The India-Pakistan conflict nearly escalated to nuclear brinkmanship before U.S. President Donald Trump’s intervention brought both Delhi and Islamabad to a ceasefire. Trump’s diplomacy helped avert the nightmare of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), but what unfolded under India’s Operation Sindoor has reshaped regional deterrence doctrines.

A Shift in India’s Strategic Doctrine

India's strike on Pakistan’s military installations marked an unprecedented move—directly targeting a nuclear-armed state's military infrastructure. In doing so, Prime Minister Narendra Modi discarded long-held assumptions underpinning nuclear deterrence.

The Indian operation signaled that Pakistan’s longstanding strategy—of sheltering cross-border militancy under its nuclear umbrella—would no longer guarantee immunity from retaliation. For decades, Islamabad counted on the belief that India's responses would remain restrained, hindered by the fear of escalation and diplomatic caution. Modi's approach has dismantled this precedent, leaving Pakistan in unfamiliar territory.

India’s hardening stance has reduced the margin for error in South Asia's already fragile security landscape. Any future militant attack risks triggering rapid military escalation between two nuclear-armed nations.

Modi’s Redefinition of Indian Power

The contrast between Modi’s response and that of former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh during the 2008 Mumbai attacks is stark. After Lashkar-e-Taiba killed over 160 people in Mumbai, Singh’s government chose strategic restraint—opting for diplomatic offensives over military retaliation.

Modi, however, has repeatedly demonstrated that he is willing to respond with force. The 2016 surgical strikes after the Uri attack and the 2019 Balakot airstrike following Pulwama were precursors to the current doctrine: equating national honour with pre-emptive defence.

India’s geopolitical outlook has also evolved. In 2008, Delhi prioritised economic growth and international legitimacy. By 2025, the focus has shifted to deterrence through strength—a “muscular foreign policy” that aims to deter future attacks with a readiness to retaliate.

Information War and Global Optics

During the recent skirmishes, both India and Pakistan engaged in intense information warfare, using propaganda and disinformation to shape narratives. Some hailed the performance of Chinese jets, others lauded India's Russian-made S-400 air defence system, which intercepted Pakistani missile attacks. The conflict served as a live-testing ground for foreign powers—Beijing, Moscow, and Washington included—to evaluate their strategic assets.

Of all external actors, only the U.S. holds sufficient influence and credibility with both sides to urge restraint. China lacks neutrality and is viewed by India as biased due to its deep ties with Pakistan. Russia, while a historical partner of India, remains preoccupied with its Ukraine conflict and cautious of antagonising Beijing.

Washington’s challenge lies in balancing strategic ties. While India views past U.S. support for Pakistan with suspicion, Washington continues to engage Islamabad—primarily to monitor its nuclear arsenal and counter Chinese influence. However, these efforts have not yielded the desired outcome of dissuading Pakistan from supporting proxies.

A New Regional Dynamic

Modi’s assertiveness enjoys broad domestic support. His policy—treating major terrorist attacks as acts of war—aims to both deter Pakistan and reinforce his nationalist image at home. The message is clear: the era of diplomatic restraint is over.

This approach directly confronts Pakistan’s strategy of waging low-intensity conflicts through militant proxies. By blurring the line between counter-terrorism and conventional warfare, India has erased the ambiguity Islamabad has long exploited.

The consequences are dangerous. Both sides now feel compelled to respond forcefully, fearing that restraint might be perceived as weakness. Pakistan, already grappling with economic and political instability, faces increased pressure to retaliate. For India, any future terror attack is likely to provoke immediate military response.

The threshold for conflict has lowered significantly—creating a volatile environment where a single militant operation could ignite full-scale war.

China’s Calculus and Constraints

For China, Pakistan has historically served as a strategic buffer and a Belt and Road Initiative partner, especially via the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) and the Gwadar port. Beijing has long supported Islamabad with military and diplomatic backing.

But India’s new assertiveness complicates Beijing’s calculus. Modi’s India has directly challenged Chinese dominance through its “Necklace of Diamonds” strategy, stronger Quad ties, and increasing influence in traditional Chinese spheres.

An India willing to punish cross-border terrorism could adopt the same posture along its borders with China. The 2020 Ladakh standoff already demonstrated India’s resolve. China must now weigh how much support it can offer Pakistan without triggering further backlash from Delhi.

Ironically, Modi’s strategy may prompt Beijing to deepen military ties with Islamabad, including strengthening its missile defence capabilities or expanding its nuclear deterrent, in a bid to restore strategic balance.

Russia’s Strategic Role

India’s successful deployment of Russia’s S-400 missile system, dubbed ‘Sudarshan Chakra,’ has boosted its confidence in managing escalations. The system's capacity to detect and intercept threats over long ranges offers India a critical edge.

This advantage allows India to adopt an “escalate to de-escalate” posture—taking bold action while minimizing the risk of Pakistani retaliation. However, if Islamabad perceives that its ability to respond is neutralised, it may feel compelled to resort to more extreme measures, including nuclear threats. The S-400 thus introduces a new asymmetry in the regional balance of power.

Pakistan’s Shrinking Options

Modi’s retaliatory doctrine has narrowed Pakistan’s strategic choices. Direct attacks on Indian military targets risk all-out war. Yet, continuing support for proxies only increases the likelihood of Indian strikes.

Islamabad could crack down on militant groups—a move that would address India’s core grievances and improve Pakistan’s international image. However, this could provoke domestic backlash from militant factions and erode Pakistan’s asymmetric leverage.

Alternatively, Pakistan could seek to internationalise the Kashmir issue and portray India as the aggressor. But global sympathy has largely tilted towards India, particularly in the aftermath of terrorist incidents.

The Stability-Instability Paradox Revisited

For years, nuclear deterrence has prevented full-scale war in South Asia, while enabling low-intensity conflict—a phenomenon known as the “stability-instability paradox.” Pakistan relied on this dynamic to wage proxy warfare under the protective shadow of nuclear weapons. Modi has shattered this illusion. By responding militarily despite nuclear risks, India has dismantled the shield Pakistan used to justify proxy conflict.

The goal is clear: to deter terrorism through conventional military punishment. If successful, this approach could end the cycle of provocation and retaliation. If it fails, the consequences could be catastrophic.

(The author is a Kuala Lumpur-based strategic and security analyst. Views expressed are personal. He can be contacted at collins@um.edu.my)