The roots of precarious peace in South Asia can be traced back to the bloody and violent division of India in 1947, as a result of the Muslim struggle based on the two-nation theory. Both states have yet to overcome the trauma of partition. Moreover, the role of religion in the partitioning of India added another layer to the precariousness of peace in the region. Rooted in ideological divergence, clashing nationalisms, and the politicisation of religion, partition did not merely mark the end of colonial rule; it erected a postcolonial architecture of hostility and mistrust that continues to imperil peace in South Asia. The historian Ayesha Jalal points out that the abrupt and violent division has sown the seeds of animosity in the subcontinent, and nationalism is now defined in oppositional rather than cooperative terms.
In India, lofty ideals such as secularism, pluralism, and the rule of law have eroded under the rise of exclusivist nationalism-Hindutva.
Over the decades, the visions of the founding fathers-Jinnah and Gandhi-have blurred. In India, lofty ideals such as secularism, pluralism, and the rule of law have eroded under the rise of exclusivist nationalism-Hindutva. The state-backed Hindutva ideology-anchored in the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and its political wing, the Bharatiya Janata Party (PJP)-has created an enabling environment in which Hindu extremists thrive, minorities are repressed, intolerance rises, and the gap between Muslims and Hindus across India-especially in Indian-occupied Kashmir-gets widened with each passing day. The revocation of Article 370 in 2019 further undermined the region’s autonomy, silencing democratic voices in the state once lauded as the epitome of India’s secular democracy.
Tension was simmering in Kashmir after the revocation of Article 370, and it escalated significantly following the Pahalgam incident on April 22, in which 26 civilians lost their lives. Without a credible investigation-internal or external-India blamed Pakistan, a familiar pattern seen in incidents like Mumbai (2008), Pathankot and Uri (2016), and Pulwama (2019). These incidents derailed peace initiatives on several occasions and spawned a cycle of accusations and counteraccusations. However, the Pahalgam incident spiralled into an open conflict: both countries reportedly exchanged airstrikes and missile attacks, resulting in civilian and military casualties on both sides. The situation threatened to spiral into a full-blown war, potentially nuclear.
India further inflamed tensions on April 23 by unilaterally declaring the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) “in abeyance”-a term with no legal standing in international treaty law and absent from the IWT framework itself. This violates Article 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969), which mandates good faith in treaty implementation. Furthermore, Article III (2) of the IWT explicitly prohibits India from altering the flow of the Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab rivers-lifelines for Pakistan’s agriculture and economy.
On May 7, in retribution for the Pahalgam incident, India reportedly conducted cross-border strikes into Pakistani territory, escalating tensions toward open conflict. Framed by New Delhi as a preventative measure, this act contravenes Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity of any state. Pakistan, invoking Article 51 of the Charter, asserted its right to self-defence, claiming its calibrated military response successfully restored conventional deterrence-although the legal threshold defining an “armed attack” remains contested under international law.
The potential for catastrophic conflict loomed large. With both nations possessing nuclear arsenals and nationalist fervour surging, the international community grew increasingly alarmed. On May 10, U.S. President Donald Trump intervened diplomatically to broker a ceasefire. Backed by key regional actors including China and Saudi Arabia, Trump’s shuttle diplomacy helped pull both India and Pakistan back from the brink of an unthinkable war. Though his mediation stirred debate in global forums, it temporarily restored stability and prevented further escalation. The sudden shift in Washington’s approach-from strategic disengagement to proactive diplomacy-was a timely and calculated move to contain a rapidly unfolding crisis.
This limited war has also dented India’s claim to regional hegemony. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s proclamation that any future terror attack would be treated as an act of war reveals a dangerous shift in strategic doctrine-one now described by Indian officials as the “new normal.” Meanwhile, Pakistani officials contend that their measured military response successfully restored deterrence without escalating into total war. India’s brinkmanship appears to have misfired diplomatically. Its attempt to frame terrorism as a pretext for war, especially amid a recalibrated global order marked by Trump’s return, shifted attention away from the conflict’s root causes and backfired on the international stage. The Modi government’s hawkish posture has not only strained regional stability but also eroded India’s moral authority in global forums.
Fueling the crisis further is the toxic role of hyper-partisan media in both countries. Sensationalism, disinformation, and jingoistic rhetoric dominate headlines, eroding rational discourse and stoking public sentiment against peacebuilding efforts.
To ensure lasting stability, several concrete steps are needed. First, India and Pakistan must reinvigorate the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), which has been dormant since the cancellation of its 19th Summit in 2016. India’s boycott following the Uri attack led to a chain withdrawal by Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Bhutan, paralysing a crucial platform for regional dialogue. Its revival is essential for peace and stability in South Asia.
Second, protracted disputes-especially Kashmir-must be addressed in accordance with the UN Charter and international law. Third, both countries should reaffirm their commitment to the Indus Waters Treaty, updating it to reflect contemporary issues such as climate change and its attendant challenges. Finally, reopening diplomatic channels, expanding bilateral trade, and encouraging cultural exchanges can help counteract divisive narratives and build mutual trust.
South Asia stands at a crossroads. It can continue treading the path of militarisation, proxy conflicts, and hateful provocations; alternatively, it can revive its inclusivity, plurality, and secularism-its civilizational core. The choice between peace and conflict and arbitrariness and mature diplomacy is stark, and the future of 1.7 billion people depends on it.
The writer is a researcher and columnist based in Islamabad. He can be reached at [email protected]