Indian Brinkmanship vs. Moral Restraint: Rethinking deterrence in South Asia
Dr Waleed Rasool
In the shrouded silence of the night between May 5th and 6th, India’s alleged breach of Pakistan’s sovereignty—marked by the firing of 24 air-to-surface missiles on six cities and Azad Jammu and Kashmir—did not merely provoke regional tension; it struck at the intellectual bedrock of strategic deterrence theory.
This act of aggression against a nuclear-armed state defies the logic enshrined in the canonical works of Thomas C. Schelling, particularly The Strategy of Conflict (1960) and Arms and Influence (1966), which posit that nuclear capabilities create a threshold that rational actors dare not cross.
By targeting a state protected by a nuclear shield, India has not only ventured beyond the deterrence equilibrium but also unsettled the central thesis of Kenneth Waltz’s realist optimism, as articulated in The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: More May Be Better (1981), wherein he argued that nuclear proliferation enhances stability by deterring direct confrontation. Furthermore, this episode casts a long shadow over Glenn Snyder’s seminal framework that emphasized deterrence as the cornerstone of peace in an anarchic international system. When the guardians of strategic logic—the doctrines built on mutual assured destruction and rational restraint—are ignored or bypassed, the international order enters perilous terrain.
The missiles did not just traverse physical airspace; they pierced the theoretical comfort zones of deterrence, highlighting a dangerous erosion of norms in a world where power politics increasingly overrides moral constraint and institutional regulation.
This act of aggression has placed the international legal and moral order under severe stress, raising a crucial question: has morality become irrelevant in the face of classical realism, and is the anarchic global order now governed solely by the logic of power? For decades, strategic scholars argued that the possession of nuclear weapons acted as an insurmountable deterrent against direct aggression between nuclear states.
This doctrine emerged from the Cold War, when despite deep hostilities, the United States and the Soviet Union refrained from engaging in direct military confrontation. This mutual deterrence was seen as a success of realism’s balance-of-power concept, and liberal scholars reinforced this with the argument that international institutions like the United Nations helped preserve peace and protect smaller states. However, India’s calculated strike on Pakistani territory has fundamentally challenged this belief.
The idea that nuclear-armed states do not confront each other militarily stands discredited. Not only did India breach a nuclear state’s sovereignty, but it also justified its action under the pretext of preemptive self-defense—an argument that lacks legal and moral legitimacy in the absence of imminent threat as defined by customary international law and Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. Post-World War II, the liberal world order was constructed upon the wreckage of the League of Nations, with the United Nations assuming the moral and legal responsibility of ensuring peace, security, and the sovereignty of all nations—especially weaker ones.
Article 2(4) of the UN Charter categorically prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, while Chapter VII empowers the Security Council to take collective action in case of aggression. But the empirical reality offers a stark contrast. Whether it was the Indian-sponsored creation of Bangladesh in 1971 through military intervention or the recent missile strikes, Pakistan’s sovereignty has been repeatedly violated without any meaningful response from international institutions. The Geneva Conventions of 1949, their Additional Protocols, the Hague Conventions of 1907, and the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) have remained passive observers, unable to restrain a regional power acting with impunity.
There is a deliberate institutional amnesia when it comes to India’s historical role in destabilizing Pakistan. From training and launching the MuktiBahini to execute the secession of East Pakistan in 1971, to sponsoring the narrative of Pakistani aggression at the United Nations to deflect responsibility for Kashmir, India has employed a blend of covert action and strategic misdirection. This was even admitted by India’s current Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who publicly acknowledged India’s role in the creation of Bangladesh.
The ex-RAW chief Vikram Sood’s admissions in The Unending War further validate how India uses psychological operations and direct intervention to manipulate the regional balance of power. Yet the international community, intoxicated by India’s economic size and strategic importance, has largely turned a blind eye.to interpret the behavior of states. In a world lacking a global government—an anarchic international system—states act primarily out of self-interest to preserve sovereignty, security, and survival.
India’s aggressive posture is a textbook case of structural realism. Seeing itself as a rising power in a multipolar world, India is recalibrating norms unilaterally and asserting dominance through hard power. The moral and legal constraints articulated by liberal institutionalism have become secondary to the pursuit of strategic hegemony in South Asia.Pakistan’s bitter experience in 1971 serves as a warning about the limitations of external alliances.
Despite being allied with major powers at the time, no meaningful support was extended to Pakistan during India’s military intervention and the subsequent creation of Bangladesh. That failure echoes today. The silence of Pakistan’s current allies and the international system in the face of fresh Indian aggression underscores that alliances alone do not ensure protection unless backed by reciprocal strategic interests.
This demands a deep strategic introspection in Islamabad. The only path to meaningful deterrence is through a calculated realist approach that includes: 1) Strengthening internal strategic preparedness,2)Investing in credible second-strike capabilities,3)Enhancing conventional deterrence,4)Building diplomatic partnerships grounded in shared strategic interests.
It is essential to understand that events like Balakot or the latest missile attacks are not standalone incidents; they are effects of an unresolved root cause—Kashmir. The unilateral revocation of Article 370 by India, demographic reengineering in Jammu & Kashmir, and repeated provocations are part of a broader strategy to dilute the Kashmir dispute and sideline UN resolutions.But history shows that unresolved causes continue to manifest new effects.
Peace and stability in South Asia demand a just and final settlement of the Kashmir issue, as per the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council. Without addressing the cause, India will continue using its military muscle to suppress the effects, thereby perpetuating instability. In conclusion, Pakistan stands at a crucial juncture. Morality, international law, and institutional guarantees have proven insufficient to prevent or respond to aggression.
The only viable course is a comprehensive realist posture—firm, calibrated, and backed by strategic clarity. This does not mean abandoning diplomacy or institutions, but it does demand that Pakistan enter the arena with clear-eyed realism and a long-term strategic blueprint.The multipolar world offers a window—where the U.S., China, Russia, and the Global South are all recalibrating alliances. Pakistan must leverage this shifting order intelligently.
The leadership must exhibit strategic acumen, emotional restraint, and national unity. Strategic patience, backed by strategic capabilities, is not weakness—it is wisdom. As history teaches us, morality without power is ignored, and law without enforcement is mere decoration. In a world ruled by the logic of power, only realism remains real.
