India-Pakistan Relations: A

Comprehensive Analysis:
Introduction:
The relationship between India and Pakistan is a complex geopolitical
dynamic. Originating from the 1947 partition and the unresolved Kashmir
dispute, it's marked by conflicts, mistrust, and nuclear deterrence.
Ideological differences, like the "Two-Nation Theory," and Kashmir's
centrality fuel strategic competition. While diplomacy offers some hope, it's
often undermined by cross-border terrorism and hardline positions.
Nuclearization provides stability through deterrence but increases
escalation risks, especially with evolving military doctrines and hybrid
warfare. External powers further complicate regional security. The
immediate future suggests a "no-war, no-peace" equilibrium with low-
intensity conflicts. Sustainable peace requires dialogue, enhanced
confidence-building measures and recognizing devastating outcomes.

The Genesis of a Complex Relationship: Historical

grievances:
EARLY ISSUES:

1. Radcliffe Injustices:

The hasty division of borders by Sir Cyril Radcliffe, without full understanding
led to significant injustices. Sir Cyril Radcliffe, a British judge assigned the
head of boundary commission to draw the borders of the two new states. He
was given barely forty days to remake the map of South Asia. According to
partition plan the Muslim majority areas were to be given to Pakistan and
the rest areas will be part of India. But the problem arises when the areas
that was of prime importance for Pakistan, that includes Firozpur
headworks , Gurdaspur, and Calcutta, the economic hub and producing unit
was allocated to India, depriving Pakistan from its rights.

2. Issue of Princely States:

At the time of partition there were 500 princely states and the ruler of the
states were given the choice to either acceded to any state or to maintain
the independent status. Nearly all the states accepted the reality of the
situation and opted either for Pakistan or India accordingly. But there were
four states, Junagadh, Hyderabad, Jodhpur and Kashmir, which because of
their peculiar situation did not conform to the agreed principle of partition.
Junagadh , a Hindu-majority state with a Muslim Nawab who acceded to
Pakistan. India intervened militarily and held a plebiscite, which resulted in
its integration into India. Hyderabad, The largest and richest princely state,
with a Hindu majority ruled by a Muslim Nizam who desired independence.
India launched "Operation in 1948, leading to Hyderabad's integration
similary Jammu & Kashmir a Muslim-majority state with a Hindu Maharaja,
Hari Singh, who initially sought independence. Facing an invasion from
Pakistani-backed tribesmen, he acceded to India, leading to the first Indo-
Pakistani War and a long-standing dispute that continues to this day.

3. Refugee Problem:

In the aftermath of partition, a huge population exchange occurred between

the two newly formed states. About 15 million people crossed the borders
with over 8 million Muslims coming to Pakistan from India while nearly 7
million Hindus and Sikhs moving to India from the areas in Pakistan. The
migration was accompanied by widespread communal violence, massacres,
and atrocities on both sides. About 5.5 million settled in Punjab Pakistan and
around 1.5 million settled in Sindh , Pakistan, as a nascent state with limited
resources, was ill-equipped to handle the resulting humanitarian catastrophe;
makeshift refugee camps lacked basic amenities, leading to widespread
disease and dire shortages of food and water.

4. Unfair Division of Assets:

At time of partition 1947, assets division, which includes offices, banks and
military division, was much more difficult than the division of land areas. A s
part of division plan Pakistan’s share 7.5% of the total assets of British India.
An amount of 75millions were allocated to Pakistan but Reserve Bank of India
only paid 70millions . Till toady the remaining share of 50million has not
been given to Pakistan.

5. The water dispute and IWT:

The water dispute between India and Pakistan first escalated significantly on
April 1, 1948, when India cut off the supply of water from two headworks
under its control. These headworks supplied water to areas that had become
part of Pakistan. Pakistan took the issue to Internal court of justice. Later in
1960 with a the cooperation of World Bank an permanent binding
contract was signed between both the countries called “Indus water
treaty” that allocated the eastern rivers to India and western river to
Pakistan. Pakistan alleged that India violates the IWT by working on
hydroelectric projects on the rivers the flows toward Pakistan. History shows
that India has always weaponized resources against Pakistan and the recent
New Delhi statement of suspension of IWT and diverting the water flow
following the Pahaglam attack in April 2025 is another example of India
depriving the people of Pakistan from their human rights, a move Pakistan
condemned as an "act of war" and water terrorism and responded to by
suspending the Simla Agreement and bilateral trade.

