The relationship between India and Pakistan presents one of the most stubborn paradoxes in modern geopolitics. We are looking at a scenario where the underlying societies share deep historical roots, yet the states remain locked in a seemingly permanent cycle of hostility.
The contradiction is hard to ignore. Two nations that emerged from the identical political and civilisational space in 1947 still share food traditions, linguistic heritage, and complex family histories. At that time, regions like Punjab shared indivisible social landscapes. Despite this, the two states have fought multiple wars, constructed formidable nuclear arsenals, launched cross-border military operations, and frequently brought the region to the brink of major conflict.
Asking whether this hostility must continue indefinitely requires unpacking the historical premise. It is historically inaccurate to dismiss the partition of British India as merely a colonial “divide-and-rule” conspiracy. While British policies certainly exploited social fractures and institutionalised communal politics, the division was equally driven by constitutional deadlocks, the political stance of the All-India Muslim League, the approach of the Indian National Congress, and the horrific escalation of communal violence.
The British transfer of power was chaotic and hurried. The Indian Independence Act 1947 formally created the Dominions of India and Pakistan, physically dividing Punjab and Bengal in the process. The narrative did not stop at partition.
It immediately morphed into a security relationship. Over generations, this relationship spawned institutions, strategic interests, and deeply entrenched political narratives on both sides of the border. Today, asking whether India and Pakistan can “be friends” in a sentimental way misses the mark. The real question is whether their strategic interests can be recalibrated so that peaceful coexistence offers more tangible value than continuous confrontation. That recalibration has to begin inside Pakistan.
Understanding Pakistan from the inside
Pakistan functions as a federal state comprising Punjab, Sindh, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP), and Balochistan, alongside the Islamabad Capital Territory and the separately administered regions of Pakistan-administered Jammu and Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan.
The 2023 census places the country’s population at roughly 241 million. This demographic distribution is vastly skewed. Punjab dominates with over 127 million residents. Sindh follows with roughly 55.7 million, KP holds about 40.9 million, and geographically massive Balochistan is home to only around 14.9 million people.
These demographic realities matter because they dictate political influence. Punjab serves as the demographic and political core. Sindh acts as the commercial and financial engine, driven almost entirely by Karachi. KP is fundamentally shaped by the Afghan frontier, historical militancy, and the lingering shadow of the wars in Afghanistan. Balochistan, while sparsely populated and politically volatile, is resource-rich and strategically anchored on the Arabian Sea.
Treating Pakistan as a monolithic entity where every citizen shares the same relationship There is a distinct line separating the Pakistani political establishment, the Pakistan Army, intelligence organisations, provincial administrations, and the average citizen. Understanding these internal divisions is essential when India formulates its bilateral strategy.
Punjab is the demographic centre of gravity
Crucially, Punjab maintains a uniquely deep relationship with the military establishment. This dynamic traces its roots back to the British Raj, where colonial recruitment leaned heavily on the controversial martial races theory, concentrating military enlistment in specific Punjabi districts. This colonial legacy directly shaped the social fabric of the armed forces post-independence.
While it is an exaggeration to label the Pakistan Army a purely Punjabi institution, the province’s sheer population and historical military representation have cemented its importance within the state architecture.
For Indian strategic planners, this leads to a clear conclusion. Punjabi civilians across the border are not the enemy. Attempting to politically manipulate or “control” Pakistani Punjabis would be strategically counterproductive. The more rational objective is to foster an environment where people across the International Border view each other as traders, relatives, and fellow South Asians, rather than purely as extensions of a military threat. The goal is contact, not control.
Sindh, KP and Balochistan tell a different story
Sindh remains economically indispensable. Karachi is Pakistan‘s largest metropolis, its primary port, and a major regional commercial hub. The province is also defined by a sharp linguistic and political divide between ethnic Sindhis and the large Urdu-speaking Muhajir communities in urban centres like Hyderabad and Karachi. Its internal politics operate on a frequency entirely separate from the India–Pakistan dynamic.
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa presents a completely different security picture. Sharing a porous border with Afghanistan, it serves as the frontline for cross-border militancy and counter-insurgency operations. The 2018 absorption of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas fundamentally altered its administrative reality. For New Delhi, KP matters because instability on the western frontier dictates the Pakistan Army‘s internal deployments. A military stretched by internal militancy and the Afghan border faces a different reality than one focused exclusively on the east.
