Why can’t India and Pakistan make peace?
While jets fall and shells fly across the border, the real cost of the India-Pakistan conflict is borne by regional development, diplomacy, and the long-silenced people of Kashmir
Long-standing tensions between India and Pakistan have escalated again—this time with active strikes and retaliatory claims. While both India and Pakistan accuse each other of aggression, the ongoing crisis is neither new nor surprising.
Altaf Parvez, a researcher of South and Southeast Asian history and politics, thinks that it is consistent with a pattern of hostility that is supported by unresolved political disputes, nationalistic agendas, and the strategic use of conflict for domestic leverage.
Altaf Parvez said, "It is not about Kashmir anymore, this is about power. Both countries use Kashmir as a political ego trip. Neither thinks about what the Kashmiris want. Since the 1950s, Kashmir has been used as a tool to stay in power, expand military budgets, and strengthen the grip of military bureaucracies. It is now a justification for keeping the borders tense, maintaining arms deals, and sustaining political rhetoric. There is no interest in a real solution—because peace would strip both governments of a major propaganda device."
Keep updated, follow The Business Standard's Google news channel
On Wednesday, India launched strikes across the border into Pakistan-administered Kashmir, targeting what Islamabad claims were civilian infrastructure sites, including dams and hydropower projects. Pakistan said 26 civilians were killed and 46 were injured.
In retaliation, the Pakistani military claimed that they had shot down five Indian aircraft, though New Delhi has yet to confirm this. Meanwhile, at least three Indian fighter jets reportedly crashed in different parts of Indian-administered Kashmir, according to four local government officials.
"They've gone tit-for-tat. So hopefully they can stop now. If I can do anything to help, I will be there. I get along with both, I know both very well, and I want to see them work it out."
On the other hand, India claims that seven civilians were killed and 35 injured in Pakistani shelling along the Line of Control.
The cost of conflict
Beyond the battlefield, the standoff is costing both countries economically and diplomatically. The South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC)—a platform designed to foster regional cooperation—has become largely ineffective due to India-Pakistan tensions.
The persistent hostilities are hampering regional trade, slowing down economic growth, and deepening poverty. The two nations share a 3,000-kilometre-long border and vast untapped economic potential. A World Bank report estimated that trade between India and Pakistan could reach $37 billion annually, compared to the current figure of less than $500 million.
But the problem runs deeper than just diplomacy. Stephen Cohen, in his seminal book Shooting for a Century: The India-Pakistan Conundrum, characterises the conflict as a "hurting stalemate"—an intractable rivalry shaped by decades of mutual suspicion, unresolved historical trauma, and national narratives that position the other as the existential threat.
According to Cohen, "Each side sees itself as a victim of the other's aggression, and both have institutionalised these perceptions within their political cultures, security doctrines, and even school curriculum."
Kashmir as a political capital
This mutual rivalry is more visible in Kashmir than anywhere else. The region, disputed since Partition in 1947, has seen three wars and countless battles. The current escalation marks a fourth armed conflict, once again centring on Kashmir without involving the Kashmiri people in the discussion.
Altaf Parvez warns that Kashmir has long ceased to be a people-centric issue. "No one asks what Kashmiris want. The idea of a public referendum has been sidelined. Instead, Kashmir serves as a justification for military spending, political posturing, and keeping the nationalistic base energised in both countries," he said.
Both nations have nuclear weapons but remain cautious not to escalate the situation into a full-scale nuclear war. This restraint is deliberate, not out of peace-building intentions, but due to strategic calculations.
"A nuclear war would hurt the elites themselves. What we are seeing is a managed conflict, low enough to avoid mutual destruction, high enough to serve domestic political ends," Altaf Parvez added.
What holds back peace?
Several structural factors explain why peace between India and Pakistan remains tough. The legacy of colonialism and the trauma of the 1947 Partition, which displaced over 15 million people and killed up to two million, still casts a long shadow, with the unresolved status of Kashmir continuing to fuel resentment.
The two nations' contradictory national identities—Pakistan's foundation on Islamic principles versus India's secular nationalism—further entrench ideological mistrust. Terrorism and proxy warfare also undermine trust, as Pakistan's security establishment has long been accused of harbouring militant groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba, with the 2008 Mumbai attacks marking a turning point in Indian public opinion.
Compounding these issues are institutional dynamics, where Pakistan's military and intelligence services exert disproportionate influence over national policy, often sidelining civilian efforts toward diplomacy. Efforts at engagement are frequently derailed by violence, perpetuating a cycle of suspicion and hostility.
Even when backchannel diplomacy or trade initiatives make progress, they are often derailed before they can take place. As Cohen noted, both nations are trapped in a cycle of hostility, periodically broken by superficial attempts at dialogue, only to fall back into conflict.
How can the crisis be de-escalated
De-escalating the current crisis between India and Pakistan requires careful diplomacy and restraint from all parties involved. While the United States traditionally played a key role in mediating such conflicts, the Trump administration's current reluctance to engage in international diplomacy leaves a gap.
President Trump's response, initially passive, called the situation a "shame" and expressed hope for a quick resolution.
He also said, "They have gone tit-for-tat. So hopefully they can stop now. If I can do anything to help, I will be there. I get along with both, I know both very well, and I want to see them work it out."
However, these statements show limited enthusiasm for active involvement. In Washington's absence, other regional powers may step in, with Qatar already engaging in diplomatic efforts. Qatari Prime Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al-Thani held separate phone conversations with Indian and Pakistani leaders, demonstrating a willingness to mediate.
Furthermore, Tim Willasey-Wilsey from the Royal United Services Institute said, "We now have a president in the White House who says he does not want to be the policeman of the world," suggesting that regional powers, like Qatar, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia, now have to bear more responsibility in urging restraint and dialogue.
A diplomatic approach could involve leveraging economic influence, as suggested by Willasey-Wilsey, who pointed out that Pakistan's creditors might have the power to impose restraint.
