Has Pakistan set a trap for Indian commandos?
In the wake of the horrific Pahalgam massacre, where Hindu tourists were cold-bloodedly targeted after their religion was ascertained – a savage act that reeked of premeditation and sectarian hate – it is time to ask hard questions. Not just of those who carried out the carnage, but of those who may have lit the ideological fuse.
Let’s start with Pakistan’s freshly minted Army Chief, whose recent two-nation tirade was less a speech and more a geopolitical tantrum. His remarks weren’t merely rhetorical flexing – they were dog whistles, designed to embolden Pakistan’s long-standing proxy assets in Kashmir. The Pahalgam attack followed on the heels of this verbal vomit, almost like a choreographed sequence. The symbolism was unmistakable. The message, chillingly clear.
But here’s the question: Was the attack merely an act of terror, or part of a deeper game?
India’s military doctrine has evolved since the days of quiet diplomacy and passive deterrence. The Uri surgical strikes and the Balakot air raids marked a new phase – swift, precise, punitive action. But with every punch India throws, Pakistan adjusts its stance, digging new traps and laying fresh ambushes. This time, Islamabad may be baiting Delhi – tempting India into another cross-border action, hoping to escalate a controlled conflict into a wider skirmish.
Why now?
The Pakistani establishment is under international pressure, its economy a crumbling ruin, its civilian government a glorified fig leaf. A low-intensity war, or even the mere whiff of one, could rally domestic sentiment, bury internal chaos under a patriotic haze, and shift global focus away from its terrorist nurseries. For Rawalpindi’s generals, this isn’t just strategic posturing – it is survival.
And so, they taunt. They provoke. They unleash monsters across the border. India, however, must not play the game by Pakistan’s script.
Silence would be surrender
There is no doubt – India must respond. It cannot allow targeted killings of its citizens, especially unarmed civilians, to go unanswered. Silence would be surrender. But this response must be clinically calculated, not emotionally charged.
This is not 2016. The enemy has changed its camouflage. There are signs that terrorist camps near the LoC have been turned into decoys. Communication intercepts suggest false flag chatter. Forward positions have been hardened, with anti-air and surveillance assets redeployed. In short, Pakistan may have prepped a welcome party, expecting Indian boots to cross over.
Strike should be disruptive
So, how does one retaliate without stepping into the trap?
First, with patience. Let the chest-thumpers bay for blood on prime time – real operators move in the shadows. The intel grid must be lit up, Humint (human intelligence) and Techint (technical intelligence) cross-verified, and potential targets monitored for weeks if necessary.
Second, with precision. The next strike – if and when it comes, shouldn’t just be punitive. It must be disruptive. Think command-and-control nodes, not just terrorist safe houses. Hit what hurts, not just what bleeds.
Third, with message discipline. The information war is as crucial as the kinetic one. Let Pakistan be seen as the aggressor and India as the avenger. This time, Delhi must control the narrative, both at home and abroad.
Finally, there’s the domestic front. There must be no space for communal polarisation. The terrorists in Pahalgam picked targets based on faith – India must respond by rising above that trap, not sinking into it. Justice for the victims must be delivered not just with force, but with the strength of unity.
Pakistan has laid the bait. But the question is: Who’s really in control of the chessboard? India must strike, yes – but with the mind of a grandmaster, not the heart of a hothead.