Then there is Balochistan. Covering roughly 44 per cent of the national landmass, it holds a tiny fraction of the population. Yet, its strategic value is immense, featuring vast mineral wealth and the highly strategic Gwadar port. It is also the site of a persistent Baloch insurgency, characterised by recurring attacks on state infrastructure, security forces, and Chinese assets. Balochistan embodies a stark contradiction: immense strategic potential crippled by deep political alienation.
The military establishment is central to Pakistani politics
Despite holding regular elections and maintaining civilian government structures, the Pakistan Army has remained the supreme political arbiter for most of the country’s existence.
History is punctuated by direct military rule under figures like Ayub Khan, Yahya Khan, Zia-ul-Haq, and Pervez Musharraf. Even when civilians hold the premiership, the military firmly controls foreign policy, security policy, and frequently manages electoral outcomes. The Freedom House 2026 assessment explicitly notes that the military exerts immense influence outside the boundaries of normal civilian governance.
Pakistan’s military command is becoming more concentrated
In a major structural shift in 2026, the passing of the Defence Forces of Pakistan Act fundamentally reorganised the country’s military command structure. It established the powerful new position of Chief of Defence Forces (CDF), designed to integrate command across the army, navy, and air force.
Field Marshal Asim Munir, already holding the reins as army chief, was elevated as the inaugural CDF. This reform grants sweeping authority across all branches of the armed forces, marking the most significant command restructuring in decades. Analysts correctly note that this move formally entrenches the army’s institutional dominance even further.
What actually fuels the India-Pakistan conflict?
There is no solitary cause driving this rivalry. The conflict sustains itself because multiple drivers feed into one another.
First is the territorial dispute over Kashmir. Second is the state sponsorship of terrorism and the deployment of militant organisations as strategic levers. Third is the entrenched political power of the security establishment in Islamabad. Fourth is India’s own hardened security doctrine, shaped by decades of attacks. Fifth is the overarching nuclear balance, which essentially removes a decisive conventional military victory from the table. Finally, there is the broader strategic competition heavily influenced by China.
This ecosystem possesses its own institutional momentum. Extinguishing one source of tension rarely collapses the system, as the other elements step in to keep the conflict alive.
Kashmir is the original strategic fault line
The very first clash between the two nations erupted in 1947 over the accession of Jammu and Kashmir. Since then, Kashmir has evolved from a territorial dispute into a foundational element of national identity for both states.
This fault line triggered the 1965 war, deeply reinforcing mutual hostility. The subsequent 1971 war physically broke Pakistan apart, resulting in the creation of Bangladesh. Decades later, the Kargil conflict in 1999 provided a sobering lesson: the presence of nuclear weapons does not entirely preclude conventional military confrontation. Since then, the conflict over the region has been heavily defined by a darker element: state-sponsored militancy.
Terrorism changed the character of the conflict
For New Delhi, cross-border terrorism is the absolute core of the bilateral freeze. The Ministry of External Affairs consistently maintains that halting terror networks is the fundamental prerequisite for engagement.
This is not a historical grievance; it is a present reality. The United Nations Security Council maintains active sanctions against Pakistan-based terror syndicates, explicitly listing groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) as designated terrorist organisations.
Operation Sindoor changed the deterrence equation
The terror attack in Pahalgam on 22 April 2025, which claimed 26 lives, shattered a fragile calm and triggered the most severe military standoff in recent memory.
In response, the Indian military launched Operation Sindoor on 7 May 2025. Striking nine identified terrorist infrastructure nodes across Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Jammu and Kashmir, the government initially characterised the strikes as limited, non-escalatory, and strictly avoiding Pakistani military installations.
However, the confrontation rapidly expanded into a multi-domain exchange featuring drones, precision missiles, and complex air operations against military targets, before both sides agreed to a cessation of hostilities on 10 May 2025.
The strategic takeaway was profound. Nuclear deterrence successfully capped the escalation ceiling, but it completely failed to prevent a high-intensity conventional clash beneath that threshold. This proved exactly why India requires both hardened military deterrence and agile diplomacy. Military power is highly effective at punishing aggression, but it cannot single-handedly erase the political motivations driving it.
The China factor makes the Pakistan problem larger
Ignoring China when discussing this bilateral relationship is a strategic blind spot. Pakistan has evolved into one of Beijing’s most critical defence partners. This alliance spans advanced combat aircraft, unmanned aerial vehicles, air defence systems, naval platforms, and deep defence-industrial cooperation.
