The terrorist attack in Indian-administered Kashmir last week that killed 26 tourists has laid bare the persistence of militant threats in the region, exposing serious lapses in Indian security and intelligence.
Amid growing calls in India for military action against Pakistan, which New Delhi accuses of backing the militants involved, the government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi is once again posturing toward cross-border retribution. Yet more than a week after the attack in Pahalgam, India has not made a major military move. It suspended its participation in the Indus Waters Treaty, and both countries have expelled each other’s diplomats and military attaches.
India’s main diplomatic challenge is to secure legitimacy for its actions under international law. It must prove that Pakistan is directly responsible for sponsoring the attack and similar acts of terrorism, as it has in the past. But India has not publicly provided any evidence, while Pakistan has called for an independent investigation. Indian media initially accused a group called the Resistance Front (TRF), which Indian officials say is a proxy of the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba, but TRF later denied responsibility.
In the days since the attack, India has launched an aggressive campaign aimed at building a strong case and gaining international legitimacy for a possible military strike. According to multiple sources within India’s foreign and security establishment, the government is preparing a dossier of evidence linking militants whom it accuses of conducting the Pahalgam attack to Pakistan’s intelligence services.
India has previously adopted a similar strategy, including after the 2019 suicide bombing in Pulwama, Indian-administered Kashmir, that killed 40 Indian security forces. In the wake of that attack, it shared a dossier among global interlocutors. India retaliated with a cross-border airstrike in Pakistan, which was followed by a military standoff.
In that case, New Delhi presented evidence to the United Nations detailing Pakistan’s support for terrorist groups such as Jaish-e-Mohammed, which claimed responsibility for the Pulwama attack. It focused on garnering support from global powers and countered Pakistan’s attempts to condemn India’s cross-border strike.
As India works to shore up support this time around, it faces some roadblocks. Pakistan, which is currently a nonpermanent member of the United Nations Security Council, this week managed to successfully block India’s attempts to name TRF in the Security Council’s statement condemning the Pahalgam attack, aided by China. Though the final statement demanded accountability and condemned the “reprehensible act of terrorism,” it did not name the perpetrators or explicitly refer to the Indian government’s jurisdiction—a diplomatic win for Pakistan.
But India is also quietly lobbying both permanent and nonpermanent members of the Security Council, seeking backing—or at least neutrality—if it invokes Article 51 of the U.N. Charter, which permits self-defense in the face of armed attacks.
Ajai Sahni, the executive director of the Institute for Conflict Management in New Delhi, said that though India will present forensic and testimonial proof linking Pakistan to the Pahalgam attack, “no amount of evidence is going to change the fact that China is not going to support any action … which would adversely affect Pakistan,” due to geopolitical interests and its U.N. veto power.
Behind closed doors, Indian External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar has spoken with his counterparts in Algeria, Greece, Guyana, Panama, Sierra Leone, Slovenia, and Somalia—including several currently serving on the Security Council. These calls were preceded by a significant diplomatic outreach in which India briefed dozens of foreign diplomats in New Delhi about Pakistan’s alleged complicity in the recent attack.
Jaishankar said he also received a call from U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres. “Appreciate his unequivocal condemnation of the terrorist attack in Pahalgam. Agreed on the importance of accountability. India is resolved that the perpetrators, planners and backers of this attack are brought to justice,” Jaishankar wrote in a post on X.
India has also stepped up pressure on Pakistan at the United Nations. New Delhi’s deputy permanent representative, Yojna Patel, used a recent U.N. forum to accuse Islamabad of “fueling global terrorism,” citing a recent Sky News interview in which Pakistan’s defense minister appeared to acknowledge the country’s historic support for militant groups.
“The whole world has heard the Pakistani Defense Minister Khawaja Asif admitting and confessing Pakistan’s history of supporting, training and funding terrorist organizations in a recent television interview,” Patel said at the U.N. forum.
Indian media has also cited a controversial speech in which Pakistan Army Chief Asim Munir described Kashmir as his country’s “jugular vein” days before the killings in Pahalgam, linking the statement to the attack.
Indian officials maintain that New Delhi abides by international law, but the challenge lies in securing legitimacy for a military strike, which requires demonstrating enough evidence and then enough support to justify such an action.
Citing an official policy document, an Indian security official told Foreign Policy: “India overwhelmingly tends to issue diplomatic condemnation of military intervention by major powers that are not authorized by the U.N.,” adding that any strike inside Pakistani territory would have to be justified as an act of self-defense under international law.
Meanwhile, Pakistan is preparing to escalate the dispute through international legal channels over what it sees as India’s unilateral suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty—a decades-old water-sharing agreement brokered by the World Bank that has survived three wars between the countries.
If India went ahead with a strike against Pakistan, it would not be without precedent. In 2016, Indian troops crossed the Line of Control, the countries’ disputed frontier in Kashmir, in retaliation for an attack on an Indian Army brigade in Uri; they said they inflicted heavy casualties on militant camps. And after the Pulwama attack in 2019, Indian fighter jets carried out an airstrike in Pakistan’s Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, triggering a brief aerial dogfight.
In both cases, the strikes were politically popular for Modi’s government despite ambiguity about their military effectiveness.
In the wake of the Pahalgam attack, Sahni called instead for a “protracted conflict” strategy spanning cyber, economic, diplomatic, and covert measures to deter Pakistan. “You cannot allow four or six terrorists … to so completely dominate your policy cycle,” he said, warning against retaliation driven by “domestic and political pressure … whipped up for partisan political ends.”
India’s success in securing international legitimacy might hinge on how many U.N. members it can persuade that the Pahalgam attack qualifies as an act of cross-border aggression. Jaishankar’s conversations with counterparts in Guyana and Greece—both of whom expressed support for India’s right to pursue justice—suggest that he is gaining traction. However, with China allied with Pakistan and Pakistan itself serving on the Security Council through 2026, the council’s endorsement is unlikely.
In the short term, eyes will be on the stance adopted by key global players, including the United States, which has not appointed ambassadors to either India or Pakistan since President Donald Trump took office in January. Unlike in 2019, the United States no longer has troops in Afghanistan, whose safety could be threatened by instability in the region.
On Wednesday, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio spoke with officials in India and Pakistan. In a call with Jaishankar, he expressed “sorrow for the lives lost in the horrific terrorist attack in Pahalgam” and reaffirmed Washington’s commitment to counterterrorism cooperation with New Delhi. According to a State Department spokesperson, Rubio also encouraged India to engage with Pakistan to “de-escalate tensions.”
In a separate call with Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, Rubio stressed the need to “condemn the terror attack on April 22 in Pahalgam” and pushed for Islamabad’s cooperation in the investigation. “Both leaders reaffirmed their continued commitment to holding terrorists accountable,” according to the State Department readout.
On Thursday, U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance brought some clarity on Washington’s position, signaling that it won’t oppose an Indian response as long as it does not lead to a “broader regional conflict,” he said in an interview with Fox News.
After the 2008 Mumbai attacks, which were carried out by Lashkar-e-Taiba and killed 166 people, the FBI aided Indian authorities with intelligence cooperation. New Delhi is likely to seek similar help this time.
With both nuclear-armed neighbors now led by governments under intense domestic pressure, the possibility of rapid escalation is very high—even as international calls to step back from the ledge grow. For now, the message from New Delhi is clear: The Pahalgam attack will not go unanswered.
The post India Makes Diplomatic Push for Military Action Against Pakistan appeared first on Foreign Policy.