Major Conflicts and ongoing Crises:

 Kashmir issue: Kashmir remains a major flashpoint between nuclear-

armed India and Pakistan, rooted in the partition of British India in
1947. Both countries claim the entirety of the former princely state,
leading to multiple wars and ongoing skirmishes along the Line of
Control (LoC) that divides the region.It has brought both the nations to
brink of nuclear catastrophe many times. The dispute is exacerbated
by an armed insurgency in Indian-administered Kashmir, which India
attributes to cross-border terrorism supported by Pakistan, a claim
Pakistan denies, asserting it provides only moral and diplomatic
support to the Kashmiri right to self-determination.
the major conflicts that have marked the Kashmir issue:
1. First Indo-Pakistani War (1947-1948): Immediately after partition,
Pashtun tribal militias, supported by Pakistan, invaded Kashmir.
Maharaja Hari Singh, facing a dire situation, appealed to India for
military assistance, which was provided after he signed the Instrument
of Accession to India. This led to a full-scale war between India and
Pakistan. The conflict ended with a UN-brokered ceasefire on January 1,
1949, which established the Line of Control (LoC), dividing Kashmir into
Indian-administered and Pakistani-administered parts. The UN also
called for a plebiscite to determine Kashmir's future, which has never
been held.

2. Second Indo-Pakistani War (1965): This war began with Pakistan's

"Operation Gibraltar," an attempt to infiltrate forces into Indian-
administered Kashmir to incite an uprising against Indian rule. India
retaliated, leading to a full-scale war along the international border.
The conflict ended in a stalemate with the Tashkent Declaration in
1966, where both sides agreed to revert to pre-war positions and
resolve disputes peacefully.

3. Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 (Bangladesh Liberation War): While

primarily fought over the secession of East Pakistan (now Bangladesh),
 the Kashmir issue was intertwined with this conflict. Fighting also
occurred on the western front, including in Kashmir. Following the war,
the Simla Agreement of 1972 was signed, transforming the ceasefire
line into the Line of Control (LoC) and committing both nations to
resolve their differences bilaterally.

4. Kargil War (1999): This localized conflict erupted when Pakistani

regular and irregular forces infiltrated into Indian-controlled areas of
Kargil district on the Indian side of the LoC. India launched "Operation
Vijay" to dislodge the infiltrators. The intense fighting, which brought
both nuclear-armed nations to the brink of a larger war, ended with the
withdrawal of Pakistani forces following international pressure.

Beyond these major wars, Kashmir has been a site of ongoing low-intensity
conflict, cross-border issues still continue which includes;
 Cross-Border Terrorism: Blame game play :
Cross-border terrorism remains a central and persistent impediment to the
normalization of India-Pakistan relations. Both countries often blames each
other of militant attacks. India alleges that these attacks are orchestrated by
Pakistan-backed terrorist groups, while Pakistan called it false flage
operations by india and denied such accusations. Major incidents include

1. 2008 Mumbai Attacks: While India firmly blamed Pakistan-based

Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) for these attacks, some Pakistani circles and
analysts have alleged that it could have been a false flag operation,
aiming to malign Pakistan. However, extensive evidence and
international investigations have largely corroborated India's claims of
LeT's involvement.
2. 2016 Pathankot Air Base Attack: Following this attack, India again
pointed fingers at Pakistan-based militant groups, specifically Jaish-e-
Mohammed (JeM). Pakistan, while condemning the attack, raised
questions about the security lapses that allowed the attackers to breach
the highly secured airbase and suggested the possibility of a false flag.
3. 2016 Uri Attack: This attack on an Indian Army camp in Uri also led to
India blaming JeM and subsequently conducting "surgical strikes" across
the Line of Control. Pakistan rejected India's claims and denied any
involvement, often alleging that the attack was a false flag designed to
justify military action.
4. 2019 Pulwama Attack and Balakot strike : This suicide bombing,
which killed many Indian paramilitary personnel, was claimed by JeM.
India retaliated with airstrikes in Balakot, Pakistan. Pakistan, while
condemning the attack, strongly denied its involvement and has
repeatedly alleged that the Pulwama attack was a false flag operation
 orchestrated by India for electoral gains and to create a pretext for
military action.
5. 2025 Pahalgam Attack: More recently, the Pahalgam attack in July
2025, which killed numerous tourists, has also seen. This triggered
"Operation Sindoor," with India striking deep into Pakistan, and
Pakistan retaliating with "Operation Bunyan al-Marsus," marking the
first drone battle. Pakistan accuses India of a "false flag operation"
designed to justify actions like the suspension of the Indus Waters
Treaty and to divert attention from domestic issues in India and the
situation in Kashmir

Foreign policy:
India's foreign policy towards Pakistan has undergone a profound
transformation, moving decisively from a nuanced, sometimes idealistic,
approach to a robust and assertive posture, now best characterized as a
comprehensive "containment policy."

1. From Non-Alignment to Assertive Realism:

While India historically championed non-alignment, its policy towards

Pakistan has become more assertive, especially Since 2016, This is evident in
its surgical strikes (2016) and Balakot airstrikes (2019), demonstrating a shift
from past strategic restraint to active targeting in name of “war against
terrorism”. India's post-May 2025 military doctrine explicitly states it will
respond on its own terms and will not differentiate between state and non-
state sponsors of terror.This signifies an evolving deterrence posture, aiming
to impose costs on Pakistan

2. Evolution of Nuclear Doctrine

While India formally maintains an NFU policy, there have been indications of
a potential reconsideration since August 2019. This evolving stance, coupled
with its demonstrated willingness for deeper conventional strikes, reflects a
dynamic adjustment to its deterrence strategy, aiming to enhance its
punitive capabilities against Pakistan's perceived asymmetric warfare.