Data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) reveals that Pakistan’s major arms imports surged by 66 per cent between 2016–20 and 2021–25, with China supplying an overwhelming 80 per cent of that hardware in the latter period. Pakistan now ranks among the world’s top importers of major weapon systems.
India is therefore dealing with a two-front strategic challenge
The concept of a two-front war is often thrown around casually, but it requires careful definition. A simultaneous, high-intensity conflict against both China and Pakistan is a worst-case contingency, not a foregone conclusion.
The Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (MP-IDSA) has correctly assessed this as a severe possibility that dictates military preparation, while stressing that proactive diplomacy is the primary tool to prevent the scenario from ever materialising.
India must build the military capacity to handle simultaneous pressure. However, anchoring national strategy entirely on the assumption that a two-front war is inevitable is fatalistic. This is precisely why stabilizing the western border carries immense strategic value. It doesn’t erase the Chinese threat, but it frees up vital resources, allowing the military to concentrate on the northern borders and the broader maritime strategic environment.
The arms market benefits from continued insecurity
Both nations are massive consumers of military hardware. SIPRI ranks India as the second-largest global recipient of major arms between 2021–25, with Pakistan sitting at fifth. While Islamabad relies almost entirely on Beijing, India’s defence procurement is highly diversified, pulling advanced technology from Russia, France, Israel, and the United States.
Prolonged insecurity naturally generates sustained demand. Russia has historically dominated the Indian market; France has rapidly expanded its footprint; Israel provides critical sensor networks, missile systems, and drones; and the United States has deepened its defence relationship with New Delhi while maintaining complex ties with Islamabad.
Defence manufacturers don’t cause the conflict, but the friction makes the market lucrative. A stable relationship wouldn’t dismantle the global arms market, but it would heavily reduce the need for expensive, emergency procurement driven by immediate cross-border panic.
The trade relationship reveals a remarkable contradiction
Yet, the actual market demand never vanished—it just went underground. Past research by the Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations (ICRIER) previously mapped informal trade at roughly $4.71 billion, proving that commerce finds a way despite political barricades.
Following the severe restrictions imposed after the Pahalgam attack, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence reported seizing multiple containers in 2025. These shipments were being systematically routed through third-country hubs like Jebel Ali, fraudulently declared under different origins. The lesson is undeniable: the economic demand is massive, but political roadblocks simply force traders to rely on expensive intermediaries and smuggling networks.
What if legal trade were restored?
Normalising trade regulations would yield immediate dividends for both economies. Take pharmaceuticals as a prime example. Pakistan faces a desperate need for affordable healthcare, while India commands one of the most powerful generic pharmaceutical industries on the planet. Current political friction forces Pakistani consumers to pay premiums through indirect supply chains.
More importantly, it creates stakeholders in stability. A transport syndicate relying on open borders, or a merchant making steady profits from cross-border commerce, possesses a vested interest in preventing military escalation. This is how long-term strategic relationships evolve—not through grand political handshakes, but through the quiet accumulation of mutual economic interests.
The advantages of becoming good neighbours
For India, the primary reward is strategic bandwidth. If the immediate threat of war on the western front diminishes, the state can pivot its attention and capital toward maritime security, cyber warfare, space dominance, and managing the Chinese presence.
Economically, even a controlled opening of markets would drive down costs and foster new revenue streams. Geopolitically, a stabilised Pakistan could eventually unlock overland connectivity into Central Asia and Afghanistan. Socially, it would allow the normalisation of family reunions, tourism, and cultural exchange.
Pakistan stands to gain equally. Reducing its crushing security burden would free up vital capital for domestic development. By shifting its identity from a militarised buffer state to an economic transit hub connecting South Asia, the Middle East, and Central Asia, it could attract serious foreign investment. Eventually, a peaceful relationship with India would reduce the justification for the military’s absolute dominance over civilian life.
TAPI Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) Pipeline
If there is a physical embodiment of the strategic dilemma we just explored, it is the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) Pipeline. Throughout our analysis, the central thesis was that New Delhi must find ways to make peace more profitable for Islamabad than permanent hostility. The TAPI Pipeline—designed to carry 33 billion cubic metres of natural gas annually from Central Asia into the heart of South Asia—represents exactly the kind of massive, shared economic architecture that could theoretically anchor such a peace.
