The recent attack in Pahalgam, which resulted in the deaths of at least 26 tourists in a gunfire assault, represents the deadliest militant attack in Kashmir since 2019. The victims were civilians, not military personnel or officials, making this attack particularly brutal and symbolic. It targets not only human lives but also the fragile sense of normalcy that the Indian state has tried to maintain in the disputed region. Given Kashmir's contentious history, with both India and Pakistan claiming full control, India's response will likely be influenced by past actions as well as external pressures, according to experts.

In response, India has already taken several measures, including closing the main border crossing, suspending a vital water-sharing agreement, and expelling diplomats. Defence Minister Rajnath Singh has promised a "strong response," committing to actions against both the perpetrators and those behind the attacks. Experts predict a military response, though the specifics—timing, scale, and consequences—remain uncertain. Since 2016, especially after the 2019 attack, India has set a precedent for retaliating with cross-border or airstrikes, making it difficult for the government to adopt a less forceful approach. Analysts suggest that Pakistan will likely retaliate, as it did in the past, and this raises the risk of miscalculation on both sides.

Two major retaliations in 2016 and 2019 set the stage for future responses. In 2016, India carried out "surgical strikes" after an attack on Indian soldiers, while in 2019, India launched airstrikes in response to a deadly militant attack, followed by Pakistan’s retaliatory air raids. Despite such confrontations, both nations avoided full-scale war.

The 2021 ceasefire along the Line of Control has largely held, but militant attacks continue in Indian-administered Kashmir. Foreign policy analyst Michael Kugelman suggests that the high fatality rate and the targeting of civilians in this attack may push India towards a military response, especially if it suspects Pakistani involvement. However, he notes that such a move could lead to a significant crisis or conflict.

India has a few options, including covert operations that offer deniability but may not achieve the political goals of restoring deterrence. Another option is returning to cross-border firing or launching airstrikes, both of which carry significant risks of escalation. The involvement of nuclear-armed nations adds further complexity, making decision-making cautious and calculated.

Experts warn that, while nuclear deterrence may prevent full-scale war, the possibility of miscalculations remains. Surgical strikes, like those conducted in 2016, may be seen as a limited response, allowing India to show action while minimizing the risk of full escalation. However, such strikes could also provoke retaliation from Pakistan, which may view them as unjustified. Ultimately, whichever course India pursues, the risk of escalation is high, and the fragile peace in Kashmir continues to hang in the balance. Additionally, India must address the security lapses that allowed this attack to occur, especially during the busy tourist season.