India and Pakistan are in crisis again - here's how they de-escalated in the past

India and Pakistan are once again in a serious crisis following a deadly attack in Pahalgam, located in Indian-administered Kashmir, which resulted in the tragic loss of 26 civilian lives. This incident has sparked a renewed sense of urgency and concern among India's security forces and diplomats, as it echoes past events that have led to heightened tensions between the two nations. In 2016, after a similar attack, India conducted what it termed 'surgical strikes' across the Line of Control, the de facto border between India and Pakistan, targeting militant bases. The situation escalated further in 2019 when a terrorist attack killed 40 Indian paramilitary personnel, prompting India to carry out airstrikes in Balakot, Pakistan. This marked the first time since 1971 that India had conducted such an operation inside Pakistan, leading to retaliatory actions and an aerial dogfight. The horrific 2008 Mumbai attacks, which resulted in 166 fatalities, also loom large in the collective memory of both nations. Each time these attacks occur, India has consistently held Pakistan-based militant groups accountable, accusing Islamabad of providing tacit support to these groups, a claim that Pakistan has vehemently denied. Since 2016, and particularly after the 2019 airstrikes, the threshold for escalation has shifted dramatically, with cross-border and aerial strikes by India becoming more commonplace, provoking retaliatory responses from Pakistan. This has intensified an already volatile situation, leaving India in a precarious position as it attempts to balance escalation and restraint. Ajay Bisaria, who served as India's high commissioner to Pakistan during the Pulwama attack, has a deep understanding of this recurring cycle. In his memoir, 'Anger Management: The Troubled Diplomatic Relationship between India and Pakistan,' he reflects on the aftermath of the Pulwama bombing, which triggered Indian airstrikes in Balakot. Bisaria notes that there are striking similarities between the recent attack in Pahalgam and the Pulwama incident, but he also highlights a significant difference: the latest attack targeted civilians, specifically tourists from across India, evoking memories of the 2008 Mumbai attacks. He emphasizes that this attack carries elements of both Pulwama and Mumbai, indicating that we are once again in a conflict situation with a narrative that is unfolding in a similar manner. In response to the latest attack, the Indian government acted swiftly, implementing a series of retaliatory measures. These included closing the main border crossing, suspending a crucial water-sharing treaty, expelling diplomats, and halting most visa applications for Pakistani nationals, who were given a limited time to leave India. In recent days, troops from both sides have engaged in intermittent small-arms fire across the border. Additionally, India barred all Pakistani aircraft, both commercial and military, from its airspace, mirroring a previous move made by Islamabad. In retaliation, Pakistan suspended its own visa processes and halted a 1972 peace treaty with India. The region of Kashmir, which is claimed in full by both nations but administered in parts, has been a longstanding flashpoint since the partition of India and Pakistan in 1947. Ajay Bisaria returned to Islamabad as India's high commissioner just 22 days after the Pulwama attack. He recalls how the Indian government reacted swiftly, halting trade with Pakistan and imposing a 200% customs duty on Pakistani goods, effectively ending imports. The Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) also proposed a broader set of measures to reduce engagement with Pakistan, many of which were implemented. These included suspending a cross-border train known as the Samjhauta Express, halting a bus service linking Delhi and Lahore, deferring talks between border guards, and ceasing visa issuance. Bisaria reflects on how difficult it is to build trust and how easily it can be broken. The strength of the Indian high commission in Islamabad was significantly reduced following the Pulwama attack, and India launched a diplomatic offensive to inform other countries about the role of Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM), the militant group responsible for the bombing. JeM is designated as a terrorist organization by India, the UN, the UK, and the US. India's diplomatic efforts continued as they pushed for the designation of JeM's leader as a terrorist by the UN sanctions committee. While there was pressure to abrogate the Indus Waters Treaty, India chose to withhold data beyond treaty obligations. A total of 48 bilateral agreements were reviewed for possible suspension. Despite the tensions, communication channels remained open, including the hotline between the two countries' Directors General of Military Operations, which is crucial for military-to-military contact. In 2019, as now, Pakistan claimed that the attack was a response to India's actions in Kashmir. A crackdown in Kashmir led to the arrest of over 80 individuals believed to have provided support to the militants. The Indian government prepared for a strong response, and on February 26, 2019, India conducted airstrikes targeting JeM's training camp in Balakot. India claimed that a significant number of militants were killed, but Pakistan denied this assertion. The situation escalated further when Pakistan launched retaliatory air raids the following day, resulting in an Indian fighter jet being shot down and its pilot captured. This incident triggered a wave of national concern in India. The Indian government activated multiple diplomatic channels, with envoys from the US and UK urging Islamabad to de-escalate the situation. The Indian message was clear: any attempt by Pakistan to escalate the situation further or harm the pilot would lead to a response from India. On February 28, Pakistan announced the pilot's release as a goodwill gesture aimed at reducing tensions. By early March, as the dust settled from the events surrounding Pulwama, Balakot, and the pilot's return, India's political climate began to cool. The Cabinet Committee on Security decided to send India's high commissioner back to Pakistan, signaling a shift towards diplomacy. Bisaria noted that this was a significant moment, as it indicated India's willingness to engage in traditional diplomacy once again, having achieved a strategic and military objective while allowing Pakistan to claim a notion of victory for its domestic audience. The 2008 Mumbai attacks, which resulted in a tragic loss of life, serve as a reminder of the complexities of this relationship. Bisaria described his time as a diplomat during these events as both challenging and fascinating. He pointed out that the key difference this time is that the targets were Indian civilians, and the attack occurred at a time when the situation in Kashmir had improved. He believes that while escalation is likely, there is also a strong instinct for de-escalation. When the Cabinet Committee on Security meets during such conflicts, their decisions take into account the economic impact of the conflict and seek measures that hurt Pakistan without provoking a backlash against India. Bisaria highlighted that India's threat to annul the Indus Waters Treaty could have serious long-term consequences for Pakistan. He concluded by reminding everyone that the crisis is ongoing and that military action could still be on the horizon.