When terrorists attacked India’s Pathankot air base near the Pakistani border in January, and India said the assailants had come from Pakistan, observers worldwide momentarily held their breaths, wondering whether this confrontation would spin into wider violence.

India - Pakistan border
Photo Courtesy of Flickr/tjollans

This time it didn’t, but the Pathankot attack was a reminder that the United States—which historically has played moderator in Indo-Pakistani confrontations—must be ready to reprise that role pretty much any time. And the conditions for doing it successfully are changing, South Asia specialists said March 14 at USIP. China is playing a greater role in the region, the United States is continuing to tilt toward India, and technologies—from broadband communications to armed drone aircraft—could accelerate and escalate future crises.

“When a new generation of U.S. policymakers comes in, particularly with the next administration … they need to review this history because their counterparts on the opposite side will know this history.” –Daniel Markey, Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies

India and Pakistan fought their first war over the territory of Kashmir as the two countries were being partitioned at their independence from British rule in 1947. New wars erupted in 1965, 1971 and 1999. Terrorist attacks by Pakistan-based militant groups with reported ties to Pakistan’s military intelligence community have stalled peacemaking efforts by the two governments, such as the 2008 assault by Lashkar-e-Taiba militants on the Indian city of Mumbai.

The United States often has leapt in to mediate in these wars and near-wars. And the stakes for that role spiked after 1998, when India and Pakistan brandished their nuclear weapons abilities at each other in a series of dueling underground bomb tests. While interventions by U.S. diplomats and presidents may have contained or ended crises, the United States has little scope for advancing an overall solution to the India-Pakistan conflict because neither side is prepared to implement one, the specialists said in a USIP panel discussion.

A Kashmir Solution: Visible but not Accessible

The shape of an eventual resolution for the conflict is broadly understood among moderates on both sides, said Daniel Markey, a South Asia scholar at the Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies in Washington.

“So the solution’s not the question, but preparing the publics and … the political space for that solution to actually take place on the ground, that’s the challenge,” he said. “And that’s not an American challenge, that’s an Indian challenge and a Pakistani challenge. There’s not much we can do about it.”

Pakistan’s former military ruler and president, General Pervez Musharraf, offered the best opportunity for a broad resolution on Kashmir when he “was still in power and … fully in command of the military and the ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate),” said Ted Wittenstein, who served in the State Department during the 2008 Mumbai crisis and now heads a program on American diplomacy at Yale University. In 2007, Musharraf “had moved to a point where the India-Pakistan crisis was as close to being resolved on Kashmir as it’s ever been,” he said. Musharraf has urged publicly that the current military “line of control” in Kashmir be turned into a “soft border”—one open to transit by Kashmiris—with a form of self-governance to be negotiated for the territory.

Preparing for the Next Crisis

Speakers at the event discussed ways to sustain or improve the United States’ readiness to help contain a future crisis in India-Pakistan relations. Their points included these:

