Pinning high hopes on “nuclear weapons capability” and reducing the role of human agency is against the logic of “deterrence theory.” And we all know that deterrence work well when decision-makers behave in a “rational manner.” Nonetheless, the deterrence theory is silent about the behaviour of “an irrational actor.” According to the US Admiral, Arleigh Burke, the longest-serving Chief of Naval Operations in the US Navy’s history, “The major deterrent to war, is in a man’s mind.” And history has witnessed that technological transformation has had a little effect on the human inner self. Despite humans’ tremendous progress, basic human instincts are the same. The “threat to survival” has been a central element in shaping human lives and their surroundings. Famous architect of nuclear deterrence strategy, Bernard Brodie, once observed that “Thus far, the chief purpose of our military establishment has been to win wars. From now on its chief purpose must be to avert them. It can have almost no other useful purpose.” But currently, India is framing militarised nuclear strategies, which are not synced with the basic proposition of concepts of deterrence and strategic stability. In South Asia, high technological transformations are driving the military and nuclear policies of both nations. Advancement in conventional and unconventional arms and equipment, the nuclearisation of the Indian Ocean region, rapid development of Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) system and offensive space capabilities, i.e. Anti-Satellite (ASAT) test, procurement of S-400 BMD system and acquisition of nuclear submarines are provocative moves; creating a strategic imbalance in South Asian region. India, under PM Modi, is hellbent to jeopardise the regional as well as international peace and stability. It could potentially push the wider region into chaos and risk the lives of almost two billion people in the region. Since the “Balakot aggression” in February 2019, Indian political and military leadership has been continuously threatening Pakistan and issuing irresponsible statements. For example, the Indian interior minister threatened to change the country’s nuclear doctrine from ‘”no first to first use” and take back Pakistan’s administered part of Kashmir–Azad Jammu and Kashmir–by force. Indian Chief of the Army Staff (COAS) General Bipin Rawat made a political and false statement on destroying the launch pad of terrorists across the border. These statements from India’s highest political and military offices manifest the paranoid mentality of their leadership motivated by political opportunism with complete disregard from emerging ground realities. Meanwhile, they also wish to divert the media and international community’s attention from the worsening humanisation situation inside Indian occupied Jammu and Kashmir. Major General Asif Ghafoor termed these statements as “false claims;” detrimental to peace in the region and against “professional military ethos.” Furthermore, Gen Ghafoor challenged the false claims and offered the Indian embassy to visit the place along with the foreign media personnel and diplomats and prove the claims made by the Indian army chief. Moreover, Pakistan’s ministry of foreign affairs extended an invitation to the Indian embassy in Islamabad but received no response from the Indian side. Pakistan’s political and military leadership showed “maturity and rationality,” which are the fundamental pillars of “statesmanship” and “brinkmanship” opposed to Indian leaders’ “irrational and warmongering” attitude Post annexation of Jammu and Kashmir, the Indian government has been finding it difficult to justify their decision and actions in Kashmir in front of the international community. Therefore, they are making every effort to divert the media attention from IOK by instilling fear through irresponsible statements; misleading intelligence and security leaks. More recently, Hindustan Times published a story fed by the Indian intelligence agencies that “Jaish-e-Mohammad and Lashkar-e-Taiba are preparing to launch large scale alleged terror strikes against India in the coming winters.” According to these reports, the primary reason behind their alleged attack would be to “prevent the return of normalcy” in the valley. The fact of the matter is that IOK is under complete military siege and more than one million army officers and security forces have caged eight million innocent people through the barrel of the gun. Hundreds of young Kashmiris have been lifted from their homes without any justification. In this unprecedented state of repression, one could not be so naïve to not expect any response from the oppressed but brave Kashmiri people, who are fighting for the just cause of “self-determination,” recognised by the United National General Assembly (UNGA) and United National Security Council (UNSC) in several resolutions. From the strategic perspective, Modi and Doval’s policies have failed to subjugate the resilience of the Kashmiri nation and intimidate Pakistan to yield the desired results. Now, it is increasingly becoming difficult for them to sustain their iron-fist approach due to fear of severing the international backlash and the potential response from Pakistan in the case of any misadventure. Pakistan’s operation “Swift Retort” clearly manifested that Pakistan’s conventional forces are fully prepared to neutralise the enemy’s “counterterrorism” and “new normal-led military operations” with conventional means; without giving an excuse to escalate the crisis. Though after losing two aircrafts in dogfight and detention of its pilot, India gave the impression for escalation to ramp up pressure on Pakistan by threatening to attack with ballistic missiles. It also activated the components of three services, importantly the Naval assets i.e. aircraft carrier and a nuclear submarine, detected by Pakistan Navy near its territorial waters. However, in response to these serious developments, Pakistan took defensive measures but didn’t fall into the trap of Modi’s “Qatal ki Raat” paradigm. In this regard, Pakistan’s efforts to ensure regional and international peace need to be acknowledged. Pakistan’s political and military leadership showed “maturity and rationality,” which are the fundamental pillars of “statesmanship” and “brinkmanship” opposed to Indian leaders’ “irrational and warmongering” attitude. India’s domestic political patterns and irrational politico-military policies, combined with the increasing lethality of its arsenal and growing diplomatic outreach, have given them a false sense of superiority and motivation to test the mettle of a nuclear-armed nation. While having robust conventional deterrence through ill-conceived military operations, India does not seem to understand the future consequences for regional and global peace. Indian political and military planners must understand this fact that the primary goal of conventional and nuclear deterrence is to avoid conflict and enhance the prospects of peace through a rational decision-making process. In this regard, it is utmost important for the international community to play its due role to advise India to desist from further escalation and resolve issues through sensibility, engagement and dialogue. The writer is a senior research fellow at the South Asian Strategic Stability Institute (SASSI)