By Naveed UI Hasan
Few bilateral relationships in the modern world are as persistently fraught and potentially perilous as that between Pakistan and India. The legacy of Partition in 1947 three full scale wars, decades of low intensity conflict, and a dangerous nuclear dimension make the Pakistan-India equation one of the most volatile geopolitical rivalries today.
The most alarming concern in this enduring standoff is the ever-present threat of escalation spiraling into a nuclear exchange, an event that would not only devastate South Asia but also impact the entire global order. In the modern era of interconnected risks, it is not alarmist but necessary to confront the sobering possibility that conflict escalation between Pakistan and India, especially over the disputed region of Kashmir could trigger a nuclear catastrophe.
The India-Pakistan conflict is rooted in history but sustained by nationalism, unresolved territorial disputes, religious animosities and reciprocal distrust. Since both nations tested nuclear weapons in 1998, the strategic environment in South Asia has shifted dramatically. Nuclear deterrence, theoretically, is supposed to prevent large-scale wars due to the threat of mutually assured destruction. However, the peculiarities of the India-Pakistan dynamic make this theory more tenuous than elsewhere. Unlike the Cold War-era United States and Soviet Union, Pakistan and India have engaged in direct military conflict even after becoming nuclear powers, most notably during the 1999 Kargil War.
The Kargil conflict exposed the fragility of nuclear deterrence in the subcontinent. It highlighted that sub-conventional warfare, use of proxy groups, cross-border infiltration, and terrorism can still occur under a nuclear umbrella. Pakistan’s perceived strategic depth and use of asymmetric tactics via non state actors adds an unpredictable dimension. Conversely, India’s evolving military doctrine, particularly the “Cold Start” strategy aims to conduct rapid, limited conventional strikes inside Pakistan to punish aggression without crossing Pakistan’s nuclear red lines. This creates an inherently unstable framework: limited war doctrines in a nuclearized environment carry a serious risk of miscalculation.
Escalation dynamics between India and Pakistan are uniquely dangerous because of the presence of tactical nuclear weapons (TNWs) in Pakistan’s arsenal. In response to India’s conventional military superiority, Pakistan has reportedly developed battlefield nuclear weapons meant to deter an Indian conventional thrust. These low-yield weapons are more likely to be deployed early in a conflict scenario, thereby lowering the nuclear threshold.
However, the deployment of TNWs increases the chances of rapid escalation. Decentralized control, short decision-making time, and high command and control stress can lead to unauthorized or accidental use. In an active battlefield scenario distinguishing between conventional and nuclear capable platforms can become nearly impossible, increasing the likelihood of miscalculation.
The 2016 Uri attack and India’s subsequent “surgical strikes” followed by the 2019 Pulwama Balakot episode offer sobering examples of escalation ladders. After a terrorist attack killed 40 Indian paramilitary personnel in Pulwama, India launched airstrikes deep into Pakistan, a significant shift from previous policies of restraint. Pakistan responded with its own airstrike and the capture of an Indian pilot. For the first time since 1971 Indian and Pakistani jets crossed the Line of Control (LoC), marking a perilous moment. Although both sides managed to de-escalate the situation diplomatically these incidents reflect how quickly crises can spiral out of control.
Another major issue is the role of domestic politics and public opinion in both countries. Nationalist rhetoric fueled by hyperbolic media coverage can box leaders into aggressive postures making de-escalation politically costly. In both India and Pakistan, leaders are under pressure to demonstrate toughness in the face of provocation.
This politicization of security policy creates a feedback loop where decisions are driven more by optics than strategy. In democratic setups with vibrant but polarized public discourse, the room for diplomatic maneuver shrinks dramatically during times of crisis. The internal pressures for retaliation, coupled with rapid media dissemination of events, accelerate decision cycles dangerously.
There is an alarming lack of robust crisis communication mechanisms between the two nuclear-armed states. Hotlines exist but have been underused or mistrusted during crises. Unlike the U.S and Soviet Union during the Cold War, India and Pakistan have not institutionalized strategic dialogues or confidence building measures to the extent needed. Strategic ambiguity instead of fostering deterrence, often adds to uncertainty in South Asia. Misunderstandings regarding red lines particularly over Kashmir can lead to grave consequences.
