Managing crises in the absence of dialogue

Calibrated steadying mechanisms — rather than diplomatic breakthroughs — offer the most realistic path forward for managing India-Pakistan relations

- Nirupama Rao

India-Pakistan relations have entered a phase defined by a volatile mix of active confrontation alternating with constrained hostility.

Formal dialogue remains politically untenable in India, public discourse is sharply sceptical of engagement, and Pakistan’s internal political trajectory has moved further toward praetorian dominance. The result is not peace but a suspended hostility in which crises remain possible even when escalation may not be imminent.

The emergence of general Asim Munir as Pakistan's central power figure has reinforced this dynamic. Pakistan’s military establishment has historically shaped the country’s India policy, but the current consolidation of military authority — combined with persistent ambiguity over militant proxies — has narrowed the political space for meaningful diplomatic engagement. The absence of major terrorist incidents in Kashmir between 2019 (Pulwama) and 2025 (Pahalgam) had encouraged cautious optimism in some quarters. That optimism has now dissipated. In India, there is little appetite for dialogue, and politically the costs of overt engagement remain extremely high.

This constraint-driven environment must shape policy thinking. The central question is no longer how to revive dialogue but how to prevent crises from escalating in the absence of dialogue. Stability in South Asia cannot rely solely on deterrence, nor can it assume periodic diplomatic thaws. It requires mechanisms capable of functioning even amid sustained strategic mistrust.

Recent crises underscore why. India-Pakistan confrontations rarely erupt fully formed. They tend to build incrementally through misread signals, tactical incidents, terrorism, media amplification, and domestic political pressures that compress decision-making timelines. Nuclear deterrence may cap escalation, but it does not prevent the processes that generate it. Indeed, hardened public rhetoric on both sides increasingly shortens the margin for error.