Pakistani terrorism with Chinese backstopping

Manoj Kumar Lall - Indian Police Service (Retd.)

Operation Sindoor, seen against the backdrop of these developments, does not signify a declaration of war. Rather, it marks a paradigm shift in India’s counter-terrorism doctrine: one that incorporates measured military responses aimed at disrupting, dismantling and destroying the infrastructure, logistics and support systems from which terrorism emanates, while also pre-empting any military escalations that may be thrust upon India by the Pakistani Army.

Pakistan’s military strategy

Islamist terrorism has become an integral part of Pakistan’s military strategy, deftly supported by its foreign policy, which evolved into its Kashmir policy. The Pakistani Army controls all aspects of terrorist organizations—from radicalization to recruitment, training, funding, sheltering, arming and directing their execution of terror acts—with the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) functioning as the nerve centre of this entire apparatus. The boundary between the Pakistan Army, the ISI, and the terrorist outfits under their patronage has completely blurred, especially  since the adoption of the Quranic concept of war under General Zia-ul-Haq.

Currently, the Pakistan Army is headed by General Asim Munir, a hafiz and a radicalized general, whose leadership has hardened Pakistan’s fundamentalist stance and strategy against India, particularly in relation to Kashmir.

Pakistan claims that Kashmir—then under Dogra rule at the time of Partition—naturally belongs to it, citing its Muslim-majority population and geographic contiguity with Pakistan’s eastern and northeastern borders. It first mounted the Kabaili raid in 1947–48, led and supported by Pakistani regular forces. Although repelled by India, Pakistan managed to occupy a portion of the state—now referred to as Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) by India and Azad Kashmir by Pakistan. This was followed by the unprovoked 1965 War and the 1971 War, which resulted in the creation of Bangladesh. After failing to achieve strategic gains through conventional war, Pakistan pursued nuclear weapons to deter India’s military superiority while simultaneously expanding its use of terrorist proxies—primarily the Hizb-ul-Mujahideen (HM), the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and the Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), including surrogates created to maintain plausible deniability.

Islamist terrorism became Pakistan’s principal tool to implement its long-standing doctrine of “bleeding India by a thousand cuts” through a low-intensity proxy war. In this framework, the nuclear arsenal serves as a deterrent to prevent India from retaliating militarily against Pakistani-sponsored terrorism.

Pakistani-sponsored terrorism against India

Pakistan began orchestrating Islamist terrorism in the Kashmir Valley in 1989-1990, which gradually spread across the Indian hinterland. Iconic government establishments such as the Red Fort and the Indian Parliament, vital defence assets like the Pathankot Indian Air Force Base, and economic hubs like Bengaluru and Mumbai became targets. India initially responded by strengthening internal security, modernizing the police forces and deploying paramilitary and military units in Jammu and Kashmir to combat terrorists within the national borders. Despite evidence—including captured terrorists and material proof—demonstrating cross-border complicity, Pakistan remained undeterred.

Over the past three and a half decades, India has struggled to curb terrorism or neutralize its masterminds in Pakistan. Counterterrorism cannot succeed unless its cross-border backers, logistical networks and command structures are comprehensively disrupted and dismantled. Recognizing that law enforcement alone was insufficient—given the militarized nature of Pakistan-backed terrorism—India began recalibrating its counterterrorism strategy after the Uri attack in 2016, in which 19 Indian Army soldiers were killed by JeM terrorists. In response, India launched surgical strikes across the Line of Control (LoC) targeting terror launchpads inside PoK.

However, this did not deter Pakistan. In 2019, it orchestrated another major terror attack, this time targeting a CRPF convoy in Pulwama, killing 40 personnel via a JeM suicide bomber. In response, India conducted an airstrike deep inside Pakistani territory against JeM’s Balakot training camp in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. This led to a diplomatic escalation but Pakistan’s military response was limited to a brief aerial dogfight.

The latest escalation occurred on April 22, 2025, when LeT terrorists killed 25 tourists and a local pony operator in the Baisaran Valley of Pahalgam. The Resistance Front (TRF) initially claimed responsibility but later denied it. It is now reliably established that TRF is an LeT front. Local logistical support is believed to have come from a network involving JeM, LeT and HM operatives.

Indian security forces at the Baisaran Meadow, the site of the attack. | ANI.

Pakistani escalation and Operation Sindoor

With both the 2016 surgical strikes and the 2019 Balakot airstrike failing to produce lasting deterrence, India launched Operation Sindoor on May 7, 2025, marking a significant escalation in its counterterror response. Pakistan responded with a fierce military buildup, deploying frontline fighters the same night. This was followed by intensified drone, missile, and rocket attacks along India’s western border, ranging from Kupwara in Jammu and Kashmir to Bhuj in Gujarat, including heavy shelling along the LoC.