However, the project perfectly illustrates the severe risks of premature economic integration. For India, plugging a vital component of its energy security into a physical pipeline that traverses hundreds of kilometres of Pakistani territory is a monumental strategic vulnerability. As long as the military establishment in Rawalpindi continues to deploy cross-border terrorism as an instrument of state policy, New Delhi simply cannot allow a historically hostile neighbour to hold a kill switch over its energy supply. As we established earlier, the logic of deterrence dictates that economic reliance cannot precede basic security guarantees.
Yet, from the perspective of altering Pakistan’s internal calculus, the pipeline is a fascinating lever. If successfully operationalised, it would actively shift Pakistan‘s identity from a heavily militarised buffer state into a highly lucrative energy transit corridor. Earning hundreds of millions in annual transit fees, alongside securing its own desperately needed gas supply, would provide the Pakistan Army and the civilian administration with a tangible, massive financial incentive to enforce regional stability. It forces a stark choice: protect the infrastructure and reap the economic rewards, or continue harbouring militant networks and watch the investment evaporate.
But friendship also carries risks
Engaging in a peace process is inherently risky. Economic revitalisation could ultimately supply Pakistan with greater fiscal space to expand its defence budget. Opening trade corridors also introduces the threat of sophisticated smuggling, narcotics trafficking, and covert financial networks.
The most critical vulnerability, however, is political fragility. An entire diplomatic initiative could instantly disintegrate in the aftermath of a single major terror attack. A peace strategy built purely on optimism is destined to fail.
It requires ironclad safeguards: robust deterrence, discreet intelligence cooperation, reliable crisis communication, stringent verification protocols, and the unapologetic retention of India‘s right to respond militarily if provoked. A peace process that strips New Delhi of its ability to retaliate against terror simply will not survive contact with reality.
Why taking over Pakistan is not a solution
The notion that India could march in, dismantle the state, and absorb Pakistan is a fantasy reserved for political rallies, not military strategy rooms.
Yes, India wields overwhelming conventional superiority in manpower, economic depth, and modern platforms. But defeating an army in the field is vastly different from occupying and integrating a deeply fractured nation of 240 million people.
Even stripping away the nuclear threat, a conventional occupation would mean inheriting mega-cities, heavily armed radical factions, raging insurgencies, and massive civilian resistance. India does not need to conquer its neighbour to secure its borders. The strategic objective is to make attacking India too painful to contemplate, not to erase the country from the map.
Nuclear weapons make coexistence more necessary
The nuclear overhang forces both nations into a rigid, uncomfortable reality. Neither military can disarm the other through a conventional blitzkrieg. Neither side can operate under the illusion that a tank battle will permanently resolve the dispute. And neither leadership can gamble with the risk of nuclear exchange.
Water could become the next major crisis
For decades, the Indus Waters Treaty, brokered by the World Bank in 1960, stood as a rare pillar of institutional stability, surviving multiple wars.
That resilience fractured following the Pahalgam attack. In April 2025, India placed the treaty in abeyance, explicitly tying its reinstatement to the cessation of terror financing. By 2026, the dispute had escalated into a complex legal standoff. Just days ago, on 31 August 2026, a Hague-based arbitration panel ruled that the treaty remains binding. New Delhi swiftly rejected the tribunal’s jurisdiction, keeping the agreement in abeyance.
What would happen to China?
A genuine thaw between New Delhi and Islamabad would not sever the Beijing–Islamabad axis. China requires Pakistan for geographic access via the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), naval positioning on the Arabian Sea, and wider regional influence.
However, Beijing would lose a massive strategic advantage. Currently, a hostile western border forces the Indian military to split its focus. If that pressure evaporates, India can drastically pivot its strategic, political, and military weight toward the Line of Actual Control and the Indo-Pacific. China would face a much more focused, less distracted Indian military apparatus.
What would happen to the United States?
For decades, Washington has walked a diplomatic tightrope, trying to balance its deepening technological and defence partnership with India against its counter-terrorism and intelligence interests in Pakistan.
A stabilised South Asia serves American interests perfectly. It drastically lowers the nightmare scenario of regional nuclear war. More practically, it allows the United States to pursue independent, compartmentalised relationships with both nations, rather than constantly playing crisis manager during military standoffs.
What would happen to Russia?
