Why in News?

India and Pakistan have shared a history of conflict since partition, with Pakistan adopting a strategy of proxy warfare to challenge India’s territorial integrity, particularly in Jammu and Kashmir.

The evolution of Pakistan’s 'Thousand Cuts' doctrine and India’s calibrated responses have shaped a volatile and high-stakes security environment in South Asia.

However, a doctrinal shift in India's security strategy (after 2016) has established a new normal, one where it directly targets terrorist infrastructure within Pakistan in response to attacks.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• Background - Genesis of the ‘Thousand Cuts’ Doctrine
• Implementation of the Doctrine
• Recent Flashpoint - Pahalgam Massacre (2025)
• India’s Strategic Posture Before 2016
• Operation Sindoor (2025), Pakistan’s Response and Escalation Risks
• Strategic Implications and the ‘New Normal’
• Key Challenges and Outlook
• Conclusion

Background - Genesis of the ‘Thousand Cuts’ Doctrine:

• Bhutto’s 1965 UN speech and legacy:
  • Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s declaration at the UN Security Council in 1965: "Will wage war for 1,000 years".
  • This sentiment laid the ideological foundation for Pakistan’s long-term hostile posture toward India.
• Zia-ul-Haq and the strategic shift:
  • General Zia-ul-Haq institutionalized Bhutto’s rhetoric into the ‘Bleed India Through a Thousand Cuts’ doctrine.
  • Focus shifted to sub-conventional and proxy warfare, especially through militancy and infiltration.

Implementation of the Doctrine:

• Lessons from Afghanistan:
  • Post-Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan (1989) inspired Pakistan.
  • US and Saudi-backed mujahideen became a template for low-cost insurgency warfare.
• Escalation in Kashmir and beyond:
  • 1989: Surge in Kashmir militancy.
  • Expansion to other Indian cities: 2001 Parliament attack, 2008 Mumbai attacks.
• Institutional support: Rise of terror groups like Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) and Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), with alleged support from Pakistan’s security establishment.

Recent Flashpoint - Pahalgam Massacre (2025):

• April 22, 2025: 26 civilians brutally gunned down by terrorists in Pahalgam (J&K).
• This was the latest sign that the ‘Thousand Cuts’ doctrine remains alive in Rawalpindi’s strategic thinking.
• The attack came days after Pakistan’s military chief Gen. Asim Munir said “Kashmir is our jugular vein”.
• The Resistance Front (a front of LeT), initially claimed responsibility for the attack, but later denied any role.

India’s Strategic Posture Before 2016:

• Traditional Indian response:
  • Diplomatic isolation of Pakistan.
  • Economic pressure (e.g., Financial Action Task Force (FATF) grey-listing).
  • Reluctance for military retaliation due to:
    • Nuclear deterrence
    • International pressure
• Limited impact: Pakistan continued proxy war with low cost and high strategic gain.

Doctrinal Shift - Post-Uri and Beyond:

• Surgical strikes (2016):
  • Following the JeM attack at the Indian Army Brigade headquarters in Uri (J&K), which killed 19 soldiers, India conducted a cross-border operation targeting terror launchpads and safe houses in PoK.
  • This was India’s first direct cross-border operation in PoK targeting terror infrastructure across the Line of Control in response to attacks.
• Balakot airstrike (2019):
  • Retaliation for the deadly suicide bombing in Pulwama.
  • Strikes extended into Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan (not limited to PoK).
• Impact:
  • This strategic shift did not immediately establish a strong deterrent.
  • For example, the Uri response did not prevent the deadly suicide bombing in Pulwama.
  • Similarly, the Balakot airstrike that followed Pulwama did not deter the attack on civilians in Pahalgam.

Operation Sindoor (2025), Pakistan’s Response and Escalation Risks:

• Operation Sindoor (2025): In a response to the Pahalgam massacre, India struck 9 locations, including Pakistan’s heartland Bahawalpur and Muridke in Punjab, marking its largest aerial operation on Pakistani soil since 1971.
• Escalation post-Balakot:
  • Pakistan responded with aerial dogfight.
  • An Indian pilot was captured and later returned.
• Operation Sindoor fallout:
  • Pakistan chose to escalate by targeting military stations at Jammu, Pathankot and Udhampur with drones and missiles, which were “swiftly neutralised”.
  • India launched its counterattacks in the same domain and same intensity as Pakistan.
  • In essence, the killing of 26 Indians in Pahalgam by terrorists has brought India and Pakistan dangerously close to the brink of an all-out war.

Strategic Implications and the ‘New Normal’:

• India’s new posture:
  • Emphasis on military retaliation alongside diplomatic and economic tools.
  • Sends a clear signal that sub-conventional war under nuclear cover is no longer tolerable.
• Changing rules of engagement:
  • India’s doctrine now includes cross-border operations.
  • Raised costs for Pakistan’s continued proxy war.

Key Challenges and Outlook:

• Risks of escalation:
  • Every terror attack may now demand a military response from India, raising stakes.
  • Future governments may face domestic pressure to retaliate forcefully.
• Pakistan’s strategic dilemma:
  • Domestic instability:
    • Islamist militancy,
    • Baloch insurgency,
    • Political crisis,
    • Economic dependence on the IMF.
  • Raises doubts about Pakistan's capacity to sustain long-term hostility.

Conclusion:

India’s post-2016 doctrinal shift signals its resolve to respond militarily to terrorism emanating from Pakistani soil, redefining the terms of engagement between the two nuclear-armed neighbors.

While this strategic assertiveness aims to deter proxy war, it also increases the risks of escalation, demanding careful long-term calibration and diplomatic balancing.