Why India-Pakistan crises keep returning

23 July 2026

The brief military confrontation that followed the 2025 Pahalgam attack — in which 26 tourists were killed in Indian-administered Kashmir — once again raised the spectre of escalation between India and Pakistan. For many observers, the crisis followed a familiar pattern in India-Pakistan relations: tensions flare, diplomacy contains the immediate danger, attention shifts elsewhere, and relations deteriorate once more. This recurring cycle raises an important question: why have successive wars, ceasefires, peace initiatives, and confidence-building measures failed to produce a more durable improvement in relations between the two states?

A common explanation focuses on unresolved disputes, particularly Kashmir. While these issues remain important, they do not fully explain why periods of apparent calm repeatedly give way to renewed confrontation. The deeper challenge is that India and Pakistan are not simply neighbours with disagreements: they are participants in one of the world’s most enduring interstate rivalries, a long-term competitive relationship marked by repeated crises, mutual suspicion, and expectations of future confrontation. Without acknowledging these deep-rooted sources of conflict, the vicious circle will continue, and peace efforts are unlikely to bear fruit.

More than a series of disputes

Many international conflicts end after a peace settlement, military victory, or major political change. The India-Pakistan relationship has followed a different path.

Its roots predate Partition and were shaped by the final decades of British colonial rule, growing communal divisions, and rival nationalist projects. Partition in 1947 produced two new states with contested territorial claims, divergent nation-building projects, and enduring security concerns. Kashmir quickly became the most visible manifestation of these tensions, triggering the first India-Pakistan war in 1947-48 and becoming a central issue within a broader strategic rivalry.

Since then, India and Pakistan have fought multiple wars, experienced numerous military crises, and engaged in repeated diplomatic efforts to stabilise relations. Despite these efforts, the rivalry has remained durable.

While diplomacy can reduce immediate risks, longer-term change depends on progress on Kashmir, reductions in cross-border violence, and stronger political support for engagement in both countries. This helps explain why periods of calm have repeatedly proven fragile despite considerable diplomatic effort.

Successive crises have been interpreted through the memory of earlier conflicts, reinforcing mutual perceptions of insecurity. The wars of 1947-48, 1965, and 1971 were not experienced as isolated events but as interconnected episodes in a longer struggle over territory, security, and national identity. The result is a relationship characterised by recurring cycles of confrontation and accommodation.

Periods of dialogue have often reduced immediate tensions, but they have rarely altered the underlying expectations each side holds about the other. External actors, including the United States, China, and several Gulf states, have frequently intervened to contain crises. For example, the US played an important diplomatic role during the 1999 Kargil conflict, while the United Arab Emirates helped facilitate the 2021 ceasefire along the Line of Control. While such efforts have helped prevent escalation, they have yet to transform the rivalry itself. As a result, the pattern has survived political transitions, leadership changes, and repeated diplomatic initiatives. This includes changes of government that initially raised hopes for improved relations, such as the election of Atal Bihari Vajpayee in 1998 and Nawaz Sharif's return to office in 2013.

Developments that initially appear transformative have instead proven temporary. Diplomatic breakthroughs can create openings for cooperation, but many of the initiatives launched since 1947 have struggled to outlast the political and security pressures that continue to shape relations between the two countries.

Why major shocks rarely produce lasting change

The India-Pakistan rivalry has persisted through wars in 1947-48, 1965, and 1971, the Kargil conflict in 1999, military stand-offs, terrorist attacks, and significant domestic political changes within both countries. Events that might have transformed other interstate relationships have instead become additional chapters in a continuing rivalry.

The 1999 Lahore Declaration illustrates this pattern particularly well: signed only months before the Kargil conflict, it appeared to offer a new basis for dialogue and confidence-building. Yet the rapid return to military confrontation demonstrated how difficult it can be to translate diplomatic progress into lasting strategic change. Subsequent attempts to improve relations faced similar constraints. The 2003 ceasefire agreement along the Line of Control produced a period of relative calm, while mid-2000s diplomatic engagement generated cautious optimism among policymakers on both sides. However, these gains remained vulnerable to political shocks and security crises: the 2008 Mumbai attacks, for example, disrupted an emerging dialogue process and heightened tensions.

These episodes suggest that the central challenge is not the absence of diplomacy but the difficulty of sustaining progress when new crises emerge. Dialogue has repeatedly created opportunities for cooperation, yet these gains remained exposed to terrorism, domestic politics, military competition, and unresolved territorial disputes.

The underlying reason is that major crises rarely alter the deeper conditions that sustain an enduring rivalry. Military confrontations may temporarily alter the balance of forces, but they rarely eliminate the suspicions and security concerns that have accumulated over decades.

Over time, rivalries can acquire a momentum of their own. New crises are interpreted through the lens of earlier conflicts, while political and military institutions adapt to expectations of continued competition. This pattern is not unique to India and Pakistan. Research on enduring rivalries has identified similar dynamics elsewhere, including the Cold War rivalry between the US and the Soviet Union and the Arab-Israeli rivalry. In both cases, repeated crises and diplomatic initiatives often managed tensions without fundamentally transforming the broader relationship. Efforts that address immediate tensions may therefore leave the underlying rivalry largely unchanged.

This does not mean change is impossible. The history of international politics contains examples of rivalries that eventually transformed. The Franco-German rivalry, once among the most violent in Europe, gave way to cooperation after the Second World War. US-Japan relations underwent a similarly profound change after 1945. However, such transformations typically occurred alongside broader political, economic, and strategic changes rather than through a single diplomatic agreement.

Looking beyond the next crisis

Much commentary on India-Pakistan crises focuses on immediate triggers, such as terrorist attacks, border incidents, or military exchanges. Yet, historically, these episodes appear not as isolated events but as recurring manifestations of a much longer rivalry. Each new crisis is shaped by decades of accumulated mistrust, past conflicts, and competing security concerns.

Managing crises is not the same as transforming the rivalry itself. The historical record suggests that enduring improvements in relations are unlikely to emerge from crisis management alone. While diplomacy can reduce immediate risks, longer-term change depends on progress on Kashmir, reductions in cross-border violence, and stronger political support for engagement in both countries. This helps explain why periods of calm have repeatedly proven fragile despite considerable diplomatic effort.

The brief military confrontation that followed the 2025 Pahalgam attack was not an aberration. It reflected patterns that have shaped India-Pakistan relations for decades. The recurring nature of these crises is not simply a story of unresolved disputes or periodic diplomatic failure — it reflects the persistence of a rivalry that continues to structure the relationship itself.

For policymakers, one lesson stands out: Crisis management mechanisms remain essential because they help prevent escalation between two nuclear-armed states. However, policymakers should be cautious about treating the successful management of individual crises as evidence of deeper strategic change. As long as the broader rivalry remains intact, periods of calm may prove temporary and vulnerable to future shocks.

DISCLAIMER: All views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent those of the 9DASHLINE.com platform.

Author biography

Edwin Akpotu, FHEA, is a PhD researcher in Peace Studies at the University of Bradford and a Fellow of the Higher Education Academy. His research focuses on enduring rivalries, conflict dynamics, and the conditions that explain why some rivalries persist while others transform or terminate. His doctoral research examines how major political and strategic disruptions shape long-term interstate rivalries. Image credit: Jmacleantaylor/Wikimedia Commons.