12 May 2025, NIICE Commentary 10910
Anurag Paul
The story of India–Pakistan relations is one of hope, hostility, and haunting historical memories. Born out of the same anti-colonial struggle in 1947, the two neighbours were tragically set on divergent trajectories. Where India embraced pluralistic nationalism, Pakistan was built around the two-nation theory—a cultural and ideological divide that would shape their interactions for decades. From the Kashmir conflict to the spectre of terrorism, from bus diplomacy to surgical strikes, every twist in their shared history has reflected the deeper psychological and structural dynamics that define them.
Realist Rivalry: War, Power, and the Balance of Fear
Neorealism posits that in an anarchic international system, states must fend for themselves. India and Pakistan, thus, became natural adversaries. The balance of power, shaped by internal capabilities and external alliances, has repeatedly failed to ensure lasting peace. Despite support from the US, Soviet Union, and China acting as external balancers over the years, both countries have found themselves locked in a persistent security dilemma—each interpreting the other’s actions as threats to its survival. This realist prism explains the four wars fought (1948, 1965, 1971, 1999), the nuclear tests of 1998, and the ever-growing arsenal of conventional and non-conventional weapons.
Constructivist scholars like Alexander Wendt, however, remind us that the hostility between India and Pakistan is not inevitable. It is a product of identity formation—each nation defining itself in contrast to the other. The scars of Partition, the religious and cultural narratives, and the symbolic centrality of Kashmir have embedded deep ideational divides. Even when specific disputes like the Indus Waters or the Rann of Kutch were resolved, peace remained elusive because the underlying narratives of “us versus them” were never dismantled.
Terrorism: The New Battleground
In this fraught landscape, terrorism has emerged not merely as a tactical tool but as a strategic fault line. From the attack on the Indian Parliament (2001), to 26/11 in Mumbai (2008), to the Pulwama convoy bombing (2019), Pakistan-based terror outfits—often with state complicity—have repeatedly targeted Indian lives. Each of these events has reinforced both realist anxieties and constructivist suspicions, pushing diplomatic efforts into a cycle of progress and collapse. Even attempts at rapprochement—be it Vajpayee’s Lahore visit, the Composite Dialogue process, or Modi’s surprise visit to Lahore in 2015—have been undone by subsequent acts of terror.
The 2019 abrogation of Article 370 by India, which ended the special status of Jammu & Kashmir, was perceived by Pakistan as a unilateral challenge to its claims and identity. Islamabad responded by downgrading diplomatic ties, halting trade, and suspending transport links—deepening the estrangement. India, for its part, maintained that dialogue and peace were impossible without an end to cross-border terrorism. The mutual distrust had by now calcified into a near-permanent state of managed hostility, with diplomacy punctuated by provocation.
And then came Operation Sindoor
In the early hours of 7 May 2025, the Indian armed forces launched their most expansive tri-service military operation since the 1971 War. Codenamed Operation Sindoor, it was a precise, intelligence-led strike on terrorist infrastructure spread across Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Jammu & Kashmir (PoJK). The immediate trigger was the Pahalgam attack of April 2025, which killed 26 civilians. The Lashkar-e-Taiba proxy, The Resistance Front (TRF), had initially claimed responsibility and later denied it—echoing a familiar pattern of ambiguity and plausible deniability.
But India, now armed with robust intelligence, advanced satellite surveillance, and precision weapons like the SCALP cruise missile and HAMMER PGMs, chose to respond decisively. Strikes targeted nine key sites—training camps, fidayeen facilities, and terror leadership hubs in places like Muzaffarabad, Kotli, Muridke, and Bahawalpur. The operation avoided Pakistani military installations to limit escalation, yet dealt a devastating blow to terrorist infrastructure, killing over 100 operatives, including high-value targets like JeM’s Abdul Rauf Azhar.
The Indian government described the operation as “focused, measured, and non-escalatory”—a striking evolution in doctrine. Unlike the 2016 surgical strikes or the 2019 Balakot airstrike, Operation Sindoor was not just punitive but pre-emptive, signalling a doctrinal shift towards counterforce targeting of non-state actors in hostile territory, without crossing conventional military red lines.
Pakistan, predictably, retaliated with cross-border shelling and attempted drone strikes, leading to civilian casualties on both sides. However, India’s advanced air defence systems—S-400, Barak-8, Akash, and Israeli Harop drones—neutralised most threats, showcasing an evolved defence posture.
Diplomatically, India reached out to major global powers—US, UK, Russia, UAE, Saudi Arabia—stating clearly that the action was counter-terrorist in nature, not an act of war. Media narratives across the globe largely favoured India’s version, framing the operation as legitimate self-defence. Pakistan’s attempts to internationalise the issue found little traction, further isolating Islamabad on the world stage.
Past as Prologue, Present as Pivot
From a theoretical perspective, Operation Sindoor encapsulates the enduring clash between neorealism and constructivism. Neorealists would see it as a rational response to a persistent threat—a balancing act to enhance national security in a hostile regional environment. Constructivists would point to how the very definition of threat is socially constructed—the way India views Pakistani terror groups as extensions of the Pakistani state, while Pakistan sees Indian actions in Kashmir as existential provocations.
But both perspectives agree on one thing: peace cannot be built on unstable foundations. The cycle of hostility and retaliation only ends when narratives are reshaped and when mutual security is no longer seen as a zero-sum game.
South Asia today is a nuclear flashpoint. The stakes are too high for old patterns to continue. Initiatives like Aman Ki Asha, confidence-building measures, cross-border trade, and environmental cooperation offer alternate pathways. Even if political engagement remains frozen, functional collaboration in non-political domains—like climate, health, and trade—can act as stepping stones.
Conclusion
India has repeatedly expressed its desire for normal neighbourly relations, grounded in non-violence and mutual respect. But as Operation Sindoor shows, that desire will not come at the cost of national security. The message is clear: India will talk peace, but only in an atmosphere free of terror. Until then, it will act firmly, precisely, and without apology.
In the end, the evolution of India–Pakistan relations, culminating in Operation Sindoor, is a tale of a region still shackled to its past, but striving, however imperfectly, for a future where peace might one day prevail.
Anurag Paul is a Research Intern at NIICE and is currently pursuing his Master of Arts in Political Science at Indira Gandhi National Open University, India.
