In the aftermath of the Pahalgam genocide perpetrated by Pakistan-backed terrorist organisations, India faces a stark and sobering choice: pursue rapid military retaliation under the "Cold Start" doctrine or adopt a more sophisticated, multifaceted coercive strategy that leverages diplomatic, economic, legal, and covert instruments.

Historical precedents—from Operation Desert Storm to Ukraine and Afghanistan—expose the enduring "short-war fallacy": early battlefield successes rarely mature into lasting political victories, particularly against adversaries skilled in attrition and proxy warfare.

The Nuclear Shadow: Full Spectrum Deterrence

Pakistan’s aggressive embrace of Full Spectrum Deterrence complicates India's strategic calculus. The threat of tactical nuclear escalation renders conventional strikes a perilous gamble. A calibrated posture—combining credible conventional readiness, an assured second-strike capability, and a robust non-military toolkit—offers a more durable and sophisticated deterrent against Islamabad’s state-sponsored terrorism.

The subcontinent's violent history oscillates between swift, decisive campaigns and grinding stalemates. India's triumph in East Pakistan in 1971 was achieved in thirteen days; the Kargil conflict of 1999 dragged on for nearly two months. In an effort to forestall protraction, New Delhi devised the "Cold Start" doctrine, envisioning rapid, punitive incursions without triggering nuclear escalation. Yet Pakistan’s tactical nuclear arsenal renders any such manoeuvre fraught with existential risk.

War Drums and Strategic Illusions

The Pahalgam atrocity has reignited calls for punitive measures: visa cancellations, diplomatic expulsions, suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty. Observers of military manoeuvres discern ominous signs that both nations are drifting towards direct confrontation—a conflagration that, once begun, may prove uncontrollable. Should war become inevitable, India must abandon the seductive mirage of a short, triumphant campaign and prepare instead for a long, brutal contest of endurance.

Modern wars have disabused many of the fantasy of quick victories. Afghanistan for America, and Ukraine for Russia, serve as grim reminders: initial shock often yields to stagnation, exhaustion, and strategic deadlock. South Asia’s faultlines, once prised open, risk decades of proxy strife, fuelled by non-state actors and clandestine networks.

Strategic planners must therefore resist the narcotic temptation of dreams of decisive, rapid wins. Cold realism demands readiness for a conflict of attrition, not spectacle.

The Kautilyan Imperative: Beyond Conventional Ethics

If open war proves too costly, India must instead embrace the ageless wisdom of its own political traditions. Kautilya—the shrewd architect of empires—taught that true triumph does not belong to the strongest, but to the most vigilant, the most cunning, and the most ruthless.

As Pakistan has waged an undeclared war on india without adherence to any civilised rules, India must shed outdated pieties. Ethical warfare is a noble fiction; in matters of survival, ruthlessness is virtue.

Kautilya knew that empires rot not from without, but from within. His prescriptions for conquest were unflinching: nurture rebellion, corrupt politicians, fan grievances, spread disease, sow fear and discord.

India must learn to cultivate internal fissures within Pakistan—quietly, deniably, relentlessly. Hostile leaders must be eliminated by any means necessary. Fires must be lit, rebellions nourished, trust eroded until the edifice collapses from within.

What armies cannot achieve through force, fear and confusion can accomplish in silence.

Kautilya's methods were brutal, unsentimental—and devastatingly effective. In an unforgiving strategic environment, India would do well to abandon idealism and once again master the dark arts of survival.