After several years of steadily increasing stability in the Kashmir province , new unrest broke out at the end of April. India and Pakistan may once again be heading toward a major military conflict. The question now is what form the conflict will take this time—and to what extent the United States will seek to de-escalate tensions between the nuclear-armed parties.
The unrest in Kashmir is about religion…
Both India and Pakistan consider the Kashmir Valley part of their respective countries, and each controls a portion of the region. In addition, China controls the easternmost part of Kashmir, Aksai Chin, which serves as a critical transport nexus for China’s supply routes through Tibet.
The dispute between India and Pakistan over Kashmir dates back to the partition of India in 1947. At that time, Maharaja Hari Singh initially attempted to make Kashmir an independent and sovereign state. However, he eventually chose to accede to India after Pakistan supported militant forces that invaded the region. Pakistan’s claim to the province is still based on the fact that the majority of the region’s population is Muslim. Therefore, Pakistan supports autonomy for Kashmir and rejects the current border, known as the Line of Control.
…access to major lithium reserves, but above all, access to freshwater
However, the conflict is about more than religion. In the Kashmir Valley, several smaller rivers from Tibet converge and form the Indus River before it flows into Pakistan. The Indus provides 90% of Pakistan’s freshwater, including for agriculture, as well as around half of northwestern India’s freshwater supply. Pakistan is acutely aware of its dependence on the Indus. In 1960, the two countries signed the Indus Waters Treaty to regulate the use of the Indus river system.
Furthermore, Kashmir contains the world’s 7th-largest reserves of minerals such as lithium. Exploiting these resources could provide a significant economic boost to both countries’ already fragile economies. Pakistan is caught in a debt spiral to China due to its massive BRI projects, while India’s growth is at risk from factors including Trump’s trade wars.
The April attack had a strong religious tone…
On April 22, the Pakistani insurgent group TRF attacked and killed 27 people in Pahalgam, in the Indian-administered part of Kashmir. The attackers reportedly targeted Hindu men specifically. According to reports, they asked some victims to recite verses from the Quran before executing them.
TRF is a splinter group of the Pakistani movement Lashkar-e-Taiba, which was responsible for the 2008 Mumbai bombings that killed 175 people. Pervez Musharraf previously acknowledged that Pakistan supported TRF in the 1990s. However, according to Pakistani authorities, Lashkar-e-Taiba has now largely disbanded.
…and so the countries responded visibly—but mostly symbolically
Shortly after the attack, India closed its border with Pakistan and suspended large parts of its diplomatic relations with the country. It also cancelled visas for Pakistani guest workers and expelled Pakistani diplomats and military attachés.
Most significantly, India suspended the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty, and Prime Minister Narendra Modi promised to “erase what remains of the sanctuary of terror”—a veiled threat directed at Pakistan, which India has long accused of supporting terror attacks on Indian soil.
Pakistan responded sharply, stating that “Pakistan considers any violation of the treaty as an act of war,” which would be “responded to with full force.” In turn, Pakistan also cancelled visas for Indian citizens, closed its airspace to Indian aircraft, and suspended all trade with India.
Historically, armed unrest has avoided triggering major escalations…
For decades, there have been recurring uprisings in the Indian-controlled parts of Kashmir. Islamabad has consistently denied the many intelligence reports claiming Pakistan supports the insurgents. As long as Pakistan remains indirectly involved, a full-scale war is not necessarily imminent.
In 2019, for example, India carried out airstrikes in the Pakistani-controlled part of Kashmir. This came after 40 Indian paramilitary officers were killed in a suicide bombing in Kashmir. Pakistan retaliated with strikes on Indian Kashmir, leading to an aerial dogfight and the downing of an Indian fighter jet.
…and politically, India has recently tried to prevent unrest more actively
Shortly after, India revoked Kashmir’s semi-autonomous status and placed the region under direct federal control. This led to a number of controversial legal reforms that sparked anger among the Muslim population. However, in September 2024, elections were once again held in Indian-administered Kashmir, yielding a narrow majority for the opposition party, the Indian National Congress (led by Rahul Gandhi).
In recent years, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has attempted to rebalance the predominantly Muslim population in Indian Kashmir by offering tax incentives for Hindus to relocate to Jammu & Kashmir. India has also made significant investments in tourism in the region, promoting places like Pahalgam as the "Switzerland of India."
Indian leaders may therefore feel that their response to the TRF attack needs to be dramatic and highly visible to restore public trust in their leadership.
Yet both countries are nuclear-armed, with short tempers
There is, however, no guarantee that a limited war would remain limited. Since both countries developed nuclear weapons in the 1970s, the threat of nuclear war has hung over the region as a constant risk.
- India officially adheres to a "no first use" policy regarding nuclear weapons. However, recent statements from Indian officials have cast some doubt on that commitment.
- Pakistan, for its part, has no such explicit doctrine. In late April, Defense Minister Khawaja Asif stated that Pakistan would only consider using nuclear weapons "if there is a direct threat to our existence." He was most likely referring to a scenario in which India cuts off Pakistan’s water supply—an implicit threat tied to India’s suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty.
In previous crises, the United States has played a key role in urging both sides to step back. Marco Rubio has reportedly engaged in talks this time as well. It also helps that President Donald Trump appears to be keeping a certain distance. Initially, he issued a strong statement of support for India after the attack in Pahalgam. But when later asked about the crisis aboard Air Force One, his tone was far more detached: “There have been tensions at that border for 1,500 years. It’s always been like that, but I’m sure they’ll work something out somehow.”