India and Pakistan edge toward crisis—how past de-escalation may guide the present

India and Pakistan face rising tensions again—past crises offer clues to de-escalation

Pahalgam attack revives a pattern of violence and brinkmanship

The deadly attack in Pahalgam, located in Indian-administered Kashmir, has reignited deep-seated hostilities between India and Pakistan. With 26 civilians killed—many of them domestic tourists—the scale and nature of the violence has evoked comparisons to the 2008 Mumbai siege and the 2019 Pulwama bombing.

India has once again blamed Pakistan-based militant networks for the attack, alleging tacit support from Islamabad—a charge Pakistan has categorically denied. The episode has sharply escalated diplomatic and military posturing in the region, prompting fears of another major cross-border confrontation between the nuclear-armed neighbors.

Retaliation, restraint, and history repeating

The current crisis mirrors past flashpoints that have brought the two countries to the brink. In 2016, following the killing of 19 Indian soldiers in Uri, India conducted “surgical strikes” across the Line of Control. In 2019, after the Pulwama bombing claimed 40 Indian paramilitary lives, India carried out airstrikes deep into Balakot, marking the first such operation inside Pakistani territory since 1971.

Each time, the Indian government escalated its military response, only to later pursue a phase of calibrated de-escalation. Diplomatic expulsions, trade restrictions, and water-sharing disputes have all featured in the immediate aftermath. Experts argue that while India’s threshold for escalation has shifted over the past decade, so too has its awareness of the strategic need for restraint.

“More Mumbai than Pulwama”: What makes Pahalgam different

Ajay Bisaria, India’s former high commissioner to Pakistan, draws a sobering distinction between the Pahalgam incident and previous attacks on military personnel.

“This attack carries elements of Pulwama, but much more of Mumbai,” he said in a recent interview. “It targeted civilians and has struck a deeper emotional chord.”

Following the attack, India quickly closed a key border crossing, suspended visa services for Pakistani nationals, and expelled diplomats. It also restricted airspace access for Pakistani aircraft—commercial and military—while ramping up small-arms fire along the contested frontier. Pakistan responded with reciprocal measures, including a suspension of the 1972 peace treaty.

Strategic escalation: From trade to treaties

In his memoir Anger Management: The Troubled Diplomatic Relationship between India and Pakistan, Bisaria details the methodical approach New Delhi adopted after the Pulwama bombing. Within days, India revoked Pakistan’s most-favoured-nation trade status, raised customs duties to 200%, and cut off land border commerce.

Key people-to-people links were also severed: the Samjhauta Express train and a cross-border bus service were halted, consular dialogues suspended, and air travel sharply curtailed. Discussions around the Kartarpur corridor—a key pilgrimage route for Sikhs—were put on hold.

The fallout also extended to the Indus Waters Treaty, a crucial water-sharing agreement between the two nations. While India refrained from abrogating the treaty outright, it restricted the flow of hydrological data—a calculated move to exert pressure without breaching international norms.

The dogfight that changed the equation

One of the most dangerous episodes came in February 2019, when Pakistan retaliated to India’s Balakot airstrikes with its own aerial operation. During the confrontation, Indian Air Force pilot Abhinandan Varthaman was captured after his jet was shot down over Pakistani-controlled Kashmir.

His detention and eventual return, presented by Islamabad as a “peace gesture,” helped ease tensions. Still, the diplomatic groundwork laid by Indian envoys and pressure from allies such as the US and UK were instrumental in preventing the crisis from spiraling further.

Balancing brinkmanship and diplomacy

Despite the recurring cycle of provocation and retaliation, diplomatic channels have remained cautiously open. In 2019, as now, military hotlines and back-channel diplomacy helped stabilize volatile situations. The Indian high commission in Islamabad, reduced in size during the Pulwama fallout, is now operating at minimal capacity once more following the Pahalgam attack.

While high-level rhetoric has intensified, kinetic military action remains absent—so far. But analysts note that Delhi’s threat to annul or revisit the Indus Waters Treaty marks a serious escalation lever, one with long-term geopolitical ramifications.

Crisis diplomacy in real time

According to Bisaria, internal deliberations at the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) reflect the dual imperatives of national security and economic cost management. The goal, he argues, is to implement punitive measures that weaken Pakistan’s position without inciting uncontrolled escalation.

As India recalibrates its diplomatic and military options in the aftermath of the Pahalgam attack, one lesson from past crises stands out: escalation is often swift, but de-escalation requires careful choreography.

Stay tuned to The Horizons Times for in-depth analysis and updates on South Asia's evolving security landscape.