Yet admittedly, there could still be miscalculations, of course, but both sides have demonstrated awareness of the risks posed by escalation and have taken painful compromises to avoid such risks. But here, it is pertinent to discuss the role of balance of power vis-à-vis strategic stability in South Asia. In international relations, it is the very means and conduct of balance of power through which a state posits the posture and policy of a nation or group of nations protecting itself against another nation or group of nations by juxtaposing its power against the power of the other side. States can pursue a policy of balance of power in two ways: by questing for their own myth of power, as when engaging in an armaments race or in the competitive acquisition of territory; or by sufficiently adding to their own power that of other states, as when embarking upon a policy of alliances. Balance of Power mechanism is meant to ensure the existence of the nation-state in the international system through a synergy of balancing mechanism or equilibrium of power. The political scene of Europe has been witnessing this mechanism for the last 400 years, though in varied forms. The myth of nuclear weapons’ power has virtually transformed the dynamics of the balance of power system globally. Put pragmatically, regardless of whatever oversimplifications are involved in any discussion of the so-called liberal order, it is hard to quibble with the positive outcomes that marked international affairs since 1945. Seven broad trends stand out. First, the global economy generated unprecedented wealth. Second, while uneven, states generally became more responsive to the needs of their citizens than they had in centuries past. Third, states became more committed to and developed institutional capabilities for the purpose of confronting transnational problems and dealing with the tragedy of the commons. Fourth, tolerance, both as a norm and as a state policy, became increasingly important (if still inconsistently and unevenly applied) in countries that became part of the liberal order. Fifth, on most measures of wellbeing, from literacy to diet to various personal freedoms, there have been massive and widespread improvements. Sixth, great power wars of conquest, the scourge of humanity throughout history, largely disappeared. Seventh, the United States exercised extraordinary influence on world affairs and derived great political and material benefits from global arrangements. While not discounting the many negative outcomes and worrisome trends of the last eight decades, from a historical standpoint, this is an extraordinary record, well worth the United States preserving and building upon. The problem is that the current international realities/dynamics are largely cutting the ground from under this comfortable environment where crystallization of two camps is emerging with a prospect of choosing between them. Contrary to traditional expectations, the key destroyer of the existing post bipolar order is not a new ascending power but a global leader (which, in theory, should be clinging to the hyperpower status quo). Today, we are observing a new power transformation in international relations, wherein a global leader (the United States) is working hard to transform the existing order, its motive being either the wish to control the change for its own benefit, or the fear, real or imaginary, of the new centres of power, or a series of failures in the control system that generate system errors in key political decision-making. Unfortunately, Modis policy of zero-sum game in South Asia accompanied by his political hedonism is the main source of creating strategic asymmetry in the South Asian region However, to gain the minimum degree of strategic stability, it’s paramount to prevent a direct military collision between New Delhi and Islamabad. With that goal in mind, there stems a need of making around-the-clock communication lines between the top military leaderships between the two sides. Direct communication at the top political level is also organically important to establish the means of de-escalation in the most dangerous situations. Obviously, strategic stability in the twenty-first century means a paradigm– advocating the absence of incentives for any use of nuclear weapons( which effectively also requires preventing major military conflict among the nuclear-weapon states). And yet to form a durable basis for the regional strategic stability there are some fundamental principles to follow. 1-Stability comes from doctrinal restraint, as well as from technological and 2-While fostering the principle to practice deterrence, both the nuclear powers -India and Pakistan –should exercise unilateral, bilateral, and multilateral restraint in developing, manufacturing, testing, or deploying weapons in the absence of arms control.3-And likewise, the promotion of a policy focusing on traditional arms control mechanisms will be required to give way to conflict prevention mechanisms, confidence-building measures, transparency, consultations, and bilateral dialogue. Both China and Pakistan are forming a strong partnership vis-à-vis the Indo-U.S. strategic alliance and also seeking newer partners and re-balancing erstwhile equations. In the larger context of the region with Iran, Saudi Arabia and Russia are being drawn into the cobweb of a strategic chessboard thereby representing a larger South Asia with Afghanistan which is also becoming a bone of contention. Pakistan has been trying to offset India’s attempt of diplomatic isolation through external balancing in terms of gaining qualitatively superior weaponry and diplomatic support from Turkey, Russia, China and Malaysia. Trump’s policy towards the two South Asian powers-India and Pakistan respectively indicates his transactional world view and is based on an understanding of the strategic utility and constraints– encompassing Washington-Islamabad and New Delhi–Washington relations. The importance of Pakistan, due to its geostrategic location and influence over the Taliban, has taken a pivotal consideration in Trump’s White House because of Trump’s political goal to end the decades old U.S. war in Afghanistan. On Tuesday, while visiting the Indian capital New Delhi President Trump, has, once again, offered to mediate on Kashmir which remains a nuclear flash point in South Asia and the pivot of South Asian strategic stability. “I said I will help, do whatever I can do, because my relationship with both gentlemen [PMs of India and Pakistan] is so good. Anything I can do to mediate, anything I can do to help, I will do,” he said, adding that while he understood that the two countries would discuss the issue of Kashmir between them, they had been “at it for a “very long time” without results. But unfortunately, Modis policy of zero-sum game in South Asia accompanied by his political hedonism is the main source of creating strategic asymmetry in the South Asian region. Undeniably, as long as the principles of balance of power, legitimacy, international law, human rights, and nuclear arms control regime don’t get the right place in the changing global order, the expectations of global peace, and strategic regional stability will remain unfulfilled. The writer is an independent ‘IR’ researcher and international law analyst based in Pakistan