The death toll from Pahalgam still rises. On April 22, gunmen from The Resistance Front murdered twenty-six tourists in Indian-administered Kashmir, injuring seventeen others. India’s response was swift and predictable: borders closed, water-sharing agreements suspended, and accusations of Pakistani “cross-border terrorism” flying. But this attack, Kashmir’s deadliest in two decades, opens a far more troubling chapter in the region’s blood-soaked history.
A legacy of Partition
The Kashmir conflict’s roots stretch back to the hasty 1947 Partition. When British India fractured into Hindu-majority India and Muslim-majority Pakistan, Kashmir’s maharaja dithered until Pakistani tribesmen invaded. He then joined India in exchange for military assistance, sparking the first Indo-Pakistani War. The resulting Karachi Agreement of 1949 established a ceasefire line, but peace remained elusive.
Border clashes in 1965 escalated into full-scale war. By 1971, India had helped East Pakistan become Bangladesh, further poisoning relations. The 1972 Simla Agreement established the Line of Control (LoC), dividing Kashmir between the two nations, but even this proved inadequate. When India tested its first nuclear weapon in 1974, Pakistan accelerated its own program, fundamentally altering regional security dynamics.
The situation deteriorated further in 1989 when Pakistan began supporting Kashmiri separatists. The Kargil War of 1999 nearly triggered a nuclear exchange before U.S. intervention restored the LoC. Since 2003, an increasingly fragile ceasefire has held, periodically punctuated by cross-border firings and terrorist attacks.
Nuclear calculations
Declassified U.S. intelligence documents reveal Washington’s persistent concern about nuclear conflict in South Asia. A 1989 State Department assessment found that while war remained “improbable,” the risk was “high” that conventional conflict could escalate to nuclear exchange through “miscalculation or irrational response.”
By 1993, U.S. intelligence estimated the probability of war at “about 1 in 5.” The National Intelligence Estimate identified Kashmir, “internal meddling,” terrorist incidents, and communal violence as potential flashpoints. Particularly concerning was the rise of extremist parties—the BJP in India and radical Islamists in Pakistan—that could increase war risk.
Most chilling was a Lawrence Livermore Laboratory analysis of the radiological consequences should India strike Pakistan’s Karachi Nuclear Power Plant. Under “extreme conditions” Karachi residents could receive “a 10 to 20 REM inhalation dose [of iodine 131] as far as 25 km downwind,” causing “heavy casualties” in the densely populated city.
Modern studies paint an even grimmer picture. A 2019 assessment by climate scientists and nuclear experts suggested a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan could kill 50 million people directly. The global climate impacts would devastate agriculture worldwide, potentially causing “famine for millions or billions of people.”
Modi’s Kashmir gambit
In August 2019, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government unilaterally revoked Article 370 of the Indian constitution, stripping Kashmir of its special autonomous status. The region was placed under lockdown, communications cut, and thousands detained. Rather than bringing security and development as promised, Kashmir became more volatile, with declining economic investment and increasing militant recruitment.
The Indian Supreme Court’s December 2023 ruling upholding the abrogation of Article 370 further entrenched centralized control. Meanwhile, targeted killings of Hindus have increased, provoking protests against government policies. Modi’s administration has responded with greater militarization, exacerbating political tensions.
Violence along the LoC peaked in 2020, with over four thousand reported cross-border incidents. Though a February 2021 ceasefire has largely held, sporadic incidents continue. In November 2023, Indian and Pakistani soldiers exchanged gunfire across the border, killing an Indian guard. Each side routinely accuses the other of orchestrating killings on their territory.
America’s delicate dance
The United States finds itself caught between strategic relationships. Washington’s mediation efforts have historically yielded mixed results. The Clinton administration’s intervention in the 1999 Kargil conflict likely prevented nuclear escalation, but broader peace initiatives have faltered.
Following the Pahalgam attack, the Trump administration immediately condemned terrorism and expressed support for India. State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce declared: “The United States stands with India, strongly condemns all acts of terrorism.” Vice President J.D. Vance, who happened to be in India during the attack, reinforced this position, highlighting India’s status as a “Major Defense Partner.”
The administration’s stance reflects the deepening U.S.-India relationship, formalized in February’s “U.S.-India COMPACT” initiative. This partnership emphasizes military cooperation, trade expansion, and technological collaboration, with a bilateral trade agreement expected by autumn 2025. India has become central to American Indo-Pacific strategy, particularly as tensions with China intensify.
Yet the U.S.-Pakistan relationship remains complex. While counterterrorism cooperation continues, American withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021, combined with Pakistan’s political instability and strengthening ties with China, has complicated America’s regional balancing act.
Beijing’s calculations
China’s involvement adds another dimension to the Kashmir conflict. Beijing maintains its own border disputes with India in Aksai Chin and Arunachal Pradesh. Deadly clashes erupted in the Galwan Valley in 2020, while another skirmish occurred near the Line of Actual Control in 2022. India rejected China’s 2023 renaming of thirty places in Arunachal Pradesh, declaring the region an “integral” part of India.
Meanwhile, Pakistan-China relations have deepened considerably. In February 2025, Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari visited China to strengthen defense and economic cooperation, particularly regarding China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) projects. Their “all-weather” relationship involves mutual support against external pressures, despite security concerns for Chinese nationals in Pakistan.
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Guo Jiakun’s statement on the Pahalgam attack was carefully calibrated: “We strongly condemn the attack. China firmly opposes all forms of terrorism. We mourn for the lives lost and express sincere sympathies to the bereaved families and the injured.” This diplomatic language allows Beijing to maintain relations with both countries while advancing its regional interests.
The Kashmir conflict increasingly resembles a proxy for broader US-China competition. As Washington deepens its partnership with New Delhi, Beijing strengthens ties with Islamabad. Both superpowers view South Asia through the prism of their global rivalry, with Kashmir caught in the middle.
Beyond zero-sum games
The Pahalgam attack demonstrates how Kashmir’s conflict has evolved from regional dispute to nuclear flashpoint in global power competition. Each escalation risks catastrophic miscalculation. For the United States, balancing support for India with preventing nuclear conflict requires nuanced diplomacy.
Likewise, China’s strategy of Pakistan alignment while maintaining economic relations with India reflects Beijing’s regional ambitions. But both powers would suffer enormously from nuclear exchange between their partners.
The brutal irony is that Kashmiris themselves have become almost incidental to their own conflict. Their aspirations for self-determination have been subsumed by great power politics and religious nationalism. Until this fundamental disconnect is addressed, Kashmir will remain what it has been for decades: a powder keg awaiting a match.
As nuclear-armed India and Pakistan face off once again, the world holds its breath. History suggests restraint will eventually prevail, but history also teaches that assumptions about rational behavior can prove dangerously wrong. The Kashmir conflict, once merely regional, now threatens global security in ways few could have imagined in 1947.