A suicide bomber killed more than 40 paramilitary police in Indian-administered Kashmir last week in what was the deadliest attack on Indian forces in the region for decades. Pakistan denies any role in the attack by militant group Jaish-e-Mohammad, which is based on its soil. With Indian general elections around the corner, the government is under pressure to respond, or at least demonstrate that such actions are not without consequences. Dhruva Jaishankar weighs in with the options before India - diplomatic, economic and military. What are the diplomatic options? Political relations between India and Pakistan have been frozen for almost three years. In his first two years in office after coming to power in 2014, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi invited his Pakistani counterpart Nawaz Sharif to his inauguration, resumed talks between national security advisers, made an unscheduled visit to Lahore, and approved a much-criticised effort at collaborative counter-terrorism investigations. Pakistan responded to these efforts with firing across the Line of Control separating the two sides, insisting on meeting with Kashmiri separatists in India, and arresting and sentencing to death an alleged Indian spy. Days after Mr Modi and Mr Sharif met in Lahore to launch a peace initiative, six soldiers were killed in an attack on an Indian air force base in Pathankot. Indian officials blamed the attack on the Pakistan-based Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), a militant group close to Pakistani intelligence. By July 2016, Delhi's patience dried up and its position on a number of issues hardened. Despite a new government in Pakistan under Imran Khan, a meeting between the two countries' foreign ministers at last year's UN General Assembly was cancelled. Normal diplomatic channels have, however, continued. After the attack in Pulwama on Thursday, India has renewed its diplomatic efforts to make the case against what it says is Pakistan's state support for terrorism. This builds upon many years of India condemning Pakistan in diplomatic pronouncements made with friendly countries. In India's joint statements with the US and others, they now name specific Pakistan-based terrorist groups such as JeM, Lashkar-e-Taiba and D-Company, a criminal syndicate led by the Pakistan-based Indian fugitive Dawood Ibrahim. India has also linked Pakistan to the primary security challenges of its partners: for example, Japan's concerns about North Korea. Such moves have sensitised others to India's concerns about Pakistan, facilitated intelligence cooperation on Pakistan-based terrorist groups and encouraged crackdowns on their financing in many countries. Delhi's continued efforts also increase acceptability for any economic or military costs that India might impose at a later date. The challenge facing India is that other countries, however sympathetic, will continue to see value in retaining their ties with Pakistan. Although the US has become increasingly frustrated with Pakistan "tolerating and encouraging groups which use violence against Pakistan's neighbours", China remains Pakistan's closest ally, as it has for decades. It has provided Pakistan with nuclear and missile technology and equipment, conventional arms and - under the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor - billions of dollars of investment in strategic projects. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates too have continuing economic and security ties with Pakistan, although both have also been warming their relations with India over the past few years. The US and European Union continue to offer Pakistan preferential trading benefits, in some cases resulting in lower tariffs on imports compared to India. Some EU officials have privately blamed the United Kingdom for Brussels' accommodative approach towards Pakistan - and have suggested that they may take sterner measures after Brexit. AFP.