2025 Pahalgam Attack: Details and Geopolitical Implications

By Kishur Boruah, Teacher

The current situation between India and Pakistan is drawing significant attention due to recent developments. This blog provides a factual and balanced analysis of the ongoing issues for informational and educational purposes only. It is specifically designed to help students and competitive exam aspirants understand the background, causes, and potential implications of the current events. No political bias is intended—this analysis focuses on enhancing awareness and preparation for exams like civil services , and other academic assessments.

Recent incident in Pahalgam -- What happened 

On April 22, 2025, terrorist ambushed a group of tourists in the Baisaran meadow of the Pahalgam area in India’s Jammu and Kashmir. The attackers opened fire on the group of Hindu pilgrims and other visitors, reportedly separating out their intended targets before shooting them at close range. The shooting killed 26 people (25 Indian nationals and one Nepalese) and wounded at least 17 others. Jammu & Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah described the carnage as “much larger than anything we’ve seen directed at civilians in recent years”. It was the deadliest attack on civilians in the region since the 2008 Mumbai terror strikes.

The little-known terrorist group calling itself Kashmir Resistance (also identified by Indian authorities as The Resistance Front, an offshoot of Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba) claimed responsibility on social media. In its statement the group cited opposition to recent Indian policies (such as granting domicile rights to outsiders) as a motive. India’s security forces immediately launched massive search operations in the forests and villages around Pahalgam, detaining around 500 people and searching nearly 1,000 houses. The regional tourism hub effectively shut down as terrified visitors fled, and protests erupted in Srinagar and elsewhere, with locals chanting slogans like “Stop killing innocents” and demanding that perpetrators be brought to justice. 

Prime Minister Narendra Modi vowed that those “behind this heinous act will be brought to justice… Our resolve to fight terrorism is unshakable”, and ordered heightened security in the valley.

Diplomatic measures

India’s immediate diplomatic response was to downgrade and tighten ties with Pakistan. On 23 April, Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri told a media briefing that India would suspend the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty “until Pakistan credibly and irrevocably abjures its support for cross-border terrorism”. In parallel, India closed the only open land border crossing (Attari–Wagah) with Pakistan, cutting off overland trade and transit. All existing special visas for Pakistani nationals were cancelled, and Pakistanis on such visas were given 48 hours to leave India.

Further measures announced by India on 23–24 April included:

✓ Suspension of all visa services to Pakistani citizens and revocation of visas already issued.

✓ Declaring all Pakistani defence advisers in New Delhi persona non grata (ordered to leave), and pulling out India’s own defence advisers from Islamabad.

✓ Notifying that India would ensure “not a single drop of the Indus River’s water reaches Pakistan,” effectively warning of withholding India’s share of Indus water (which Pakistan depends on).

What is Indus water Treaty?

The Indus Waters Treaty is a water-sharing agreement between India and Pakistan, signed on September 19, 1960, in Karachi. The World Bank brokered this treaty to resolve disputes over the waters of the Indus River system, which were partitioned between the two countries after the 1947 division of British India.

Key Provisions of the Treaty:

 * River Allocation: The treaty allocated the three eastern rivers – the Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej – to India for unrestricted use. The three western rivers – the Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab – were allocated to Pakistan, also for unrestricted use, with some allowances for India's limited use for domestic, non-consumptive purposes like power generation and agriculture.

 * Water Sharing: This division resulted in Pakistan receiving approximately 80% of the water from the Indus system, while India received about 20%.

 * Permanent Indus Commission: The treaty established the Permanent Indus Commission, a bilateral body composed of commissioners from each country. This commission is mandated to meet regularly to discuss and resolve any issues related to water sharing and the implementation of the treaty.

 * Dispute Resolution Mechanism: The IWT includes a three-tiered mechanism for resolving disputes:

   * Permanent Indus Commission: Most issues are expected to be resolved at this level.

   * Inter-governmental Level: If the Commission cannot reach an agreement, the matter can be taken up by the respective governments.

   * Neutral Expert or Court of Arbitration: If the inter-governmental consultations fail, the World Bank can appoint a Neutral Expert or set up a Court of Arbitration to adjudicate the dispute.

 * No Exit Clause: The treaty does not have a provision for unilateral termination by either country. Any amendment or termination would require a mutually agreed-upon treaty between India and Pakistan.

Significance and Challenges:

 * Cooperation Amidst Conflict: The Indus Waters Treaty is considered a remarkable achievement in international water law, as it has survived several wars and periods of intense political tension between India and Pakistan. It has provided a framework for cooperation on a vital resource despite broader geopolitical challenges.

 * Differing Interpretations and Disputes: Over the years, disagreements have arisen regarding the interpretation and implementation of the treaty, particularly concerning India's hydroelectric projects on the western rivers. Pakistan has often raised objections to the design and operation of these projects, fearing that they could reduce the flow of water into its territory.

 * Recent Developments: Following a recent terrorist attack in Kashmir, India announced the suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty, citing Pakistan's alleged support for cross-border terrorism. This move has raised concerns about the future of the treaty and its potential impact on water resources in both countries.

The Indus Waters Treaty remains a critical element in the relationship between India and Pakistan, with significant implications for agriculture, water security, and regional stability. The recent suspension highlights the vulnerability of such agreements in the face of political tensions and the urgent need for continued dialogue and cooperation.

These steps marked one of the most stringent downgrades of ties: they halted people-to-people and economic links and suspended longstanding treaties. (Pakistan reacted by banning Indian films, cancelling visas for Indians, closing its airspace to Indian airlines, and even threatening to shelve bilateral accords like the Simla pact.)

