• Centre for Law and Security Studies (CLASS) Director Nilanthan Niruthan on how smaller nations lose the most from regional and global instability 

Since their partition in 1947, India and Pakistan have clashed over territory, ideology, and national identity – with Kashmir at the heart of it all. Today, rising nationalism and strategic shifts are adding new layers to this old conflict, making informed analysis more crucial than ever. 

To delve in depth, we had the Centre for Law and Security Studies’ (CLASS) Director, leading political analyst Nilanthan Niruthan, on ‘Kaleidoscope’ last week. Niruthan is known for his deep insight into South Asian geopolitics and conflict resolution. His work explores the complex realities behind protracted regional tensions, including one of the world’s most enduring rivalries: that between India and Pakistan. 

Following are excerpts from the interview:

We have been seeing the current escalation of tension between India and Pakistan. Has this been simmering and waiting to erupt, or has it just come out of the blue?

It has certainly been simmering for a long time. This is a civilisational conflict in many ways, with Kashmir being the modern political manifestation of it. On top of that, Kashmir has also been a vibrant hub of tourism for India in recent years – last year (2024) alone, about 4.5 million tourists visited the region. So, for those who benefit from the ongoing conflict, there is a vested interest in ensuring that Kashmir does not find lasting peace. There was never going to be long-term peace as we would define it. 

Ordinary Kashmiris do experience a greater sense of normalcy today, compared to five or 10 years ago, but, isolated terror attacks will continue to occur, and tensions will always simmer beneath the surface.

Is this part of a broader regional trend, or, are we likely to see a sudden flare-up followed by resolution?

It is definitely part of a broader regional trend. Right now, we see tensions escalating between Pakistan and Afghanistan, with Pakistan using significant military force in Balochistan. Myanmar has already descended into civil war, with bloodshed and factional infighting. The South Asian region as a whole is experiencing a series of civilisational conflicts. In that sense, what is happening between India and Pakistan fits into a wider pattern across the region.

What impact is this likely to have on smaller nations in the region – Nepal, Bangladesh, the Maldives, and Sri Lanka?

The first major consequence is economic. Globally, with trade tensions such as United States (US) President Donald John Trump-era tariffs and corresponding countermeasures, we are likely heading toward a recession. This region, already vulnerable to destabilisation due to civilisational conflicts, suffers from a poor investment climate compared to Southeast Asia. 

South Asia is also a critical hub for air travel and shipping routes. If war breaks out between India and Pakistan, air traffic across the region could be brought to a standstill. Smaller nations in the region stand to lose the most from regional or global instability. In that sense, we are the first victims.

Would Sri Lanka be forced to take a side?

I hope not. And frankly, I do not think that India or Pakistan is looking to regional neighbours like Sri Lanka, Nepal, or the Maldives to choose sides. They are more focused on where global powers like Washington, District of Columbia, US, Beijing, China, and Moscow, Russia, stand. If Sri Lanka was pushed to choose, we would likely be forced to align with India, but, that would be unfortunate. We gain nothing by damaging our relationship with Pakistan.

Are there external influences at play – from the US, Russia, or China?

Yes, though many of the theories I have seen are exaggerated. The Hindu-Muslim cultural divide in South Asia is a civilisational struggle that goes back over a 1,000 years. The Kashmir conflict itself predates any serious geopolitical involvement from the US, Russia, or China in the region. These major powers may influence the situation, but, fundamentally, this remains an India-Pakistan issue.

We are in an age of high-tech warfare. Could cyber warfare, disinformation campaigns, and hybrid tactics be playing a larger role?

Absolutely. We are already seeing how much disinformation is being used. Each side has its narrative – India paints Pakistan as a destabilising force in Kashmir, and Pakistan accuses India of oppression. 

Entire social media cells and proxy groups now exist to promote each nation’s version of events while discrediting the other. This is classic hybrid warfare: the use of the conventional military, terrorism, the media, and digital propaganda as a combined strategy. We are witnessing it unfold in real time.

Is there any hope for a diplomatic solution?

Unfortunately, I would say no. This is a deep-rooted civilisational power struggle. The diplomatic mechanisms established in the last 50 or 60 years are not equipped to solve something of this depth and scale. And, the current global climate is also unstable – there are no international bodies or powerful mediators capable of bringing this to a resolution. So, diplomacy, sadly, does not appear to be a viable path forward right now.

How much are nationalist policies in both the countries contributing to the escalation?

It is difficult to say if they are the cause, but, they certainly benefit from it. In Pakistan, the military is facing an all-time low in popularity, especially after the jailing of former Prime Minister Imran Khan, who remains immensely popular. The military is accused of supporting an undemocratic regime and is already embroiled in conflict with both Afghanistan and Balochistan. In such a scenario, a conflict with India can serve to unify public opinion behind the military. 

In India, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is also under pressure. With the next election approaching and the likelihood that Narendra Damodardas Modi will not be the candidate, the Party is losing the personal charisma that has driven previous campaigns. Escalating tensions serve the BJP by consolidating support and sidelining the opposition. So, both the Pakistani military and the Indian Government benefit politically from increased hostility.

What has been the human cost of this conflict so far?

If we look at the Kashmir conflict from its origins, we are talking about millions of casualties. The Partition alone caused an estimated two–three million deaths and displaced around 20 million people. Over the decades, the cumulative toll – through insurgencies, terrorism, and military operations – has impacted tens of millions. In the most recent attack alone, around two dozen civilians were killed, with many others affected by the subsequent military response. So, in totality, this is a conflict with a massive human cost.

Looking ahead, what scenarios do you foresee? Is there a path to peace or de-escalation? Or, are we entering a long-term standoff?

The only two realistic outcomes are either de-escalation or armed confrontation. Genuine peace, unfortunately, seems off the table – it is simply too complex and historically entrenched. We can hope that both sides choose to de-escalate. 

However, it is a fragile process. Just one misstep – one rogue incident – could derail everything and lead into war. Especially given that powerful interests on both sides benefit from prolonging the conflict, the risk remains that any de-escalation effort could collapse at any moment.

(The writer is the host, director, and co-producer of the weekly digital programme ‘Kaleidoscope with Savithri Rodrigo’ which can be viewed on YouTube, Facebook, Instagram and LinkedIn. She has over three decades of experience in print, electronic, and social media)