Haste to strike Pakistan is not recommended.
Here, I am reflecting the general expert opinion regarding a retaliatory strike on Pakistan following the recent Pahalgam attack in Kashmir. I should clarify that this view differs from my personal stance, which favours an immediate response. However, most experts advise otherwise.
A retired Lieutenant General, writing in the media, argued that an immediate strike against a jihadist-leaning nation like Pakistan would be pointless; more jihadists would simply step forward to replace the ones eliminated. He suggests a more strategic approach: delay the strike and hit when it is least expected — even if it takes ten days or more. He further recommends that, with the effective suspension of the Tashkent and Shimla Agreements, India now has every right to push back the Line of Control (LOC) by 10 to 15 kilometres, capturing all the jihadi camps that house, feed, and train terrorists. If India advances within its own territory in Kashmir, even the typically pro-Pakistan Western media would find it difficult to criticize India. Simultaneously, India could enforce a blockade of Karachi port, or if Pakistan escalates further, bomb Karachi’s oil installations — a tactic successfully used in the 1971 war.
Meanwhile, a retired Brigadier holds a different view: he believes that the fight should be taken directly into Pakistan itself. According to him, this is the perfect time to call Pakistan’s nuclear bluff. India, he says, should be prepared with retaliatory nuclear strikes that would devastate Pakistani cities if necessary. Such a threat could force Pakistan into seeking peace and expose the emptiness of its nuclear posturing.
Most military experts agree that haste would be detrimental to India’s strategic goals. Instead, Pakistan must be kept on edge through massive Indian military preparations. A financially bankrupt Pakistan cannot easily replenish its supplies if Karachi port is blocked, and very limited supplies can trickle in through the Khunjerab Pass at 14,000 feet — linking Pakistan to the sparsely populated Kashgar via the CPEC road.
The idea is to keep Pakistan under pressure, and when their supplies dwindle, they might repeat the mistake of attacking Indian airfields, as they did in 1971. In response, India could unleash precision strikes using BrahMos missiles, glide bombs, and Prahaar missiles. India would not be the aggressor in this scenario — Pakistan would have initiated hostilities, and India would be simply responding with justified force.
What do you think, guys?