A storm with catastrophic consequences brewing

IOL News

11-05-2025

Members of civil society take part in a peace rally in Lahore, Pakistan on May 6, 2025. The mutual weaponisation of conflict makes de-escalation difficult. When political survival becomes tied to nationalistic posturing, the space for diplomacy shrinks, says the writer.
Dr. Reneva Fourie
THE latest escalation of military tensions between India and Pakistan is a stark reminder of the fragility of peace.
Border skirmishes, intensified military manoeuvres, and inflammatory rhetoric from both sides have renewed fears of a conflict that could potentially spiral completely out of control. These developments seriously threaten regional stability and international peace and security, prompting urgent calls for de-escalation from the global community.
On 7 May, India launched 'Operation Sindoor', a military offensive targeting what it claimed were terrorist infrastructures linked to militant organisations Lashkar-e-Tayyiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed. These strikes, India said, were in direct response to the killing of 26 civilians, primarily Indian tourists, in the India-administered region of Kashmir.
India has blamed Pakistan-based groups for the attack, holding Islamabad responsible. Pakistan viewed the strikes as a violation of its sovereignty, claiming that India targeted civilian sites, including the densely populated Punjab province, compelling it to retaliate.
One must revisit the area's fractured history to understand the current crisis. The origins of the India-Pakistan conflict emanate from decades of distrust and a colonial legacy that left unresolved tensions.
British colonial authorities implemented a 'divide and rule' strategy, which involved the exploitation of ethnic and religious cleavages to maintain dominance. These policies deepened Hindu-Muslim divides and fuelled the eventual demand for separate states.
The 1947 partitioning, which resulted in the creation of two separate states – India and Pakistan – was not merely administrative; it was accompanied by one of the largest mass migrations in human history and widespread communal violence. An estimated 12 to 20 million people were displaced, and over a million killed in sectarian violence. This traumatic process entrenched deep-seated animosities between the two newly formed states.
In their haste to exit the region, the borders drawn by the British were arbitrary. They rushed, leaving behind unresolved territorial disputes, most notably the question of Kashmir, which was left in limbo. The lack of a formal dispute resolution process set the stage for decades of hostility and violence.
Since then, India and Pakistan have engaged in multiple wars and countless border skirmishes, with Kashmir remaining the most sensitive flashpoint. Each confrontation has widened the trust deficit and made future reconciliation more difficult.
Both India and Pakistan have used this rivalry for political gain, particularly during moments of internal crisis. In India, Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) have often used national security issues to strengthen their nationalist credentials.
Following previous incidents, such as the 2016 Uri attack and the 2019 Pulwama bombing, the government employed a heavy-handed response that played well with its Hindu nationalist base. Such strategies are often deployed to divert attention from domestic challenges, including high unemployment, inflation and economic stagnation. The narrative of a strong government defending the nation from external threats allows the ruling party to consolidate political unity and marginalise dissent.
Pakistan has employed similar tactics. Facing internal instability, including economic hardship, political turmoil, and the persistent threat of terrorism, Pakistani leaders often amplify anti-India rhetoric to redirect public attention and rally national cohesion. The use of Kashmir as a unifying grievance serves both regimes, though at the cost of deepening regional instability.
The mutual weaponisation of conflict makes de-escalation difficult. When political survival becomes tied to nationalistic posturing, the space for diplomacy shrinks. What distinguishes the India-Pakistan conflict from many other bilateral disputes is the presence of nuclear weapons on both sides. Any large-scale confrontation risks nuclear escalation, either through miscalculation or desperation.
The impact of a full-scale war would be catastrophic. A war would devastate the economies and infrastructure in both India and Pakistan, destabilise Afghanistan, and potentially affect Iran, China, and Central Asia.
It would put significant pressure on the United States, which would be forced to balance ties between its strategic partner, India and long-time ally, Pakistan, with whom it shares military and intelligence networks. And given that South Asia is home to over 1.7 billion people, a war here would severely hit the tech and services sectors, spike commodity prices and disrupt global trade through the Arabian Sea and Indian Ocean. This regional conflict could quickly degenerate into an international crisis.
While BRICS is not a formal peace-brokering entity, its member states, particularly China, should consider taking on a more proactive diplomatic role to help de-escalate tensions between India and Pakistan. Both countries are China's immediate neighbours and important economic partners, which places China in a unique position to mediate and facilitate dialogue.
Beijing's influence and vested interest in maintaining regional stability, especially in light of its Belt and Road Initiative and ongoing trade partnerships, give it both the leverage and the responsibility to encourage peaceful engagement. The current trajectory of escalating military rhetoric and actions between India and Pakistan poses not only a grave threat to South Asian stability but also to global peace and economic security. A military conflict between two nuclear-armed states could have devastating consequences far beyond the region.
The United Nations, which has already cautioned against the dangers of a full-scale confrontation, must go beyond issuing warnings. It should actively pursue avenues of de-escalation through track-two diplomacy, engaging civil society, retired officials, and academics from both sides.
Additionally, the UN should work to implement confidence-building measures such as military-to-military hotlines, joint ceasefire monitoring, and initiatives that promote people-to-people contact. The urgency of the moment demands immediate, coordinated international action.
The recent escalation between India and Pakistan is a stark reminder of how unresolved historical grievances, nationalistic politics, and external miscalculations can threaten not just a region but the world at large.
What began as a response to a terrorist attack now teeters on the edge of full-scale war, with nuclear overtones and global socio-economic risks. Both countries must show restraint, and the international community must rise to the occasion. If the international community fails to act decisively, the consequences may well be irreversible, for South Asia and the world at large.
* Dr Reneva Fourie is a policy analyst specialising in governance, development and security.
** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL, Independent Media or The African.