Conflict Triggers in South Asia: A Transformative Approach

The persistent tension between India and Pakistan, two nuclear–armed neighbours, continues to cast a long shadow over regional peace and security. While the nature of their rivalry is deeply historical and structural, it demands a fresh analytical lens, one that moves beyond surface-level responses and instead focuses on a long-term transformation.

John Paul Lederach’s conflict transformation approach offers such a framework, providing critical insight into the underlying triggers that perpetuate this seemingly intractable conflict.

At the heart of this enduring hostility lies the Kashmir issue, a decade-old territorial dispute that has sparked multiple wars and continues to provoke frequent military skirmishes along the LOC line of control. While often labelled a “frozen conflict”, Kashmir is anything but dormant. It periodically ignites due to provocations like India’s retaliatory strikes following incidents in Uri and Pulwama.

These events reinforce a dangerous cycle of blame, action and counteraction, exacerbated by rising nationalism and a strategic narrative shaped by the Hindutva ideology in India. Even the 2024 US intelligence community annual threat assessment acknowledges Kashmir as a potential flashpoint, underlining the dangerous volatility of this unresolved issue.

However, the conflict is not only territorial. Water security represents another simmering tension that has received comparatively less attention. The Indus Water Treaty, despite being a rare example of cooperation, is increasingly strained. India’s dam-building spree along the western rivers, including the Kishenganga and Belihar projects, has raised alarms in Pakistan, which depends heavily on these water sources. This upstream-downstream dynamics is compounded by climate change and a growing population. Is feeding perceptions of deliberate water strangulation a situation Kofi Annan once warned could become a trigger for future wars? In a region where every cusec of water carries immense strategic value, these developments deepen structural vulnerabilities and foster resentment.

Compounding these tensions are the strategic doctrines and technological advancements that shape both countries’ military thinking. India’s Cold Start Doctrine, which aims to conduct swift conventional strikes below the nuclear threshold, introduces new risks into an already volatile environment. Such strategies rely on accurate intelligence and calculated restraint, two elements that are notoriously unreliable during crises. The potential for misreading intention, underestimating adversaries, or acting on incomplete information creates the ground for escalation.

This dynamic is further explained by the stability–instability paradox: while nuclear deterrence discourages full-scale war, it paradoxically encourages lower-level Conflicts. Proxy wars, surgical strikes and retaliatory operations have become normalised between India and Pakistan, with incidents like the Kargil conflict, Uri, and Balakot episode being especially dangerous, marking a rare aerial engagement between two nuclear powers, and highlighting how easily events can spiral under the veil of strategic ambiguity.

Perhaps most concerning are the risks posed by unauthorised actions. The action of firing a missile into Pakistani territory in March 2022, though not resulting in casualties, raises serious questions about the safety protocols and command system in place. In a heavily nuclearised region, such mistakes could lead to catastrophic consequences, especially if misinterpreted as international aggression.

These patterns of interaction reveal a fractured relationship sustained by mistrust and reactive policy making. Yet as Lederach argues, conflict transformation is possible. When both structural and relational dimensions are addressed holistically. For Pakistan, a pragmatic and forward-looking approach is essential.

Strategically, this means enhancing conventional deterrence and developing second-strike capabilities to ensure a credible response in the face of aggression. Diplomatically, opening reliable lines of communication, such as hotlines between military and civilian leadership, can prevent miscommunication and promote crisis stability.

Equally important is addressing non-traditional threats like water insecurity. Pakistan must invest in water infrastructure, regulation, and conservation to reduce vulnerability. a

At the same time, it must engage in regional diplomacy aimed at revising outdated frameworks like the Indus Water Treaty to reflect contemporary challenges.

Ultimately, the India–Pakistan conflict cannot be solved solely through deterrence or diplomacy. It requires a shift in how both nations view each other, not as eternal enemies locked in zero-sum rivalry, but as stakeholders in a shared future.

Rebuilding trust through people-to-people engagement and joint initiatives on climate resilience and water management could pave the way for sustainable peace. Lederach’s vision of conflict transformation reminds us that the true resolution lies not in temporary fixes but in reshaping relationships, repairing trust and addressing the root cause of enmity.

If both states commit to this deeper process, the cycle of hostility may one day give way to a path of cooperation. Until then, the region remains one misstep away from escalation with consequences too grave to ignore.