“The arms race between India and Pakistan poses perhaps the most probable prospect for future use of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons,” James Woolsey, the CIA director,toldCongress in 1993. That assessment is relevant now, afterdaysof escalating conflict that included missile and drone strikes on military bases. It is a uniquely modern arms race: high on nationalist fervour and habitual mistrust, choreographed so that each clash is always just one provocation away from becoming the last.
On Saturday,Donald Trumpannounced a “full and immediate” ceasefire between India and Pakistan. The truce, brokered by US officials, came amidspeculationby military analysts that Pakistan was edging closer to using nuclear weapons. It was met with cautious optimism – not least as both sides accused each other ofviolatingthe agreement within hours, with reports of cross-border shelling in Indian-administered Kashmir. Should the ceasefire pause the missiles, it won’t resolve the deeperdisputeat the roof of the world.
Since partition in 1947, Kashmir has remained the unresolved centrepiece of the two nations’ rivalry. Mr Trump’s off-ramp for Pakistan appeared to be the offer to find a solution to the Himalayan region, whose populated parts have been effectively split between India and Pakistan. This suggestion won’t findfavourwith India – it sees Kashmir as a bilateral issue, not one for outside meddling.
The pattern is tragically familiar. The world has watched the same chessboard reset too many times. The trigger this time was a brutalterroristattack in Indian-administered Kashmir, which killed two dozen Indian tourists and was claimed by agroupthat India – and otheranalysts– say is an offshoot of a United Nations-designated terror organisation. Its actions brought to an end efforts by Pakistan’s political leadership to build bridges with Delhi.
It’s easy to overlook now, but in February, Pakistan’s prime minister, Shehbaz Sharif, made a bold pitch for talks – even onKashmir– as his country staggered under sky-high inflation and International Monetary Fund-drivenausterity. Every time regional peace is within reach, violence snatches it away. The 1999Lahore declaration? Erased by theKargilwar months later. Trade and traveldealsin the early 2000s? Blown apart by the 2008Mumbaiattacks by Pakistani terror groups. The 2015handshakebetween India’s prime minister, Narendra Modi, and Pakistan’s Nawaz Sharif? Derailed weeks later by an assault on an Indianairbaseby militants. So when the 2025 outreach was followed by yet another attack, it wasn’t a surprise. It was deja vu.
In India Mr Modi leads a coalition government facing a politicalrealitythat constrains his ability to engage in diplomatic overtures without appearing weak, especially in the face of nationalist pressures – notably from his own hardline base. Mr Modi deserves credit for restraint after the weekend’s ceasefire breaches. But terror strikes againstciviliansare a different matter. Each becomes a test of resolve, compelling a response that risks further escalation. Inaction would be perceived as weakness. Every attack forces a decision: how hard to hit back? How far to escalate? How much political capital to risk?
Both sides know how to manage tension – until they don’t. The real threat isn’t intent, butmiscalculationunder pressure. Ceasefires soothe, but solve nothing fundamental. The tragedy is how predictably the guns speak again when nothing changes.