Academic Analysis of India-Pakistan War De-escalation Process

Table of Contents

Introduction

Scholars defines escalation as an observable increase in the intensity of conflict and the severity of tactics used. Conversely, de-escalation involves taking steps to reverse this trend, aiming to lower the level of hostility and prevent further escalation, potentially towards full-scale war or nuclear confrontation [3].
Scholars analyse de-escalation through various lenses. For example, game theory examines the strategic interactions between India and Pakistan, analyzing the payoffs and risks associated with escalation and de-escalation choices, particularly under the shadow of nuclear weapons [4].
Deterrence theory assesses how nuclear capabilities influence decision-making, creating incentives for restraint but also raising the stakes of any miscalculation [5]. Concepts like ‘escalation dominance’ and ‘calibrated response’ are often discussed within this framework [5].

Escalation dominance is a strategic concept where one party can outmatch an opponent at every level of conflict, deterring aggression by controlling the risks of further escalation.
A calibrated response is a measured, proportional reaction to a threat or provocation, designed to achieve strategic objectives without triggering unnecessary escalation or broader conflict.

Crisis management studies the specific mechanisms, communication channels, and third-party interventions employed during crises to prevent them from spiraling out of control [3]. Furthermore, scholars evaluate the influence of international powers, such as the US and China, in mediating or encouraging de-escalation during Indo-Pakistani crises [6].
De-escalation represents more than just the absence of conflict; it is a deliberate process involving signaling, communication, and reciprocal actions to reduce tensions [3].

Key Case Studies in De-escalation

In this analysis we frequently focuses on specific historical instances to understand the dynamics of de-escalation.

The 1999 Kargil Conflict [7], although a significant military engagement, saw academic examination of the diplomatic efforts and international pressure contributing to its eventual de-escalation [7].
The 2001-2002 Standoff [8], following the attack on the Indian Parliament, led India to mobilize troops along the border, creating a tense military situation [8]. De-escalation subsequently involved a combination of diplomatic maneuvers, international mediation, and a gradual withdrawal of forces [8].
After the 2008 Mumbai Attacks [2], despite immense pressure for military retaliation, India primarily chose a diplomatic and political response, focusing on international pressure against Pakistan-based terrorist groups [2]. Scholars analyse this period for understanding the factors influencing restraint [2].
The 2019 Balakot Crisis [9], triggered by the Pulwama attack and involving Indian airstrikes in Balakot followed by Pakistani retaliation and aerial engagements, saw rapid escalation [9]. It highlights the subsequent de-escalation influenced by international pressure and India’s limited objectives [9].
These case studies collectively highlight various de-escalation mechanisms, including backchannel diplomacy, confidence-building measures (CBMs), and the influence of the international community [8].

Factors Influencing De-escalation

Let’s identify several factors that critically impact de-escalation between India and Pakistan.

The presence of nuclear weapons fundamentally alters conflict dynamics [5]. Both sides recognize the catastrophic consequences of a full-scale war, acting as a powerful deterrent against unlimited escalation and fostering an “escalation instinct alongside the de-escalation instinct” [3]. However, this also leads to the concept of “limited war under the nuclear overhang,” where conventional conflict remains possible but requires careful calibration to avoid crossing nuclear thresholds .
Domestic political considerations in both countries significantly influence their willingness to escalate or de-escalate [2]. Nationalist sentiments, public opinion, and the stability of the government can either constrain or enable diplomatic efforts [2].
The military strategies and deployment postures directly impact escalation dynamics [5]. India’s concept of “Cold Start” and Pakistan’s development of tactical nuclear weapons are analysed for their implications on crisis stability and de-escalation challenges [5].

India’s Cold Start Doctrine is a military strategy developed to enable rapid, limited conventional offensives into Pakistan in response to terrorist attacks, without crossing Pakistan’s nuclear threshold. It emphasizes swift mobilization, integrated battle groups, and shallow incursions to seize territory before international intervention or escalation.
Tactical nuclear weapons (TNWs) are low-yield nuclear arms designed for use on the battlefield against military targets, rather than for strategic deterrence. They have shorter ranges and smaller explosive power than strategic nuclear weapons, making them more “usable” in limited war scenarios. However, their use risks rapid escalation to full-scale nuclear war.

The existence and effectiveness of reliable communication channels between military and political leadership prove vital during a crisis to avoid misunderstandings and miscalculations [8]. Conversely, a lack of robust communication can exacerbate tensions [8]. The actions of militant groups operating from Pakistani territory remain a primary trigger for escalation [2]. India’s response to such attacks and Pakistan’s ability or willingness to control these groups are central to the de-escalation puzzle [2].
External powers can play a crucial role in facilitating de-escalation by offering mediation, applying diplomatic pressure, or providing channels for communication [6]. The effectiveness of external intervention is often debated among scholars [6]. Regional calls for de-escalation also exist, demonstrated by efforts from nations like Bangladesh [7].

Challenges and Prospects for De-escalation

It highlights significant challenges to sustained de-escalation.

The core unresolved territorial dispute over Kashmir remains a constant source of friction and a potential flashpoint for escalation [1].
India consistently emphasizes that terrorism emanating from Pakistan presents a major impediment to dialogue and de-escalation [2].
A deep-seated lack of trust between the two nations complicates sustained dialogue and the implementation of CBMs [8].
Domestic constraints, including hardline political stances and public pressure in both countries, limit the political space for leaders to pursue conciliatory policies [2].

Way Forward

Despite these challenges, the shared risk of nuclear escalation provides a strong, albeit negative, incentive for both sides to eventually de-escalate during crises [3].
Prospects for future de-escalation may rely on strengthening crisis management mechanisms, improving communication channels and protocols to prevent accidental escalation [8].
A revival of confidence-building measures (CBMs) is also seen as crucial, involving re-engagement in measures related to military movements, nuclear issues, and people-to-people contacts [8].
Ultimately, finding pathways, however difficult, to address the underlying political disputes, particularly Kashmir, and effectively tackling the issue of cross-border terrorism remains essential for long-term stability [1, 2].
While the risk of conflict remains high, the dynamics of the India-Pakistan rivalry are also shaped by an imperative for de-escalation driven by the severe potential costs of unchecked escalation, especially in the nuclear realm [3].

Sources:

[1] India, Pakistan, and the Kashmir dispute: unpacking the dynamics of a …, Academia.edu and India, Pakistan, and the Kashmir dispute: unpacking the dynamics of a …, Springer Link

[2] Assessing India-Pakistan Relations in Narendra Modi’s Era, The Academic

[3] India and Pakistan face conflict again – how did they de-escalate in …, BBC News

[4] Risk Assessment and Escalation Management in India-Pakistan Conflicts, ORF

[5] Risk Assessment and Escalation Management in India-Pakistan Conflicts, ORF

[6] What’s Next for India and Pakistan?, Foreign Policy

[7] Flashpoint in the Himalayas: The Pahalgam Attack and the Renewed India …, South Asia Journal

[8] India-Pakistan: Nuclear Stability and Diplomacy, IDSA

[9] Climbing the Escalation Ladder: India and the Balakot Crisis, Academia.edu