Escalating India-Pakistan Conflict: Experts Warn of Lowered Thresholds for Future Conflicts
Rewritten Article:
Quiet prevails, for now, along the contentious India-Pakistan border following a three-night ceasefire. On May 7, India spearheaded dawn raids on supposed terror havens scattered across Pakistan, seeking retaliation for the April 22 slaying of 26 tourists, mainly non-Muslim, in the Indian-administered Kashmir resort town of Pahalgam. New Delhi alleged Pakistan's backing for the gunmen, a claim Islamabad denied.
This escalation marked the start of four days of heightened tension as both neighbors exchanged missiles and drones, precipitously pushing them to the brink of an all-out conflict. Despite allegations exchanged regarding the destroyance of strategic military facilities, initial evidence hints at restricted damage to bases in both countries.
Controversially, U.S. President Donald Trump claimed responsibility for brokering the ceasefire. However, experts argue that this incident has eviscerated red lines between the South Asian neighbors, leaving a void where diplomacy once stood. "This situation isn't promising for either nation or the region," Praveen Donthi, a senior analyst at the International Crisis Group in New Delhi, told Al Jazeera. "Even minor triggers could ignite a war situation without safeguards in place."
India-Pakistan: Who Steers the Solution?
The seeds of India-Pakistan conflict were sown in their independence from British rule in 1947, which led to the partition of the Indian subcontinent and subsequent creation of Pakistan. Since then, the two neighbours have fought four wars, three of them over Kashmir, a region governed jointly by India, Pakistan, and China.
After their 1971 war resulting in the formation of Bangladesh, India and Pakistan signed the Simla Agreement, stating their intention to solve their differences peacefully through bilateral negotiations. While Pakistan often cites UN resolutions to claim international involvement, India repeatedly invokes the Simla Agreement to underscore that negotiations must be solely bilateral.
However, the U.S. has intervened to mitigate tensions between the nations before, like in 1999, when President Bill Clinton pressured Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to withdraw troops from Kashmir's icy heights, claimed by India. Washington downplayed its role to give India the opportunity to assert that it had merely assisted with crisis management, not mediation.
Trump, however, changed the game on Saturday by announcing the ceasefire ahead of the respective Prime Ministers, sparking international curiosity and speculation about Washington's role in the conflict.
Kashmir Dispute: Who Takes the Reins?
Trump's address on his Truth Social platform on Monday hinted at engaging in Kashmir discussions with both countries, which could potentially shatter India's long-standing rejection of meddling by other countries in the Kashmir dispute. Yet, in his statement on Monday, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi primarily maintained conventional positions he has taken after prior periods of tension with Pakistan.
In contrast, Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif showed gratitude to Trump for brokering the ceasefire. Despite this, the specter of international intervention in the Kashmir dispute has been revitalized following India's bombardment of missiles and drones at Pakistan. India's barrage of attacks has instilled global unease.
India may temporarily avoid actual U.S. intervention through Kashmir by the U.S.'s all-consuming foreign policy commitments, specifically in the Middle East and Ukraine.
Unprecedented Targets
India and Pakistan broke not just red lines but crossed a Rubicon by attacking numerous high-population targets in cities and towns last week. India, in its most considerable offensive against Pakistan since the 1971 war, claimed the May 7 attacks targeted "terrorist" infrastructure as part of Operation Sindoor. That signified the manner in which the Pahalgam attack seems to have unfolded: Multiple witness accounts indicate the attackers separated men before targeting non-Muslims.
Both sides agree that the Indian missiles struck not just the disputed Kashmir but also four cities in Pakistan's Punjab province, home to 60% of its population. The first time India has struck Punjab since the 1971 war. As tensions escalated, India accused Pakistan of deploying a swarm of drones, a charge Islamabad refuted. The Indian counter-response included waves of drones that reached major population centers, including Karachi and Lahore.
In the early hours of May 10, India and Pakistan exchanged missiles at multiple provinces, expanding beyond the disputed Kashmir region. Despite Indian claims of shooting down most incoming missiles and drones, four air force bases suffered "limited damage." Pakistan claimed hits on Indian military installations across various provinces, including in Pathankot, Beas, and Adampur in Indian Punjab, and Bhuj in Modi's home state.
While the specific losses remain unclear, experts agree that Pakistan demonstrated the capacity to impose costs on India even while attempting to inflict damages on them. "Regarding red lines, another thing Pakistan sought to demonstrate was that they could sustain this conflict", Indian military historian and strategic analyst Srinath Raghavan told Al Jazeera.
Water and Peace Treaties
Beyond missiles and drones, the countries also targeted each other's water resources, having initially suspended India's participation in the Indus Waters Treaty after the Pahalgam attack. The treaty, signed in 1960, grants India access to the waters of three eastern rivers of the Indus Basin – Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej – and allows Pakistan to use the waters of three western rivers – Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab.
Suspending obligations under the Indus Waters Treaty represents a significant threat to Pakistan, which depends heavily on the waters for its lifeline. Pakistan described New Delhi's decision as an "act of war." In his speech on Monday evening, Modi stated emphatically, "Blood and water cannot flow together." This implied that India had yet to decide to recommit to the pact.
New Nuclear Threshold?
In addition to military actions, both India and Pakistan came dangerously close to a nuclear conflict. Up until now, the twin reality of nuclear weapons has affected India's handling of its tensions with Pakistan, aiming to punish Pakistan without risking nuclear danger. However, Modi's statement on "nuclear blackmail" indicated a possible change in approach.
This apparent shift raises concerns about the risks associated with lowering the threshold for a military conflict, making the ominous "nuclear flashpoint" truer than ever. Analysts warn that a single militant attack could rapidly escalate the situation, eroding the space for diplomacy and leading to unnecessary violence.
- The ceasefire along the India-Pakistan border, following a three-night standoff, may have been brokered by U.S. President Donald Trump, signifying a shift in diplomatic relations that could potentially reshape the ongoing conflict.
- The recent exchange of missiles and drones between India and Pakistan suggests an escalation of the long-standing India-Pakistan conflict, leading experts to warn that even minor triggers could ignite a war situation without safeguards in place.
- In the realm of general-news, the latest development in the Kashmir dispute reveals a potential turning point as Trump hinted at engaging in Kashmir discussions with both countries, potentially shattering India's long-standing rejection of meddling by other countries in the dispute.
- The latest escalation between India and Pakistan has extended beyond the disputed Kashmir region, with both sides targeting each other's water resources, raising concerns about the risks associated with lowering the threshold for a military conflict, making the ominous "nuclear flashpoint" truer than ever.
