India-

Pakistan
relations
BOOK REPORT

Submitted to: Dr Mujeeb Afzal

Submitted by : Farah Akhlaq Raja

MPhil-IR 2nd Morning

 Book Report

The India–Pakistan rivalry is one of the world's longest-running and unsolved rivalries. It began
in the aftermath of the two republics' independence from British colonial authority in 1947 and
has lasted for more than half a century, with frequent wars and crises erupting between the two
adversaries. An enduring rivalry is defined as a persistent, fundamental, and long-term
misalignment of interests between two states, which reveals itself in the parties' basic attitudes
toward one another as well as repeating violent or potentially violent encounters throughout time.

States with unequal aggregate power capability, evaluated in terms of material resources, such as
size, demographics, military might, and economic prowess, are involved in asymmetric warfare.
Intangible characteristics like will and morale are not taken into account when evaluating
national power capabilities because they are impossible to quantify. The India–Pakistan conflict
is long-running and asymmetric, but numerous variables have curtailed and alleviated the power
imbalance.

Through strategy, tactics, partnerships with other powers, and the acquisition of qualitatively
superior weaponry, Pakistan, the weaker party, has been successful in eliminating the
asymmetry. India, although being a materially stronger force, is not overwhelmingly dominant in
the conflict zone of Kashmir, and has been subject to asymmetric assaults from Pakistan.
Because of this unusual asymmetry, the fight is deadly and long-lasting.

The existing conflict resolution literature suggests a number of options for resolving a long-
running rivalry. The arrival of some sort of internal or external political shock, such in a
punctuated equilibrium model, is a crucial prerequisite for the end of this type of conflict.

There are several conceptual and practical definitions of lasting rivalries, according to Paul F.
Diehl, Gary Goertz, and Daniel Saeedi's thesis, and they may result in different compilations of
the phenomenon; the India–Pakistan rivalry occurs on all lists. The above concept is supported
by the pattern of contacts in the India–Pakistan rivalry. According to accepted metrics, India has
clearly outstripped Pakistan in total conventional capabilities over the course of their conflict.

The thesis of John A. Vasquez explains international policies. The concept of foreign policy is
based on the assumption that states establish specific aims and objectives. This has both external
and internal repercussions (in terms of a state's ties with an opponent) (in terms of the number of
foreign policy hardliners and accommodationists). This research yields three major results. First
and foremost, this rivalry is centred on a territorial quarrel that is both symbolic and
transcendent. Second, the India–Pakistan situation clearly fits the steps to conflict theory. Third,
traditional nuclear deterrence theory may be incorrect because it is based on a single case's
deductions.

In a very literal sense, Daniel S. Geller's theory describes how the conflict between India and
Pakistan is a template for a "enduring rivalry." This holds true for the sources of violence, the
severity of violence, failures in mediation and conflict resolution, and persistence. The Indo-
Pakistani dyad has a variety of structural traits that raise the potential of large-scale violence, in
addition to the war-prone dynamics of the rivalry relationship itself.

The India–Pakistan rivalry, according to Russell J. Length's theory, has been punctuated by
repeated militarised crises that have resulted in wars. Since the bloodletting that accompanied
partition, the immense consequences of this dysfunctional relationship have been plain; now
there is the added risk of a nuclear disaster. Despite their bravado, the Indian and Pakistani
governments are well aware of the costs and risks of a nuclear conflict on the subcontinent.

According to Ashok Kapur, there was a long dispute dating back to the British Raj before 1947,
in which it was demonstrated that Washington and Beijing were pro-Pakistan and anti-India by
reviewing declassified documents and secondary Western and Pakistani sources; these biases
began during the Cold War era and continued after the Cold War ended. While the United States
has gone to great lengths to promote a policy of balanced relations with both India and Pakistan,
it was contended that the realities were quite different.

The dyad's holding of nuclear weapons, according to Saira Khan, is one of the key elements
leading to the rivalry's persistence. A competition can end in conflict or thaw in relations,
allowing diplomacy to triumph over force, which might be fueled by external demands from
large nations. In the presence of nuclear weapons, any of these scenarios may be difficult to
achieve.
The emergence of Islamism and Hindu nationalism, and its role in moulding state ideology and
national identities in Pakistan and India, according to Vali Nasr, has played a key part in the two
countries' rivalry's endurance.

T. V. Paul and William Hogg came to the conclusion that these rivalries are frequently rooted in
internal or external political shocks. While most inter-state disputes are sparked by an internal or
external shock, the vast majority of them – nearly 95% – are resolved swiftly. Only about 5% of
all disagreements will become ingrained or long-lasting. The elements that cause conflicts are a
set of core issues, whether security-related, identity-related, or of a different nature, that become
central to the aims of players on both sides of the dispute, resulting in actor inflexibility. Due to
differing conduct in different settings, the India–Pakistan rivalry has not received the attention it
deserves in the international relations literature on lasting rivals and prolonged conflicts.