The terrorist attack on 22 April 2025 in the Baisaran Valley near Pahalgam, in Indian-administered Kashmir, stands out as one of the most horrific assaults on civilians in recent Indian history. Twenty-six people lost their lives, tourists from across India and some foreign nationals. The Resistance Front (TRF), a group linked to the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba, claimed responsibility. Their target was clear: Hindu pilgrims visiting a region that has long struggled with conflict and division.

This attack is just the latest chapter in a story that goes back decades. Kashmir has been a point of tension between India and Pakistan since partition in 1947. A major turning point in this longstanding conflict came in August 2019, when the Indian government made the landmark decision to revoke Article 370 of its Constitution.

Article 370 was a constitutional provision that granted special autonomy to the region of Jammu and Kashmir. Under this article, the state had its constitution and significant independence in decision making, particularly in areas such as land ownership, residency rights, and local governance. Indian laws passed by Parliament did not automatically apply to the region unless approved by its legislative assembly. The original intent of Article 370 was to respect the unique circumstances under which Jammu and Kashmir acceded to India in 1947.

However, critics of the provision argued that it hindered development, integration, and national unity. On the other hand, supporters viewed it as essential for preserving the region’s distinct identity and autonomy. The abrogation of Article 370 effectively removed this autonomy and fully integrated Jammu and Kashmir into the Indian Union, while also reorganizing the state into two union territories, Jammu & Kashmir, and Ladakh.

Since then, the region has experienced significant changes. The central government began issuing domicile certificates to people from outside the region, which many locals and observers interpreted as an attempt at demographic engineering. Groups like TRF have cited this as one of the reasons for their armed resistance, claiming to fight against what they see as forced integration and cultural erosion. The Pahalgam attack, according to eyewitnesses, saw victims deliberately targeted based on their religious identity, pointing to an intention to deepen existing divides.

India reacted quickly and forcefully. Security forces cracked down, diplomats were sent packing, travel bans were issued, and the Indus Waters Treaty was suspended, a significant step considering how carefully it's been handled over the years. Pakistan responded in kind, closing airspace, halting visas, and withdrawing its diplomats. These actions echo previous standoffs like those after the 2001 Parliament attack or the 2019 Pulwama bombing. But the Pahalgam incident, due to its scale and symbolic nature, feels more dangerous and unpredictable.

This breakdown in relations affects more than just the two countries involved. Regional efforts like the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), which has been stagnant for years, take another hit. For smaller nations like Sri Lanka, this means operating in a much more delicate environment.

Sri Lanka has traditionally walked a diplomatic tightrope, staying friendly with both India and Pakistan, while also building links with China, the US, and others. After the Pahalgam attack, the Sri Lankan President issued a swift condemnation and expressed support for India through the social media platform ‘X’. While expected, this could upset Pakistan, which has historically supported Sri Lanka, especially in defense training. In this tense atmosphere, even simple gestures can shift perceptions.

We may also see a push from India for more regional cooperation on intelligence and counterterrorism. Sri Lanka, with its own painful history of insurgency, may see value in such efforts. But deeper security ties with India might cause concern at home, where there's always sensitivity about sovereignty and foreign influence. Any new agreements, whether military drills, maritime surveillance, or cybersecurity, would need careful handling to avoid public backlash.

On the economic front, Sri Lanka is closely tied to India. India is our biggest trading partner, and a major source of tourists and investment. If India sees prolonged unrest, especially in the north, Sri Lanka could feel the knock-on effects of fewer tourists, slower trade, and more expensive shipping as maritime security tightens.

With SAARC losing relevance, Sri Lanka might focus more on alternatives like BIMSTEC and the Indian Ocean Rim Association (IORA), which don’t include Pakistan. These platforms allow deeper ties with India and Southeast Asia, though their scope is narrower. The absence of Pakistan limits any real South Asian unity.

Another layer to consider is China. Sri Lanka’s growing economic ties with Beijing, especially through projects like the Hambantota Port and Colombo Port City, make it a key player in the India-China rivalry in the region. After the Pahalgam attack, India will be watching closely to see how Sri Lanka positions itself. Any hesitation in supporting India could be viewed as siding with Pakistan and China. But going too far in the other direction could hurt our strategic balance. That balance is not just about diplomacy, it’s about long-term independence in foreign policy.

The Pahalgam attack was a human tragedy, but it’s also a turning point in regional geopolitics. For Sri Lanka, it’s a reminder of how tightly connected we are to what happens around us. As South Asia becomes more polarized, Sri Lanka must tread carefully, supporting regional peace without compromising national interests. The way forward will require empathy, strategy, and a strong understanding of both our vulnerabilities and our strengths.

References - Ministry of External Affairs - India, The Hindu, The Diplomat, and Internet