talking them down?

India, Pakistan, and embassy personnel

News of kinetic efforts between Pakistan and India yesterday and today reminds us that some may see only an "America First" world. Still, it's virtually impossible to prevent the rest of the world from affecting us, even in our homeland, regardless of our preferences. Just a reminder that Americans may forget: both the governments representing 1.4 billion Indians and 255 million Pakistanis have nuclear weapons and delivery systems. Let's hope they don't have the intention to use them.

India detonated the world's first "peaceful nuclear explosive" (George Orwell was never as adept as governments at creating ludicrous euphemisms) on 18 May 1974, while Pakistan responded by the following decade with its path towards an "Islamic bomb". The forced 1947 dissolution—perhaps the only thing the Islamic and Hindu leaders agreed upon—of the British Raj birthed these two countries, along with deep distrust of the other side. Additionally, Kashmir remains a contentious residual with repetitive violence threatening its stability and the bilateral ties.

Both countries are democracies, albeit hardly the same. India's almost eight decades of civilian dominance over its armed forces is ironclad. The military debate is not between those who rule but between the Army, worrying about the Pakistani and Chinese borders, and the Navy, increasingly seeking to compete with an ever-more maritime PRC. While Prime Minister Narendra Modi's nationalist BJP overtly favors the Hindu population, the country maintains multiple political parties to address a range of citizens' concerns. India is far from perfect in many ways, but New Delhi's thriving political process is one of the nation's most significant accomplishments and a source of immeasurable pride.

Pakistan is a far less positive tale 78 years after its founding. Its name came from cobbling together the various regions: Punjab, Afghania, Kashmir, Sindh, and Baluchistan. The current population includes millions whose families fled the anti-Islamic violence as the Raj collapsed in the mid-1940s before Britain withdrew altogether. The population is far poorer as Pakistan's attempts at modernization and good governance both suffer from the all-too-frequent military interventions plaguing the country.

Civilians have come and gone, often under dynastic trappings. Whether it was the Bhutto father, Zulfikar Ali, who worked so hard on creating the "Islamic" bomb in the 1970s to deter India, or his Oxford-trained daughter Benazir, who symbolized modernization with her election in the 1990s, Pakistanis ultimately rejected both of them as elected government leaders. Ali won the election as Prime Minister under the People's Party in 1973 but faced incarceration for murdering the opposition four years later; the Pakistani military put him to death in 1979.

Benazir lived abroad for much of her youth, as was common among the elite of many countries, but she carried a revered family name. She won the Prime Ministership twice as a secularist but departed office on corruption issues in the 1990s. She was campaigning as a more traditional voice for a third chance when an assassin murdered her at a 2007 rally. Known as her father's heir, she was the hope for the People's Party of Pakistan as it struggled to regain power, as civilians always seem to do in this country.

The military, only a couple of years ago, imprisoned a popular cricketeer-turned-political figure on—you guessed it—corruption grounds at the same time that the Pakistani Army is one of the wealthiest names in society, despite relatively low-level pay.

India has played a significant role in Pakistan's history and vice versa, not merely during independence. India's intervention in the 1971 conflict that calved off East Pakistan to become the sovereign state of Bangladesh. The more dangerous bilateral history, however, resulted from several Islamic attacks on Indian sites before this latest clash in Kashmir.

Merely three months after we suffered the 9/11 attacks, violence erupted on the floor of the Parliament in Delhi, presumably by Islamic forces tolerated, if not deployed, by Islamabad. The nuclear-armed militaries forced the world to hold its collective breath for the following eighteen months as charges flew across their border. More deadly was a rampage in Mumbai during November 2008, which resulted in 175 murders at Hindu, Jewish, and other facilities in the commercial capital. Footage of a Lashkar-e-Taiba Islamic terrorist (based in Pakistan) in the central train station with an automatic weapon still sends chills. Still, their attacks terrorized this massive city for four days. Islamabad professed no connection to the attacks, but few analysts of the two states' behavior believed them. Whatever the military's internal challenges, it is the reckoning power within Pakistani territory.

The current show of force began yesterday, six weeks after more than two dozen Indian tourists died in Kashmir. As seemingly invariably occurs between these enemies, Delhi vowed to avenge what it saw as Islamabad's actions. The Indian armed forces used drone strikes and heavy artillery to inflict pain on the Pakistani portion of the area west of the Line of Control between the two segments of Kashmir. The resulting 26 deaths of its citizens led Islamabad to condemn this "act of war".

This escalation could end suddenly, or it could rise further. Tension between the two countries never eases entirely. Yet one has to wonder which global leader can be any moderating voice to encourage both sides to slow down for the sake of their people. Our leadership, currently far less interested in the affairs of the remainder of the world (especially with avowed distrust of those of Islamic faith), has a relatively good relationship with Prime Minister Modi but India is hardly our first, second, or third priority; I am convinced Pakistan is well to the bottom of our concerns.

However, each of these countries has some nationalists advocating eradicating the opposition. Nuclear weapon usage, tragically, would allow either side to inflict massive pain on all of us, not the least because of the 80-year taboo on nuclear usage in conflict. Pressures for retribution lead to an action-reaction cycle, which challenges any populist government in India, while the Pakistani generals are prone to erratic behavior.

We have never seen nuclear retaliation so we don’t know how it would play out. We do know that once escalation begins in war, it can be difficult for governments to stop since they have “sunk costs” of people lives during most wars..

Pakistan's promise of further retaliation this evening after condemning Indian actions for "igniting an inferno" ought to send chills down our collective backs.

I am well aware that we historically never involved ourselves in the subcontinent of South Asia as our British friends yet we see ourselves as the global superpower. Does that involve obligations for previously abstract dangers? Not necessarily but perhaps we may..

As noted last week, we may be tired of involvement around the world, but the effects of any use of nuclear weapons would matter to all of us. Here, diplomacy, the art of discussing issues of distrust while seeking common benefits, may play a significant part, if only to slow hotheads. I hope the embassies in Delhi and Islamabad are replete with political officers and military attachés who are deeply knowledgeable and engaged with their local counterparts. Neither embassy staff nor attachés defer to the position of their hosts but provide us with a window into discussions, priorities, and ultimata in these places. In a conflict between Pakistan and India, we need that knowledge.

Whether in suits or fatigues, diplomats matter greatly to us overseas, regardless of how often we try to tell ourselves otherwise.

I welcome your thoughts on this conflict, questions about society, or any other aspect of today's column. I appreciate your time and particularly thank those who subscribe financially to Actions Create Consequences.

It was an intriguing sky this morning.

Be well and be safe. FIN

Tom Ambrose, Martin Belham, Hamish MacKay, Jonathan Yerulshalmy, and Léonie Chao-Fung, “Kashmir Crisis Live”, TheGuardian.com, 7 May 2025, retrieved at https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2025/may/06/pakistan-india-attacks-kashmir-live-updates

“Pakistan: A Political History” TheAsiaSociety.com, 2025, retrieved at https://asiasociety.org/education/pakistan-political-history

Asmita Ravi-Shankar, “Operation Sindoor LIVE: After India’s Strike, PM Shehbaz Sharif Says ‘Pakistan Will Avenge’”, HindustanTimes.com, 7 May 2025, retrieved at https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/operation-sindoor-live-updates-india-air-strike-pakistan-terror-bases-camp-latest-news-today-7-may-2025-101746575073589.html

“Terror Attacks on Mumbai CST, Taj Hotel, and Cafe—the Attacks of 11/26”, YouTube.com, 2022, retrieved at

“23rd Anniversary of 2001 Attack on Indian Parliament”, Youtube.com, 2024, retrieved at