or Chinese alignment via CPEC.
• Global Impact: Minimizes nuclear and terrorism risks, aligning with US and UN goals post-Pahalgam.
• Challenges: Pakistan’s military-intelligence complex, implicated in Pahalgam, may exploit stability to fund proxies covertly.

Option 2: Weak Pakistan

• Implications for India: Limits Pakistan’s capacity for conventional conflict, as seen in India’s Uri operation post-Pahalgam. However, ungoverned spaces enable terrorism, with TRF’s sophisticated attack thriving in Pakistan’s weakness.
• Regional Impact: Reduces Pakistan’s interference but risks spillover (e.g., Balochistan rebellion).
• Global Impact: Aligns with anti-terrorism goals but increases nuclear insecurity and refugee flows.
• Challenges: Weakness doesn’t eliminate threats, as Pahalgam’s local operatives (Adil, Asif) show radicalization persists.

Option 3: Perpetually Unstable Pakistan

• Implications for India: Keeps Pakistan distracted, limiting aggression, as India’s diplomatic isolation post-Pahalgam demonstrates. However, instability fuels terrorism, with TRF’s PoK bases exploiting chaos.
• Regional Impact: Allows India to lead regionally but risks humanitarian crises affecting neighbors.
• Global Impact: Contains Pakistan’s power but raises nuclear and terrorism concerns, requiring international coordination.
• Challenges: Blowback risks, as local grievances (e.g., domicile policies) intersect with Pakistan’s chaos, amplifying attacks like Pahalgam.

Option 4: No Pakistan

• Implications for India: Eliminates a unified threat but risks uncontrolled militancy, as Pahalgam’s local operatives suggest radicalization persists. Refugee flows and border management would strain India.
• Regional Impact: Creates a power vacuum, fueling jihadists and separatism (e.g., Balochistan).
• Global Impact: Triggers nuclear and humanitarian crises, complicating US, Chinese, and UN efforts.
• Challenges: Dissolution is impractical, with catastrophic fallout outweighing benefits.

Findings

• India’s Interests: Perpetually unstable Pakistan best serves India’s immediate security, leveraging military dominance (e.g., Uri operation) and diplomatic gains (e.g., US, Saudi support post-Pahalgam). It weakens Pakistan’s ability to sponsor attacks without triggering collapse. However, it risks terrorism blowback, as seen in Pahalgam’s local and cross-border elements.
• Regional Interests: Strong Pakistan fosters stability, reducing militancy and enabling cooperation, but requires Pakistan to dismantle LeT, unlikely given its denial post-Pahalgam.
• Global Interests: Strong Pakistan minimizes nuclear and terrorism risks, aligning with international condemnation of Pahalgam, but depends on Pakistani reform.
• Critical Assessment: India’s establishment narrative favors instability, but Pahalgam’s sophistication (M4 carbines, camera-equipped militants) shows weak or unstable Pakistan enables proxies. Local grievances (e.g., domicile policies) amplify radicalization, suggesting a purely anti-Pakistan focus is incomplete. A strong Pakistan could benefit all but risks renewed hostility without trust.

Recommendations

1. Maintain Strategic Pressure (Primary): India should continue keeping Pakistan unstable through:
   • Military Operations: Intensify counter-terrorism, as seen in Uri, targeting PoK bases linked to Pahalgam.
   • Diplomatic Isolation: Leverage global support (US, Russia, Saudi Arabia) to pressure Pakistan at the UN and FATF, exposing LeT’s infrastructure.
   • Economic Measures: Restrict trade and aid to strain Pakistan’s economy, limiting terror funding.
2. Mitigate Blowback (Secondary):
   • Address Local Grievances: Engage Kashmiri communities to counter radicalization, addressing domicile policy concerns to reduce local operatives’ recruitment (e.g., Adil, Asif).
   • Enhance Security: Fortify tourist sites and borders, as post-Pahalgam, to deter attacks.
3. Long-Term Diplomacy: Pursue conditional engagement with Pakistan, incentivizing LeT’s dismantling through economic benefits (e.g., SAARC trade), aligning with regional and global stability goals.
4. Global Coordination: Partner with the US, Russia, and Saudi Arabia to monitor Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal and jihadist networks, ensuring instability doesn’t escalate into collapse.

Conclusion

The Pahalgam attack highlights Pakistan’s role in terrorism, making a perpetually unstable Pakistan the most pragmatic option for India’s security, as it weakens Pakistan’s aggression while leveraging India’s strengths. However, regional and global interests favor a strong Pakistan to minimize broader risks, requiring unlikely Pakistani reform. India should maintain pressure on Pakistan, address local Kashmir issues, and build international coalitions to balance short-term security with long-term stability, disrupting the terror cycle exemplified by Pahalgam.