HEADQUARTERS
Sub Unit Alpha, RLT-27
The Saigon Observer
01 May 2025
FROM: S2, CO, SU00A,RLT-27
TO: CMG, FMF (-) REIN
SUBJ: Line of Control, Intelligence Rpt. 001.
Encl. (1) to be submitted.CLASSIFIED
PART I. ORGANIZATIONAL DATA
PART II. NARRATIVE SUMMARY
PART III. SEQUENTIAL EVENTS
PART IV. CIVIL AFFAIRS
PART V. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
PAHALGAM–India.Pakistan–
After Action Brief
PART I. ORGANIZATIONAL DATA
The chain of command along the India-Pakistan Line of Control (LoC) involves distinct military structures on both sides, with each nation deploying dedicated forces and command systems to manage the heavily militarized boundary.
1. Indian Side
a. The Indian Army holds primary operational responsibility, with two corps (likely the XV Corps in Srinagar and XVI Corps in Nagrota) overseeing the LoC in Jammu and Kashmir.
b. The Border Security Force (BSF) operates under the army’s operational control in specific sectors, focusing on counter-infiltration and border security.
c. Northern Command (based in Udhampur) supervises all military operations in Jammu and Kashmir.
(1) Corps-level leadership (e.g., XV Corps for Kashmir Valley, XVI Corps for Jammu) directs sector-wise deployments.
(2) Brigades and battalions manage tactical operations at localized points along the LoC.
2. Pakistani Side
a. The Rawalpindi Corps (part of Pakistan’s Army Northern Command) is directly responsible for the LoC, with its commander reporting to the Chief of Army Staff.
(1) Division and brigade-level units deployed across sensitive zones like Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan.
(2) Frontier Corps and paramilitary forces assisting in border management, though operational authority rests with the Pakistan Army.
PART II. NARRATIVE SUMMARY
1. The recent crisis along the Line of Control (LoC) between India and Pakistan stems from a deadly militant attack in Pahalgam, Indian-administered Kashmir, on April 23, 2025, which killed at least 26 tourists.
a. This marked the deadliest attack in the region in 25 years, with the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba-linked group The Resistance Front (TRF) claiming responsibility.
2.Escalation of Hostilities
(a) Military exchanges:
(1) Daily cross-border firing has occurred since the attack, with Pakistan violating the ceasefire for five consecutive nights (as of April 29).
(2) Heavy artillery, including M110 self-propelled systems, was deployed by Pakistan in the Leepa Valley.
3. Indian retaliation:
a. India intensified anti-militant operations, destroying homes of suspected attackers in Pulwama and Kulgam.
(1) Deployed advanced military assets like the INS Vikrant aircraft carrier to the Arabian Sea.
(2) War rhetoric: Pakistan’s defense ministry warned of an “imminent” Indian attack (April 28).
PART III. SEQUENTIAL EVENTS
a. Pakistan retaliated by closing airspace to Indian flights and halting bilateral trade.
b. Economic measures:
(1) India suspended the Indus Waters Treaty, closed the Attari border, ended visa-free travel for Pakistanis, and expelled military advisers.
(2) Crackdown in Kashmir:
(1) Indian forces arrested over 1,500 Kashmiris and tightened media controls.
PART IV. CIVIL AFFAIRS
1. The current India-Pakistan crisis following the Pahalgam attack has triggered intense media coverage and social media discourse, marked by escalating rhetoric and polarized narratives:
a. Indian Media:
(1) Outlets largely support Modi’s government, emphasizing demands for retaliation against Pakistan.
(2) Reports highlight India’s deployment of the INS Vikrant aircraft carrier and suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty, framed as decisive actions against cross-border terrorism.
2. Pakistani Media: Outlets reject Indian accusations, with analysts speculating about Indian “false flag” operations.
(1) Geo News featured retired military figures mocking India’s 2019 response while warning of stronger countermeasures.
3. International Press:
(1) Western outlets like The New York Times and CNN warn of nuclear risks and historical parallels to past crises.
(2) Al Jazeera and BBC stress the humanitarian toll and tit-for-tat measures.
(3) The CFR notes daily cross-border fire and mass arrests in Kashmir.
4. Social Media Reactions
a. Indian Platforms: Hashtags like #PahalgamAttack trend with calls for military action, alongside images of INS Vikrant.
b. Pakistani Platforms: Officials like Attaullah Tarar use X to allege imminent Indian strikes.
c. Global Discourse: #KashmirCrisis trends internationally, with users amplifying fears of nuclear escalation. U.S. and Chinese calls for restraint are highlighted.
5. Key Narratives
a. India: Focuses on Pakistan’s alleged support for militants, leveraging the attack to consolidate domestic and international anti-terrorism support.
b. Pakistan: Denies involvement, frames Indian actions as provocations risking war.
c. Divergence: While Indian social media emphasizes national resolve, Pakistani channels ridicule Indian claims and military posturing.
PART V. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
Primary sources, International media, Perplexity AI
Image:
Report prepared by: JCL, SU Alpha, RLT-27′ Saigon Bureau, ..
CLASSIFIED
END OF CHRONOLOGY.