Pakistan’s Strategic Response to India’s Provocations

Restraint in the Face of Aggression: Pakistan’s Strategic Response to India’s Provocations


On April 22, the India–Pakistan standoff following the Pahalgam attack unfolded like a high-stakes game of chess. Armed assailants ambushed a group of tourists in Baisaran, Pahalgam (Indian-occupied Kashmir), resulting in 26 fatalities; India promptly blamed Pakistan and vowed a strong response. Opposition figures in New Delhi were quick to note the political dimension: Congress leaders reminded voters that past incidents (Godhra 2002 and Pulwama 2019) had been used to stoke nationalist fervour. One prominent minister charged that “Pulwama helped Modi in his Lok Sabha elections, Godhra helped him and now he is using the Pahalgam attack for Bihar elections”.

Abbas Ali


Indeed, political analysts pointed out that Prime Minister Modi’s popularity had been slipping. A Business Standard analysis found his approval rating down from 78% in 2020 to 59% by mid-2024,  suggesting New Delhi was eager to channel public sentiment into rallying support. In the days after the attack, the BJP-led government announced bold measures at home (such as a long-sought caste census) at a time when the nation was still mourning Pahalgam. Critics in India explicitly warned that these moves were designed “to make use of the surge in nationalism” triggered by the attack.

 

Pakistan’s response to the Pahalgam attack was calm, cooperative, and rooted in diplomacy. Islamabad immediately rejected the allegations, with Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif stating at a military passing-out parade that Pakistan was “open to participating in any neutral, transparent and credible investigation”. Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi reaffirmed this position, expressing Pakistan’s willingness to cooperate if “neutral people of any third country carry out a probe”. Demonstrating a commitment to impartiality, Pakistan even proposed involving global powers like China or Russia in a joint fact-finding mission.


Officials repeatedly highlighted Pakistan’s consistent anti-terror stance; Sharif underscored that the country “has always condemned terrorism in all its forms” and criticized India’s continued “pattern of baseless allegations”. These appeals resonated internationally. Pakistan formally requested a UN Security Council meeting, where its envoy reiterated that Islamabad “has rejected all allegations of involvement in the Pahalgam terror attack” and condemned India’s retaliatory move to suspend the Indus Waters Treaty as “a violation of international law”. India, however, rejected any joint or international inquiry, with its Foreign Secretary dismissing Pakistan’s offer as mere “stonewalling tactics” and alleging misuse of past intelligence sharing.

 

Despite Islamabad’s repeated diplomatic overtures and calls for a neutral investigation, India escalated tensions with a provocative and disproportionate military response. On May 7, New Delhi launched “Operation Sindoor,” a coordinated aerial assault targeting nine locations across Pakistan and AJK. In a swift and resolute reaction, Pakistan’s air defenses intercepted and shot down multiple Indian fighter jets which include Rafeal  and unmanned drones, demonstrating the tactical readiness and precision of its armed forces.


The National Security Committee of Pakistan condemned the Indian strikes as “blatant violations of Pakistan’s sovereignty and territorial integrity,” with credible reports indicating deliberate targeting of civilian areas. Official sources confirmed that the aggression claimed at least 26 Pakistani lives and constituted “a violation of all norms of human behaviour and the provisions of international law.


In parliament, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif labeled the strikes as “cowardly,” reaffirming that Pakistan’s restraint should not be mistaken for weakness. Defence Minister Khawaja Asif issued a stern warning, declaring that Pakistan “would not take long to settle the score”. The response of Pakistan’s Armed Forces during this episode was marked by discipline, professionalism, and strategic clarity. Rather than opting for blind escalation, Pakistan maintained a defensive posture its forces remained on high alert, yet measured. Sharif emphasized that Pakistan’s fighter pilots had been ready to “knock enemy planes off into the sea” if provoked further.


International observers acknowledged the Pakistani military’s calibrated response as a textbook example of modern deterrence firm, proportionate, and within the bounds of international law. Meanwhile, Pakistan’s delegation at the United Nations underscored India’s flagrant breach of bilateral and multilateral commitments, including the unilateral suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty an action deemed a direct violation of international legal norms. Through it all, the valor, professionalism, and constitutional loyalty of Pakistan’s Armed Forces stood as a bulwark against chaos, earning both national admiration and international respect.


In contrast to India's aggressive approach, Pakistan has shown restraint and a commitment to diplomacy. Islamabad has consistently called for direct talks, with Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif emphasizing that peace is preferred but not a sign of weakness. He praised the Pakistan Armed Forces as "capable" and "a symbol of valour," ready to defend the nation. Despite rising tensions, Pakistan refrained from unilateral strikes, issuing only a warning on Indus waters.


Pakistan has sought accountability through neutral investigations and international mediation, emphasizing its commitment to law over aggression. Observers noted Pakistan’s professionalism, with its military defending the border without escalating the conflict. In sum, Pakistan has responded with "restraint, dignity, and legality," while its armed forces stand ready to protect the nation.

 

 

The writer is a student of international relations at Abdul Wali Khan University Mardan and currently serving as an intern at the Kashmir Institute of International Relations(KIIR).

Facebook Twitter

Related Detail