The BJP-RSS mindset, driven by the Akhand Bharat vision, is reshaping India’s regional approach. The pattern before and after the Pahalgam false flag operation reveals a dangerous strategy aimed at coercing Pakistan without triggering full-scale war. For years, India has worked to create space for limited conflict below the nuclear threshold. From the Cold Start doctrine to increasingly sophisticated hybrid warfare, the goal remains the same: securing tactical wins while avoiding uncontrollable escalation. The approach relies on gradually raising Pakistan’s pain threshold and eroding strategic space. Each crisis becomes another calculated step:

• Post-Pulwama: Airstrikes across border and LoC normalisation on Indian terms.
• Abrogation of Article 370: Unilateral change in Kashmir’s status.
• Ceasefire violations and water weaponization: Testing coercive tools.
• Striking civilian infrastructure (Neelum–Jhelum): Expanding into kinetic hybrid war.

Pahalgam false flag fits this pattern perfectly:

Suspicious timing and familiar playbook.

• Latching onto post-9/11 global counterterrorism narratives to brand Kashmir’s freedom struggle as terrorism — aligning with Western geopolitical objectives.
• Suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty: removing oversight, facilitating unchecked dam construction.
• Strikes against civilian and water infrastructure: a dangerous escalation.

India’s Objectives:

• Ultimately, occupy AJ&K and GB and make Pakistan its tugboat. Become the Net Security Provider in Indian Ocean Region.
• Shift conflict into Pakistan’s territory and disputed areas.
• Test Pakistan’s response and gradually normalise limited military strikes.
• Build global acceptability for coercion by painting Pakistan as a terrorism sponsor.
• Use favourable geopolitical and geo-economic interests with West to brush Indian terrorism under the carpet.

India’s calculation: Pakistan will avoid escalation and accept the new normal, while India advances coercion without penalty. Play on its economic heft and Pakistan’s vulnerability.

What should Pakistan do?

• Measured but firm response is essential. Restraint must not mean submission.
• Deny escalation dominance.
• Retaliate in QPQ+ mode — proportionate, but a notch up.

Options:

• Limited strikes on Indian military and strategic targets, especially in disputed areas, ideally targeting RSS-linked infrastructure.
• Prevent crisis closure on Indian terms.
• Pahalgam and Neelum–Jhelum cannot end passively.
• Without response, the next crisis will be worse.
• Integrate military action with political narrative.

Post-retaliation, communicate clearly:

• Response is measured and justified — to Indian false flag and terrorism (e.g. Jaffar Express attack).
• Expose Indian aggression — targeting dams, sponsoring terrorism, and violating treaties.
• Maintain escalation control, without passivity.
• Avoid reckless escalation — but ensure visible deterrence.
• Signal clearly — Pakistan will not blink when vital interests are challenged.

Pahalgam is not isolated. It reflects India’s calculated strategy to bite into Pakistan’s strategic space and shift rules of engagement. Pakistan’s restraint so far has been strategic. But restraint must not slip into appeasement. Calibrated, visible, and proportionate responses are now essential — to deter future false flags, preserve deterrence credibility, and prevent India from setting coercive new norms. Failure to act decisively will only embolden India, making the next crisis even harder to manage — and the risks far greater.