Russia would feel the shift differently. While Moscow remains a critical supplier for the Indian armed forces, that dependency is shrinking. Recent SIPRI data highlights that Russia’s share of Indian major arms imports fell sharply from 70 per cent in 2011–15 to just 40 per cent by 2021–25.
Moscow is already adapting to this diversified market. Peace in South Asia would not terminate Russian defence ties, but it would remove the frantic, emergency-driven procurement cycles that historically characterised Indian defence spending during border crises.
The real problem is not the people of Pakistan
This is a distinction that requires aggressive emphasis. India’s security threat is the Pakistani state apparatus and its proxy terror networks—not the ordinary citizen in Lahore or Karachi.
The average Punjabi, Baloch, or Pashtun civilian does not dictate military deployments or authorise terror funding. Treating the entire civilian population as a hostile entity only feeds the extreme nationalism that the military relies on for legitimacy. The most effective strategy separates the adversary (the military-intelligence complex) from the society.
India’s Way Forward
The ultimate question is not whether New Delhi can blindly trust Islamabad tomorrow morning. Trust is irrelevant. The objective is to engineer a strategic environment where a normalised Pakistan becomes practically viable, without gambling with Indian security.
Keep deterrence strong
India must relentlessly upgrade its combat edge. This requires heavy investment in air defence, electronic warfare, long-range precision strike capabilities, counter-drone technologies, space-based intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR), and offensive cyber warfare.
Operation Sindoor proved that modern deterrence relies on the ability to detect threats, attribute them instantly, penetrate enemy airspace, disrupt networks, and execute precision retaliation. India must prepare for war with ruthless efficiency, precisely because doing so is the only way to prevent one.
Stop treating military superiority and diplomacy as alternatives
Retaining overwhelming military power and keeping a diplomatic backchannel active are not mutually exclusive. However, diplomacy cannot mean endless dialogue loops for the sake of optics.
Engagement must be strictly conditional, measurable, and tied directly to tangible outcomes. The guiding doctrine must be uncompromising: security dictates the pace, dialogue follows security, and normalisation only occurs when behaviour justifies it.
Make counter-terrorism the first test
No peace framework can survive without verifiable action against terror syndicates. India must demand operational results, not televised press conferences.
The metrics are simple and measurable. Are terror financing networks dismantled? Are training camps permanently closed? Are known militant commanders facing actual prosecution? Are organisations like LeT prevented from operating under new aliases? Until these conditions are met, structural peace is impossible.
Rebuild trade gradually, not recklessly
Opening the floodgates to unrestricted trade immediately is dangerous. A phased, highly regulated economic normalisation is the superior approach.
Initiate trade in low-risk sectors where the mutual economic benefit is undeniable. Implement aggressive oversight: mandate electronic customs tracking, enforce rigid origin verification, and closely monitor financial routing. Only allow vetted transport syndicates and approved financial institutions to participate. Crucially, build fail-safes that allow specific trade corridors to be frozen during a crisis without collapsing the entire economic relationship.
Create a formal mechanism for crisis management
When a crisis hits, relying on political goodwill is a recipe for disaster. Both militaries require robust, insulated communication architecture.
The existing Director-General of Military Operations (DGMO) hotline has proven its worth during severe escalations, but it must be expanded. Similar hotlines are urgently needed to manage airspace violations, naval standoffs, drone incursions, and accidental missile launches. Two nuclear-armed neighbours require systemic redundancy to prevent accidents from turning into wars.
Build people-to-people connectivity very carefully
Opening the borders to mass transit overnight is a security nightmare. The smarter play is calculated, controlled expansion.
Focus on religious pilgrimages, medical visas, academic exchanges, and heavily regulated sporting and cultural events. Let these interactions scale organically in tandem with the security environment. The long-term goal is to build a social constituency on both sides that actively profits from—and therefore advocates for—border stability.
Use Punjab as a bridge, not a battlefield
The division of Punjab left deep emotional and cultural scars. India has a unique opportunity to leverage this shared heritage.
New Delhi does not need to dictate politics to Pakistan’s Punjabis; it simply needs to facilitate interaction with Indian Punjabis. Expanding pilgrimage corridors and streamlining travel visas for families separated by the border slowly chips away at the enemy narrative. The messaging should be subtle but powerful: political disagreement between states does not require ordinary people to view each other through the crosshairs of a rifle.
