South Asia’s Fragile Peace Faces a New Era of Calculated Tensions

In May 2025, India and Pakistan engaged in an 87-hour military clash—brief but significant in its implications. While the confrontation was short-lived, its impact on regional geopolitics has been anything but fleeting. Analysts and policymakers are now grappling with a transformed security landscape shaped by what many are calling India’s “new abnormal,” a deliberate shift in strategic posture under Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

The Shadow of Escalation

The recent conflict has been widely interpreted through the lens of traditional military dynamics: territorial aggression, deterrence, and fears of escalation into nuclear confrontation. But beneath this surface lies a more troubling trend—a political doctrine that feeds off instability, sustains hostility, and avoids meaningful de-escalation.

Despite a current ceasefire, New Delhi appears to be keeping peace intentionally fragile. The absence of diplomatic engagement beyond the routine DGMO (Director General of Military Operations) contacts signals a reluctance to seek off-ramps. Confidence-building measures (CBMs) proposed by Pakistan have reportedly been ignored, suggesting that India’s ruling establishment prefers to define the narrative of the short war in its own terms—one that fuels nationalist fervor at home.

Statements from Indian leaders have only reinforced this trajectory. Defence Minister Rajnath Singh referred to the May conflict as “just the trailer,” and Prime Minister Modi warned that his “bullet is ready,” fueling an aggressive rhetoric unbecoming of responsible statecraft. This pattern, rooted in the politicization of conflict, is at the heart of India’s evolving strategic stance.

The Disinformation Doctrine

India’s post-conflict media narrative further reflects this shift. During the conflict, Indian television created an alternate reality: fictional victories, redrawn maps, and an erasure of Pakistan’s existence in what amounted to a televised war fantasy. But when Indian aircraft were downed and international scrutiny intensified, the gap between propaganda and battlefield reality became glaring.

Rather than recalibrate, Modi’s government doubled down. Instead of moving toward peace, Indian political and media machinery appears to be cultivating the conditions for another confrontation. Observers argue that domestic political needs, such as Modi’s upcoming electoral contest in Bihar, are driving this hawkish stance.

War as National Branding

In stark contrast, Pakistan’s military response was calibrated—strategic, restrained, and aligned with international norms. The conflict revealed a new kind of battlefield: cyber warfare, quantum tech, and space-based intelligence now play pivotal roles, diminishing the relevance of sheer military size. With technological support from China, Pakistan demonstrated that it could hold its ground in a multidomain conflict without escalating recklessly.

Yet India’s apparent desire to project itself as a perpetual warrior state undermines regional security. In seeking dominance through destabilization rather than diplomacy, India risks becoming a hegemon that corrodes the very region it seeks to lead.

Weaponizing Water

Perhaps the most alarming element of Modi’s new strategy is the threat to weaponize shared water resources. India has increasingly spoken about suspending the Indus Waters Treaty—a foundational agreement brokered by the World Bank that has survived several wars. Blocking meetings of the Permanent Indus Commission and withholding water flow data are actions that signal intent to disrupt.

This is no minor policy shift. The rivers governed by the treaty are the backbone of Pakistan’s agriculture, food security, and hydro-energy infrastructure. Undermining water access in an already climate-stressed region could provoke widespread displacement and economic instability—both in Pakistan and India.

India’s aggressive groundwater extraction has already depleted shared aquifers. Rather than pursuing cooperative water and climate solutions, India appears to be embedding water in its conflict calculus, adding another dimension to an already volatile equation.

A Proxy War Reignited

Modi’s doctrine is not limited to conventional or environmental fronts. India’s alleged covert support for insurgencies in Pakistan’s Balochistan province and its efforts to destabilize the region through proxy wars are resurfacing. Incidents like the bombing of a school bus in Khuzdar and the Jaffar Express train attack, with Indian fingerprints allegedly evident, reflect a dangerous return to a strategy of “bleeding Pakistan by a thousand cuts.”

Even when faced with evidence of Indian espionage and terrorism—such as the capture of former Indian naval officer Kulbhushan Jadhav—Pakistan has refrained from full-scale retaliation. Had Islamabad mirrored India’s approach, South Asia might already be locked in an endless cycle of war.

Conclusion: The Cost of Conflict as Policy

What emerges is a picture of a South Asia on edge—not because of an accidental spark, but due to deliberate doctrinal choices. Modi’s India appears committed to a policy of sustained hostility, justified by nationalism and short-term political gain. Yet this path leads not to strength, but to regional erosion.

Instead of shaping a future grounded in peace, cooperation, and mutual security, the “new abnormal” invests in perpetual tension. With the stakes as high as nuclear conflict and the livelihoods of millions hanging in the balance, it’s a doctrine the region—and the world—can ill afford to normalize.