  • The arrival in 10 months of a new U.S. administration could pose a challenge. “When a new generation of U.S. policymakers comes in, particularly with the next administration, … they need to review this history [of India-Pakistan crises and the US role] because their counterparts on the opposite side will know this history, perhaps will have lived this history themselves,” said Markey.
  • While U.S. officials should be grounded in that history, they also need to plan for “a different kind of crisis,” said Polly Nayak, a former U.S. government intelligence specialist on South Asia. U.S. contingency planning should “assume that whatever happened in the past is not going to happen in the future.” India and Pakistan confront each other over numerous issues: their roles in Afghanistan, the sharing of Indus River waters, and border disputes. The next crisis could be started, Nayak said, by “some other form of provocation” besides a terrorist attack.
  • The United States should expect China also to play a role in future India-Pakistan crises, said Nayak. China did so in the India-Pakistan confrontation of 2001-02, she said, when the two rivals came close to war after Pakistan-based militants attacked India’s parliament and other Indian targets. Given China’s concerns about Islamist militant movements in its western regions, notably Xinjiang, “the Chinese have in private been quite firm” in pressing Pakistan to shut down militant groups operating from its territory, she said. On that point, “there hasn’t been a whole lot of daylight between the U.S. … and China.”
  • To better manage future India-Pakistan crises, the United States should consider forming a “standing…organization” with India, China and perhaps Pakistan, said Markey. And the U.S. postures toward South Asia and China should be more fully integrated.
  • Planning efforts also should count on future crises evolving swiftly, in part because of technology advances available to both sides, said Nayak, who co-authored studies on U.S. crisis management in the 2001-2002  and 2008 confrontations. For the management of future crises, “the window will be much smaller, whether we’re talking [about] drones or other military [technology] advances,” she said.
  • As a baseline policy, the United States should continue to “pursue strong relationships … independently” with both India and Pakistan, “and not be held hostage” to their conflict by trying to achieve a perfectly balanced “strict neutrality” between them, said Markey. While the United States has continued a long, slow tilt toward India as a partner in South Asia, it should work to “retain some ability or leverage with both sides.”

Related Publications

Extending Constitutional Rights to Pakistan’s Tribal Areas

Extending Constitutional Rights to Pakistan’s Tribal Areas

Tuesday, April 6, 2021

By: Umar Mahmood Khan; Rana Hamza Ijaz; Sevim Saadat

When Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas were officially merged into Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province in May 2018, the five million residents of the former tribal areas acquired the same constitutional rights and protections—including access to a formal judicial system—as Pakistan’s other citizens. This report, based on field research carried out by the authors, explores the status of the formal justice system’s expansion, finding both positive trends and severe administrative and capacity challenges, and offers recommendations to address these issues.

Type: Special Report

Justice, Security & Rule of Law

India, Pakistan choke on their smog. Can they clear the air?

India, Pakistan choke on their smog. Can they clear the air?

Monday, March 29, 2021

By: Jumaina Siddiqui; Zaara Wakeel

South Asia’s extreme smog worsens each winter, helping to kill an estimated 1.2 million Indians and 128,000 Pakistanis annually—more than have died in either country from the COVID virus. As pollution this past winter exacerbated the pandemic, India’s and Pakistan’s governments responded with mutual blame. Yet COVID, and a sudden moment of détente between these bitter rivals, could offer an opportunity to address the smog crisis, and build rare collaboration with the only strategy that can work: a joint one. The governments, their U.S. and international allies and civil society should use this chance to jumpstart such an effort.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Economics & Environment

Pakistan: A Rising Women’s Movement Confronts a New Backlash

Pakistan: A Rising Women’s Movement Confronts a New Backlash

Wednesday, March 17, 2021

By: Aleena Khan

Thousands of women rallied across Pakistan on International Women’s Day this year and demanded an end to violence against women and gender minorities. In the days since, Pakistan’s Taliban movement has escalated the threats facing the women who marched. Opponents of women’s rights doctored a video of the rally to suggest that the women had committed blasphemy—an accusation that has been frequently weaponized against minorities in Pakistan and has resulted in vigilantes killing those who are targeted.

Type: Analysis and Commentary


Pakistan Senate Election Upsets Government Efforts to Solidify Power

Pakistan Senate Election Upsets Government Efforts to Solidify Power

Wednesday, March 10, 2021

By: Tamanna Salikuddin; Jumaina Siddiqui; Adnan Rafiq; Colin Cookman; Ambassador Richard Olson

Pakistan held indirect elections on March 3 for the Senate, its upper house of Parliament, which is elected by sitting legislators in the National Assembly (the lower house of Parliament) and each of the provincial assemblies. Given the typically party-line vote, Pakistani Senate elections tend to be mundane affairs, with the results often preordained. However, in last week’s elections the ruling Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party, despite having a numerical majority in the national and provincial assemblies, failed to forestall defections among some lawmakers and in doing so failed to take control of the Senate from the opposition.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Democracy & Governance

View All Publications