Do not attempt regime change
Actively trying to fracture or collapse the Pakistani political system is a disastrous concept. A destabilised, fragmented nation armed with over 170 nuclear warheads is infinitely more dangerous than a stable, predictable adversary. India’s sole strategic requirement is a functional Pakistan that ceases the export of terror. Nothing more is required.
Work with China rather than only against the China-Pakistan nexus
India cannot magically dissolve the Beijing–Islamabad partnership. But it can aggressively dilute its strategic potency.
By stabilizing the western border, India denies China the advantage of a distracted Indian military. Every degree of tension reduced with Pakistan directly translates into greater strategic bandwidth to counter Chinese manoeuvring in the Himalayas and the Indian Ocean.
Keep the nuclear relationship stable
Nuclear stability must be aggressively insulated from conventional friction. India should champion mechanisms that prevent accidental launches and miscalculations.
This is not a concession to terror. It is the mature recognition of two separate strategic tracks: conventional aggression must be met with kinetic punishment, but the nuclear threshold must remain fiercely guarded.
Treat water as a strategic asset, not just a weapon
India must unapologetically protect its sovereign rights and hydroelectric ambitions within the Indus Basin. However, the long-term diplomatic strategy must ensure that water allocation disputes are resolved through robust engineering and legal frameworks, preventing them from deteriorating into military flashpoints.
Make peace conditional, but keep the door open
India should stop chasing the illusion of “friendship.” The objective is predictable, managed behaviour.
If Islamabad dismantles terror networks, India should reward that behaviour with economic and diplomatic concessions. If the terror resumes, the kinetic response should be swift. Peace is not a right; it is a dividend paid out for sustained, responsible statecraft.
Is friendship practically possible?
Yes, but it will not look like the friendship of European neighbours.
It begins with managed hostility. That evolves into stable deterrence. From there, limited economic engagement can take root, leading to institutionalised diplomacy, and eventually, basic neighbourly coexistence.
Whether genuine warmth ever develops is entirely unpredictable, but it is also entirely unnecessary. They do not need to settle every historical grievance or rewrite the trauma of partition. They merely need to arrive at a pragmatic consensus: the economic and political cost of endless warfare vastly outweighs the benefits.
The question India should really ask
The defining strategic question of this decade is not whether India can militarily defeat Pakistan. The Indian armed forces can absolutely inflict devastating kinetic costs on their western neighbour.
The real question is: Can India alter the calculus so thoroughly that Pakistan decides fighting is no longer worth the cost?
Achieving that requires the full spectrum of statecraft—military dominance, economic gravity, diplomatic agility, technological superiority, and above all, strategic patience. A permanently chaotic, hostile neighbour is a drain on Indian resources. A stable, non-adversarial Pakistan is a strategic asset.
India’s goal is not to wipe Pakistan off the map; it is to surgically dismantle the incentives that make permanent hostility viable.
This conflict has evolved far beyond the trauma of 1947. It is now a self-sustaining institutional ecosystem running on inherited fear. Breaking it requires more than symbolic summits or theatrical handshakes. If launching terror attacks guarantees a devastating kinetic response, if cross-border trade becomes too lucrative to interrupt, and if the military establishment in Rawalpindi finally accepts that a rising India is not an existential threat to its survival, the dynamic will shift.
Summary
The India–Pakistan conflict has evolved far beyond the trauma of partition into a self-sustaining ecosystem driven by cross-border terrorism, nuclear deterrence, the China–Pakistan strategic axis, and the absolute political dominance of the Pakistan Army. For New Delhi, attempting to resolve this through conventional military conquest or naive sentimentality is strategically flawed; instead, India’s objective must be to permanently alter Islamabad’s calculus. This requires maintaining ironclad military deterrence—retaining the capacity for precision strikes against terrorist organisations beneath the nuclear threshold—while simultaneously offering a carefully calibrated diplomatic opening. By gradually restoring regulated trade and controlled civilian connectivity, India can cultivate internal constituencies within Pakistan that actively profit from stability. Ultimately, the goal is not to force a reluctant friendship, but to engineer an environment where the Pakistani military establishment concludes that peaceful coexistence is vastly more valuable than permanent hostility, thereby freeing up Indian strategic bandwidth to address the primary challenge posed by China along the Line of Actual Control.
Header Picture Credit: Representative Image Generated using AI
The article has individual views of the author
Author: Himanshu Chopra
Twitter: @AirPowerAsia
Like, Share, and Subscribe