Understanding the India-Pakistan Conflict: Domestic Influence, Geography, and Restraint

Tensions between India and Pakistan are long-standing, complex, and deeply rooted in regional dynamics. Since their independence from British colonial rule in 1947, the two nations have fought several short wars, the most recent being the Kargil War in 1999. Despite decades of uneasy peace, high tensions persist, punctuated by frequent cross-border skirmishes and military escalations, such as the 2019 Balakot airstrikes and the events unfolding today. As the United States strengthens its strategic partnership with India, it is vital for U.S. policymakers and strategists to understand the nature of this conflict and its implications for regional stability. India-Pakistan relations are shaped primarily by domestic political pressures, amplified by geographical proximity, and defined by a mutual yet fragile restraint. This article explores these three key dynamics in detail.

Historical Background

The roots of the India-Pakistan conflict lie in the partition of British India in 1947. The creation of India and Pakistan as separate nations resulted in the displacement of approximately 12 million people and widespread communal violence. One of the most contentious issues arising from partition was the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir. Despite its Muslim-majority population, the ruler of Kashmir acceded to India, igniting the first India-Pakistan war and establishing Kashmir as the central issue in bilateral disputes.

Kashmir holds symbolic significance for both nations. Pakistan, founded as a homeland for Muslims, views Kashmir’s Muslim-majority status as justification for its inclusion within Pakistan. India, in contrast, regards itself as a secular democracy inclusive of all religions and sees Kashmir’s accession as affirming that identity. This foundational divergence continues to fuel political and military tensions.

Domestic Influence

Domestic politics are a primary driver of India-Pakistan relations. Nationalism, public sentiment, and political incentives significantly influence state behavior. Clausewitz’s concept of the “secondary trinity”—the people, government, and military—offers a framework for understanding how internal dynamics affect foreign policy and conflict.

Rising nationalism in both countries, fueled by historical grievances, and political rhetoric, increases the risk of escalation. Leaders may face domestic pressure to adopt more aggressive stances, especially during times of crisis. For example, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s decisive military response during the Balakot Crisis in 2019 was widely popular and contributed to his landslide reelection victory. Public support for military action creates a feedback loop, where perceived successes encourage further assertive policies.

Moreover, following the 2019 crisis, both Indian and Pakistani leaders claimed victory, reinforcing domestic narratives of strength and resilience. This mutual reinforcement of belligerence increases the likelihood of future confrontations and complicates diplomatic resolution.

Geography

Geography exacerbates existing tensions. India and Pakistan share a roughly 2,000-mile-long border, including the heavily militarized Line of Control in Kashmir. Frequent border incidents and skirmishes are almost inevitable given the close proximity and mutual distrust.

Geopolitical theory, such as Kautilya’s “circle of kings,” helps contextualize regional dynamics. According to this ancient Indian framework, a state’s immediate neighbors are potential enemies, while the neighbors of those enemies can become allies. This logic is reflected in Pakistan’s close relationship with China, which has evolved since the 1960s as a strategic counterbalance to Indian power. China’s military and diplomatic support bolsters Pakistan’s strategic position.

Similarly, India’s evolving approach to Afghanistan illustrates this logic. Despite previous opposition to the Taliban, India has initiated high-level talks with Taliban leadership in response to shared concerns about Pakistan. These developments show how regional alliances are shaped by geography and common adversaries.

The United States also plays a role in this strategic environment. Although it maintains relations with both India and Pakistan, the U.S. has increasingly aligned itself with India, especially as part of its broader strategy to counter China’s rise. This external influence can either stabilize or destabilize the region, depending on how it is managed.

Restraint and Limited Conflict

Despite recurrent hostilities, both India and Pakistan have exhibited restraint during times of war and crisis. Clausewitz’s distinction between “absolute war” and “real war” provides a useful framework. In absolute war, states deploy all available force to achieve total victory. In contrast, real war is moderated by political goals, fear, and practical limitations.

The 1999 Kargil War is a case in point. Despite having nuclear capabilities, both nations refrained from using their full military power. Strategic restraint has continued in subsequent crises, largely due to the deterrent effect of nuclear weapons and international pressure, particularly from the United States and China.

Both countries have adopted indirect strategies to avoid full-scale conflict. India emphasizes rapid, limited-force deployments to avoid nuclear escalation. Pakistan has supported non-state actors and militant groups to exert pressure on India without directly involving its military.

Thomas Schelling’s concept of compellence helps explain conflict behavior during periods of formal peace. Compellence involves using limited force or threats to coerce an adversary into halting undesired behavior. Both India and Pakistan have employed compellence to assert control over issues like Kashmir. For India, its acts of compellence aim to stop ongoing Pakistan interference into Indian domestic politics. Pakistan’s acts of compellence aim to force India to cede their ongoing governance of Kashmir to Pakistan. Notably, the nuclearization of the region has shifted the coercive balance, reducing India’s conventional superiority and emboldening Pakistan.

Implications for U.S. Strategy

Understanding the India-Pakistan conflict is crucial for U.S. policymakers. The United States relies on India as a strategic partner in countering China’s influence in South Asia. A full-scale war between India and Pakistan would not only threaten regional stability but also undermine U.S. strategic interests. Such a conflict could divert Indian resources, destabilize neighboring states, and create opportunities for Chinese expansion.

Additionally, the India-Pakistan dynamic offers insights into managing relations between nuclear-armed states. The U.S. can draw lessons from their mutual deterrence, limited war strategies, and coercive diplomacy when navigating future conflicts involving nuclear powers.

Conclusion

The India-Pakistan conflict is deeply entrenched and unlikely to be resolved in the near future. Domestic political dynamics, historical animosity, and geographical proximity drive tensions, while strategic restraint has so far prevented large-scale war. Understanding these dynamics is essential not only for regional stability but also for broader U.S. strategic planning. As long as both countries continue to exercise restraint—whether due to mutual deterrence, domestic constraints, or international influence—there remains hope for managing, if not resolving, this volatile rivalry.

(Disclaimer: The views expressed are those of the author and do not reflect official positions or policy of the U.S. Army, Department of Defense, or U.S. Government.)