Historical Context: India–Pakistan and Kashmir

The Pahalgam attack must be seen against the backdrop of long-running India–Pakistan tensions over Kashmir. Since the 1947 partition of British India, Kashmir – a Muslim-majority Himalayan region – has been “at the heart of more than 70 years of animosity” between the two countries. The princely state’s disputed accession in 1947 sparked the first Indo-Pakistani war, and the dispute has led to wars (1947–48, 1965, 1971, and the 1999 Kargil conflict) and chronic skirmishes. The 1960 Indus Waters Treaty was a rare cooperative agreement, but most other issues remain frozen in conflict. Kashmir itself is divided: India controls the populous Valley and Jammu regions, Pakistan controls the western part (Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan), and China holds the high-altitude Shaksgam Valley.

Since 1989, an Islamist insurgency in Indian-administered Kashmir has claimed tens of thousands of lives. While much of that violence has subsided in recent years, militants have periodically attacked security forces, civilians or tourists – often blaming New Delhi’s policies such as the 2019 revocation of Kashmir’s semi-autonomy and settlement of non-local residents. Those changes have deepened Pakistani mistrust of India’s intentions. In turn, Kashmir is central to each country’s national narrative: India sees itself as fighting terrorism and integration of the region, while Pakistan portrays itself as supporting Kashmiri self-determination (though Pakistan’s own territories have Kashmiri populations under a different administration).

International and Regional Reactions

The Pahalgam massacre drew swift global condemnation and heightened regional tension. United States: U.S. President Donald Trump (as per official statements) said the U.S. “stands strong with India against terrorism” and offered full support to Prime Minister Modi. The White House said Trump was briefed on the “brutal terrorist attack” and “expressed full support to India” in pursuing justice. United Nations: UN Secretary-General António Guterres “strongly condemned” the attack and extended condolences to the victims’ families. China: Beijing, which has close ties to Pakistan, publicly urged restraint on both sides and welcomed any measures to “cool down the situation”. Other Countries: Leaders of the UK, France, UAE and others also denounced the killings as “heinous” and expressed solidarity with India.

Pakistan’s Response: Islamabad’s government denied any role. Its foreign ministry spokesman said Pakistan was “concerned at the loss of tourists’ lives” and extended condolences, but insisted New Delhi’s accusations were “devoid of rationality” without evidence. Pakistan called on India to conduct a “credible investigation” rather than a “reflexive blame game”. In a tit-for-tat diplomatic move, Pakistan summoned the Indian envoy and suspended some bilateral ties. Both countries have since shut their only land border crossing, expelled each other’s defence advisers, cut diplomatic staff and revoked mutual visas. Islamabad also froze trade and closed its airspace to Indian flights. India, in turn, temporarily suspended the Indus Waters Treaty, a rare multilateral water-sharing agreement, prompting Pakistan to warn that tampering with water flows “would be considered an act of war”.

The prospect of conflict between the nuclear-armed neighbors alarmed the region. Over the following days, India and Pakistan traded “unprovoked” small-arms fire along the Line of Control(LoC) in Kashmir, though neither side reported casualties. New Delhi accused Pakistan of abetting cross-border militancy – noting that two of the three identified gunmen were Pakistani nationals – while Islamabad warned India against escalation. China’s official urging of restraint reflected its interest in stability in South Asia as well as its close strategic partnership with Pakistan. Throughout the episode, global powers reiterated common opposition to terrorism but differed on fault: most Western governments backed India’s right to pursue militants, whereas Pakistan pointed to long-standing Indian claims of Pakistani complicity and stressed non-interference. The international community broadly favoured de-escalation, with the United Nations and countries like Russia and Australia quietly supporting diplomatic channels.

Implications for International Relations

The Pahalgam attack has strained South Asian geopolitics. In the short term, it risks destabilizing an already tense India–Pakistan standoff. A range of diplomatic and economic retaliations on both sides – from visa bans and expelling diplomats to treaty suspension and trade cuts – indicate a downward spiral. Observers note that every new crisis in Kashmir raises the specter of wider conflict between two nuclear powers. The U.S., India’s close security partner, and other Western democracies have reaffirmed support for India’s security concerns while urging calm, fearing that escalation could draw in other interests. China, meanwhile, has leveraged the situation to press its calls for restraint, mindful of its investments in Pakistan (e.g. the China–Pakistan Economic Corridor) and its own border disputes with India.

In multilateral forums, countries like the United States and members of the European Union emphasized counter-terrorism cooperation. The UN, though historically blocked on Kashmir, now strongly condemned the killings and called for addressing “root causes” of militancy. Pakistan’s traditional allies (including China and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation) are likely to echo Islamabad’s demand for an impartial probe. Globally, the incident has renewed calls for dialogue over Kashmir: analysts suggest that unless addressed through diplomacy, Kashmir crises threaten wider South Asian and transnational security.

In conclusion,

The April 2025 Pahalgam attack was a shocking reminder of the fragility of peace in Kashmir. With 26 lives lost in an assault on civilians, it shattered recent optimism about calm in the Valley. Geopolitically, the incident has intensified the India–Pakistan standoff, drawing in international actors and raising tensions over nuclear flashpoints. Yet it also produced an outpouring of global sympathy for India, along with consensus that terrorism must be fought. Going forward, India will need to navigate this crisis by rooting out the perpetrators and their networks, while carefully managing its diplomatic posture. Lessons from history – that Kashmir disputes can ignite wider conflicts – underscore the need for restraint alongside resolve. In sum, a balanced approach, supported by clear evidence and international cooperation, offers India the best path to securing justice and stability in the wake of this tragedy.

Sources: Indian government statements and major news reports from Times of India, The Hindu, Guardian, Reuters, Al Jazeera, and United Nations communications on the 2025 Pahalgam attack; historical analyses of Kashmir; contemporaneous news analysis of India-Pakistan measures.