May 9, 2025

SHARE |

Two Nuclear-Armed Rivals on the Brink in South Asia

AP Photo/Prabhjot Gill

Tensions are escalating between India and Pakistan, nuclear-armed neighbors on the Indian subcontinent. Since gaining independence in 1947, the two rivals have fought four major wars: in 1947-1948, 1965, 1971, and the Kargil Crisis of 1999. The most recent conflagration was precipitated by a terrorist attack that New Delhi attributes to Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), a Salafi-jihadist militant group, allegedly operating through a front group to escape culpability. In 2008, a highly complex LeT attack in Mumbai –– allegedly orchestrated by Pakistan’s Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI) –– left 160 people dead, including six American citizens. The attack marked a turning point in India-Pakistan relations and brought the two nuclear-armed neighbors to the brink of war. While cooler heads ultimately prevailed following that incident, the current crisis continues to escalate, fueling concerns that without urgent diplomatic intervention, it could spiral out of control.

One of the takeaways from the late April attack is the impact that terrorism still has on geopolitics, despite a widespread shift in focus, particularly in the West, from counterterrorism to great power competition. Both the Hamas terrorist attacks of October 7, 2023, and the recent LeT attack in Indian-administered Kashmir demonstrate that violent non-state actors can have an outsized effect on conventional warfare. In the case of October 7, the attack and the Israeli response plunged the Middle East into a conflict that continues to the present day. While some theatres have ebbed, others like Gaza continue to rage. At various points, Israel and Iran were brought to the precipice of all-out warfare. And in January 2024, an attack against Iran by Jaysh al-Adl, a Sunni separatist group that operates in the Pakistani border province of Balochistan, led to an exchange of missile and rocket fire between Islamabad and Tehran. As of now, it remains unclear how active the Trump administration has been in attempting to quell the conflict, and with the recent cabinet shuffle, Secretary of State Marco Rubio is currently dual-hatted as the national security adviser.

In retaliation for the recent LeT attack, India launched Operation Sindoor on May 7, marking the country’s most extensive military action since the 2019 Balakot airstrikes and before that, the 2016 surgical strikes along the Line of Control (LoC), the de facto border dividing the disputed Jammu and Kashmir region between India and Pakistan. India has claimed to have targeted nine “terrorist infrastructure” sites in Pakistan belonging to Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed, a Pakistan-based Sunni militant group. The 25-minute-long operation saw 80 terrorists affiliated with these groups targeted. The clashes have resulted in at least 43 deaths on both sides, making this the most violent military confrontation between the two countries in two decades. The region of Poonch, which lies along the LoC, separating Indian-administered Kashmir from Pakistani-administered Kashmir, has been among the hardest hit, with reports describing an “artillery storm” that struck religious sites and civilian areas.

All political parties in India have rallied behind the government and Indian armed forces, with Prime Minister Narendra Modi describing the May 7 operation as a restrained and calculated response explicitly aimed at eliminating terrorist infrastructure. However, tensions remain incredibly high, with Indian authorities conducting evacuation drills in border towns, ordering the suspension of civilian flights near the LoC, and placing security forces on heightened alert. India’s reported strikes deep into Pakistani territory — including targets in Lahore and Bahawalpur — represent a significant escalation and breach of precedent, increasing the likelihood of broader military confrontation.

Further complicating the situation, the online information environment has been flooded with disinformation, false claims, and manipulated photos and videos, which risks inflaming public sentiment and escalating tensions between the two nations. This information warfare is compounded by both sides’ commitment to save face. India, in particular, appears to be asserting escalation dominance by responding aggressively to Pakistan’s drone and missile retaliation. Its targeting of air defenses may signal a willingness — and capability — to escalate further.

Meanwhile, domestic political dynamics also undermine the prospects of diplomatic resolution between India and Pakistan. The ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has a clear impetus to frame India’s response as a decisive personal action by the prime minister, centering him in its messaging and propaganda to reinforce his image as a strong and uncompromising leader. This aligns with Modi’s political brand, especially in the wake of the party’s weakened post-election position. Modi's heavy-handed approach was widely anticipated, and his leveraging of the Pahalgam attack can be seen as a pretext to advance a broader agenda — namely, suppressing unrest in Kashmir, a long-standing security and political challenge that India has struggled to resolve.

India’s recourse to a kinetic response has been accompanied by a series of punitive actions against Pakistan–including the notable suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT). The abeyance of the 56-year-old accord, brokered by the World Bank and critical to Pakistan’s water security, is a significant development. The treaty withstood multiple wars between the neighboring countries and marks the end of diplomatic means to solve the ongoing tensions. This move was both a significant milestone and a precursor to the recent military escalations. Moreover, LeT has already used India’s “water dominance” as a central theme in their propaganda, framing the control of river flows as part of a broader campaign of oppression against Pakistan and Muslims in Kashmir.

In 2016, Pakistan’s then Foreign Affairs Advisor Sartaj Aziz, responded to a meeting held by Modi to review the IWT as an “act of war”. Pakistan’s foreign ministry reiterated this red line more recently when India finally suspended the treaty. Likewise, in response to Operation Sindoor, Islamabad announced it would “avenge its dead.”  On the night of May 7, Pakistan launched drone and missile strikes on military targets in Northern and Western India, including Srinagar, Jammu, Amritsar, and Pathankot, which were intercepted by Indian air defense systems.

As in India, Pakistan faces intense political pressure to escalate its military posture. The country’s political system remains deeply intertwined with its powerful military establishment, which continues to exert significant influence over both domestic politics and foreign policy. Army Chief General Asim Munir, whom Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif has explicitly authorized to retaliate, is navigating this highly volatile landscape. The Pakistani military’s institutional identity is closely tied to projecting strength, especially in relation to India, making any sign of restraint politically costly. Backing down could be perceived as weakness, particularly at a time when the military’s domestic standing has been undermined by the controversial imprisonment of the widely popular former Prime Minister Imran Khan, leading to growing public distrust and unrest.

At the same time, Pakistan faces acute economic constraints, including a debt crisis, looming IMF conditions, and declining foreign reserves, which leave it at a material disadvantage in sustaining prolonged conflict. Militarily, it remains outmatched by India in terms of conventional capabilities. This asymmetry puts Munir in a bind: the army must demonstrate resolve yet avoid triggering a war it cannot afford to fight. Prime Minister Sharif has vowed to protect Pakistan’s territorial integrity “at all costs,” a show of strength likely aimed at bolstering his image amid political instability, civil-military tensions, and a fragile coalition — factors that may push him to embrace a more aggressive posture in order to shore up legitimacy.

In 2019, when India and Pakistan were on the brink of all-out war, outside intervention, particularly from the United States, helped de-escalate the conflict. This time, however, Washington appears far less inclined to get involved, especially with NATO’s exit from Afghanistan and a strategic pivot toward other global priorities. With both governments boxed in by domestic political imperatives and no international actor stepping in to mediate, the risk of miscalculation — and a wider war — has never been higher.