The Indian aggression along the Line of Control (LOC) should be considered a major threat to the peace of the region. However, it should also not come as a surprise to Pakistani policymakers and military leadership. The Indian military and political leadership have expressed its view of utilising a more aggressive policy when it comes to the issue of Kashmir. The Indian leadership has also expressed its desires to carry out a deliberate policy of generating low-intensity conflicts along the LOC. These policy decisions were expressed in the military doctrine document titled, “Joint Doctrine Indian Armed Forces,” which was published by the Indian military leadership. The document emphasized exerting effective control over the LOC by relying on Low-Intensity Conflicts and Punitive Strikes. It also implied that it could carry out such aggressive activities without crossing the nuclear threshold. In simple terms, India believes that it can carry out small-scale military attacks along the LOC, without initiating a nuclear response from Pakistan. The recent attacks along the LOC and Balakot airstrikes are examples of this version of Indian thinking. India has also been in the process of acquiring modern arms and ammunition. Through multiple arms deals with countries such as Russia and the US, India has been seeking a rapid modernisation plan for its military capabilities. This is also supplemented by the fact that India has also invested in extending missile ranges for its long-range capabilities. The development of the Agni V is a testament to this fact. India believes that it can carry out small-scale military attacks along the LOC, without initiating a nuclear response from Pakistan Through the usage of such rapid modernization plans, India is pursuing an aggressive policy regarding the issue of Kashmir. Already, India has maintained an extensive military presence in the area of Jammu and Kashmir. India is now relying on the usage of the military option to attain dominance over the issue of Kashmir. By relying on military suppression, India hopes to forcefully attain its right over Kashmir. India’s military and political leadership have relied on an overtly aggressive strategy as a long-term vision of asserting dominance in the region. The Indian policymakers are of the view that by arm-twisting and bullying, it can ensure that its dominance over the region is materialized. However, the issue of using military capabilities to resolving political disputes is the fact that it seldom resolves the issues on a slippery slope. With the influx of military capabilities in Kashmir, the freedom movement is gaining even more momentum. It has also highlighted the abrasive and harsh Indian policies regarding human rights. Similarly, by relying on military force to subdue Pakistan, India is also playing a dangerous game. It needs to be remembered that both India and Pakistan are nuclear countries. The logic of nuclear deterrence maintains when the adversary is aware that there is a credible and capable nuclear capability that can inflict unacceptable damage. This phenomenon triggers an aura of restraint in both the conventional and nuclear domains. However, with India’s rationale that it can respond in a military domain without triggering the nuclear threshold is a dangerous precedent for the region. This is because it is deliberately underestimating the nuclear capabilities of Pakistan. Therefore, in essence, India is deliberately sabotaging the idea of nuclear deterrence vis-à-vis Pakistan. India has also openly called the nuclear capabilities of Pakistan as a ‘bluff’, stated by the Indian Finance Minister Arun Jaitley after the Balakot airstrikes. The problem with wars and conflicts is that it does not follow a set pattern. Escalations in a conflict solely depend on the lens with which the political/military leadership views it. An example of this is the Balakot airstrikes and the Pakistani response, Indian policymakers were of the view that Pakistan would not escalate the conflict; however, Pakistan’s reciprocal response demonstrated that the Indian estimates were lacking. Therefore, it is a very dangerous game to assume the escalation and response of the enemy in a conflict. With India’s recent aggression there is the development of a rationale that Pakistan would not want to escalate the conflict, which can again pose dangerous consequences. While it is obvious that India has no designs of maintaining peace in the region, it must be mentioned that the onus of the responsibility falls on the international states to keep India’s aggression in check. Failure to do so can lead to disastrous consequences not just for the region but globally as well. The writer is a consultant at the Islamabad Policy Research Institute (IPRI)