3. Ideological Drivers of Aggression: Hindutva" and "Moditva":

Under Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government, India's foreign policy
towards Pakistan has been significantly shaped by "Hindutva" (Hindu
nationalism) ideology and the political style of "Moditva.". Actions like the
abrogation of Article 370 in 2019, stripping Jammu and Kashmir of its special
status, are seen by many as driven by this nationalist agenda. Strong
domestic nationalist support fuels this hardline approach. This ideological
underpinning promotes a more assertive, often confrontational, stance
towards Pakistan, portraying it as an existential adversary.

4. Economic Leverage as a Tool of Containment

India has increasingly integrated economic measures into its containment

policy against Pakistan. This includes withdrawing Most Favoured Nation
(MFN) status and hiking customs duties on Pakistani exports in 2019. The
unilateral suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty in April 2025 further
exemplifies this, transforming a technical water-sharing agreement into a
potent economic and strategic lever to impose costs on Pakistan and compel
behavioral change.

Pakistan's Evolving Foreign Policy is a robust, realist

response to a perceived existential threat from India. It is a policy driven by
the imperative to balance power, secure its borders, safeguard its nuclear
assets, and relentlessly advocate for the self-determination of the Kashmiri
people, even as it strives for economic stability and diversified international
partnerships in a highly challenging regional environment.

 Security-Centric Approach: Pakistan's foreign policy views its

relationship with India as the defining factor in its security calculus.
Every major strategic decision, from alliances to defense spending, is
often framed in response to perceived Indian aggression or aspirations
for regional hegemony. For Pakistan, Kashmir is not merely a territorial
dispute but the "jugular vein" of the nation, and its unresolved status
remains the biggest impediment to peace in South Asia. Pakistan
consistently highlights the UN Security Council resolutions calling for a
plebiscite in Kashmir, arguing that India's continued occupation and
recent unilateral actions, such as the abrogation of Article 370 in
2019, are violations of international law and human rights. Pakistan
views these actions as India's attempt to alter the demographic
composition of the disputed territory and undermine the Kashmiri
people's right to self-determination. Pakistan's Deputy Prime Minister,
 Mohammad Ishaq Dar, recently reiterated at the UN Security Council
that "Jammu and Kashmir remains one of the oldest disputes on
the agenda of the UN Security Council.

 Overcoming Conventional Asymmetry: India's significantly larger

conventional military might have always been a concern for Pakistan
security . Its defense posture and foreign policy are designed ensuring
that India cannot achieve its alleged hegemonic designs through
conventional warfare.

 Nuclear Deterrence: Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is central to its

security doctrine. Its policy of Credible Minimum Deterrence (CMD)
evolved towards Full Spectrum Deterrence (FSD), implying a
willingness to use tactical nuclear weapons to deter even limited
conventional incursions in response to India's conventional military
doctrines the Cold Start Doctrine. Pakistan maintains a first-use
option for nuclear weapons, arguing it's necessary to compensate for
its conventional asymmetry with India. This contrasts with India's No-
First-Use (NFU) policy. It signals that Pakistan will not allow itself to be
overwhelmed conventionally and will use "any weapon in its arsenal" if
its security is gravely threatened, including scenarios of large-scale
conventional military defeat, economic strangulation like critical water
denial or naval blockade, or severe internal destabilization
orchestrated by external forces .This highlights Pakistan understanding
of strategic stability-instability paradox, where nuclear weapons
prevent large wars but may enable sub-conventional conflicts.

 Diplomatic efforts on Kashmir isuue : Pakistan believes such

incidents are manufactured to serve India's political and military
objectives. Pakistan consistently seeks to internationalize the Kashmir
issue, advocating for UN resolutions and human rights concerns,
viewing it as a core component of its foreign policy. Moreover Pakistan
frequently exposes India "false flag" operations (e.g., Pulwama 2019,
Pahalgam 2025) to create pretexts for aggression, demonize
Pakistan, and distract from India's internal issues.

 Economic Diplomacy: While security remains paramount, Pakistan

articulated a vision of prioritizing "geo-economics" over "geopolitics,"
recognizing that economic strength is fundamental to national power
and security. This involves attracting foreign investment, fostering
trade, and enhancing regional connectivity. CPEC is central to this
economic vision, promising to transform Pakistan's infrastructure and
unlock its economic potential. However, India's perceived hostile
posture, including its recent decision to hold the Indus Waters
Treaty in abeyance, directly undermines Pakistan's economic
stability and complicates its efforts in economic diplomacy. Such
actions are viewed as deliberate attempts to destabilize Pakistan
economically. Pakistan views these as acts of aggression that prevent
genuine regional cooperation.