Kashmir remains the primary flashpoint. India’s revocation of Article 370 in August 2019, which stripped Jammu and Kashmir of its semi-autonomous status was seen by Pakistan as an irreversible change to the region’s disputed status. This move deepened animosities and ended whatever fragile diplomacy was left. The heavily militarized region remains a tinderbox and even minor incidents accidental shootings, border skirmishes or militant attacks could ignite wider conflict. Given that both sides claim Kashmir as their own and station significant military assets there, a localized crisis can swiftly escalate into a conventional or nuclear conflict.
Cyber threats, space-based assets and information warfare further complicate the escalation ladder. A cyber-attack on critical infrastructure or a spoofed communication could be misinterpreted as an act of war. In the absence of clear protocols for attribution and response a cyber-attack real or perceived could lead to physical retaliation. Similarly, satellite targeting or interference could blind missile early warning systems or command networks, leading to hasty decisions. These new domains of warfare introduce uncertainty and degrade strategic stability.
International diplomatic engagement remains inconsistent and reactive. While global powers like the United States, China, and Russia have occasionally stepped in to defuse tensions there is no sustained multilateral framework to prevent crisis escalation in South Asia. Western governments, preoccupied with other geopolitical theaters, have often viewed the India-Pakistan conflict as a regional issue until it risks becoming a global one. Moreover, strategic alignments such as the Indo-U.S. partnership and China’s deep ties with Pakistan add layers of complexity to crisis management. The risk is that major powers may view a South Asian nuclear crisis through the lens of their broader rivalries reducing the urgency of neutral mediation.
The consequences of a nuclear exchange, even a “limited” one, are catastrophic. Various simulations have shown that even a regional nuclear war involving 50-100 low yield weapons could result in tens of millions of immediate deaths, followed by a nuclear winter that reduces global agricultural production and leads to famine affecting up to two billion people worldwide. Cities would become uninhabitable, economies would collapse, and the environmental consequences would last decades. The global climate impact combined with refugee flows and radioactive fallout, would turn South Asia into a humanitarian nightmare and deeply unsettle the international system.
Given the stakes, the international community must take a more proactive role. First, there is a dire need to facilitate arms control dialogue between India and Pakistan. While bilateral talks have repeatedly stalled, multilateral forums or backchannel diplomacy could help build minimal consensus on nuclear risk reduction. Confidence building measures such as no first use agreements, advance notice for missile tests and joint inspection regimes for sensitive facilities could stabilize the environment incrementally.
Global institutions must push for Kashmir to be addressed as a conflict prevention issue rather than just a human rights or political issue. While sovereignty sensitivities run deep, ignoring the Kashmir dispute has only emboldened extremist actors and hardened nationalistic positions. Third-party mediation, while controversial, may be necessary during crisis points. An impartial, empowered regional forum perhaps under the auspices of the United Nations or a neutral country could help maintain diplomatic engagement even when official bilateral ties break down.
Finally, civil society, academic institutions and think tanks in both countries need to revive people to people diplomacy and nuclear literacy. Public awareness about the real costs of nuclear conflict can serve as a restraint on populist adventurism. More importantly, strategic culture in both countries must evolve from glorifying brinkmanship to valuing restraint and responsibility.
The India-Pakistan relationship remains one of the most pressing nuclear flashpoints of our time. Unlike hypothetical threats from rogue actors or distant wars, the potential for nuclear conflict in South Asia is disturbingly real and grounded in a pattern of historical animosity, strategic imbalance, and political volatility.
Escalation is not a theoretical scenario; it has already occurred in various degrees. What has so far prevented catastrophe is not a testament to strategy but to sheer luck. Relying on luck is neither prudent nor sustainable. Only sustained engagement, confidence building and international pressure can help avert a nightmare scenario. The time to act is not when the next crisis begins, but now while diplomacy is still an option and catastrophe is still a choice, not a fate.
Author: Naveed UI Hasan – PhD Scholar (International Relations). He is a Visiting lecturer at Karakoram International University. His research primarily investigates the strategic relations between Pakistan, China, India, and the USA. Additionally, his scholarly interests encompass a wide range of topics within South Asian studies, including extremism, radicalization, terrorism, the foreign policies of major global powers, and regional issues.
(The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of World Geostrategic Insights).