From May 8 to May 10, the situation resembled a near-war. The crisis de-escalated only after the Director Generals of Military Operations (DGMOs) of both nations held a telephone call and agreed to a ceasefire. During this period, Pakistan reportedly convened a meeting of its National Command Authority (NCA), its apex body that determines the use of strategic nuclear weapons.

External interests in the region

The region comprising Pakistan, PoK and Jammu and Kashmir has long been a geopolitical hotspot. Global powers have consistently sought to leverage Pakistan for strategic use. The United States has deep interests in Pakistan, viewing it as a strategic pivot vis-à-vis Iran, the Middle East, Russia and China. Similarly, Russia has recently grown closer to Pakistan while China has maintained a deep and long-standing relationship, helping arm Pakistan with nuclear weapons, modernize its military, and extend significant strategic and economic investments.

In return, Pakistan ceded the Shaksgam Valley to China and granted access to Gilgit-Baltistan for the ambitious China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). Launched in 2015, the CPEC is the largest bilateral infrastructure and investment initiative in Pakistan’s history and a flagship of China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). It aims to secure China’s economic and strategic dominance over South Asia and the Middle East via land and sea routes.

After the Balakot strike, China began systematically upgrading Pakistan’s air force and air defence systems. This emboldened Pakistan to escalate military hostilities against India during the current conflict, following the April 2025 Pahalgam attack. India’s Operation Sindoor must be understood within this larger geopolitical context, where Pakistan acts increasingly as a Chinese proxy. China is reportedly using the conflict to test its homegrown supersonic fighters (supplied to Pakistan) against Indian Rafales and other jets, and to gauge the efficacy of its PL-15 missiles against Indian air defences. More significantly, China may be assessing India’s nuclear threshold as part of its broader strategic planning across both the western and eastern theatres.

This suggests that the April 22 terrorist attack was not only deliberate but calculated to provoke India into a military response—thus giving Pakistan and, by extension—China, an excuse to escalate hostilities. Notably, none of the major world powers—the US, Russia or China—stood firmly by India in its struggle against Pakistan-sponsored terrorism, offering only formal condemnations of the attack.

Pakistan’s terrorist-military fusion

The glaring terrorist acts of the Pakistan-based JeM and LeT—with training camps in PoK as well as Bahawalpur and Muridke in Pakistan’s Punjab province—operate under direct Pakistani patronage and active support. The close relationship between these terrorist groups and the Pakistani establishment is evident from the fact that several terrorists killed in the Indian airstrike on May 7—many of them internationally designated as terrorists—were accorded state funerals, attended by senior Pakistani Army officers in full ceremonial dress, who laid wreaths and carried the coffins.

India’s measured response

In the present case, India’s offensive targeted the terrorist infrastructure on Pakistani soil, which had been responsible for a spate of glaring attacks on Indian territory. In response, Pakistan chose to escalate the conflict militarily, raising the situation to the level of a “war.” India, however, maintained that its actions were non-escalatory, directed solely at known and internationally proscribed terrorist organizations.

Despite Pakistan’s military escalation, India has taken a considered and calibrated stance: to punish all acts of terror on its soil, including taking action against those who abet, support, and back terrorists—their handlers, funders, and logistical enablers. This position is consistent with the United States’ stance against terrorism in the wake of 9/11.

Notably, China aligned with Pakistan is using it as a tool to check India’s rise in the region. By enabling Pakistan to continue its long-standing doctrine of “bleeding India by a thousand cuts”, China is indirectly pushing India into a strategic corner. It has done so by equipping Pakistan with modern weapons, logistics and military capabilities, thereby emboldening Pakistani aggression at a time when India seems increasingly isolated in a changing geopolitical landscape.

In this context, India must recalibrate its counterterrorism framework to account for the possibility of Pakistani military offensives. Safeguarding national security demands a strategic approach that addresses not just terrorist operatives but also the politico-military infrastructure that supports them.

Operation Sindoor, seen against the backdrop of these developments, does not signify a declaration of war. Rather, it marks a paradigm shift in India’s counter-terrorism doctrine: one that incorporates measured military responses aimed at disrupting, dismantling and destroying the infrastructure, logistics and support systems from which terrorism emanates, while also pre-empting any military escalations that may be thrust upon India by the Pakistani Army.

(Exclusive to NatStrat)