pakistan india relationship research paper

United States Institute of Peace

Home ▶ Publications

India and Pakistan at 75: Prospects for the Future

Indian and Pakistani envoys discuss the future of bilateral relations and how great power competition impacts South Asia.

By: Ambassador Jalil Abbas Jilani; Ambassador Maleeha Lodhi; Ambassador Nirupama Rao; Ambassador Arun Singh

Publication Type: Analysis

India and Pakistan, the two nuclear-armed giants of South Asia, each mark the 75th anniversary of their independence this week. Disputes over their shared border and the territory of Kashmir have been a recurrent source of conflict between the two countries over the course of their histories, and new geopolitical alignments, changes in conventional and nuclear military capabilities, and deep mistrust continue to forestall any normalization of ties. China’s rise and the attendant great power competition have complicated both Islamabad’s and New Delhi’s strategic calculus as they both look to balance relations with Washington and Beijing.

In this article, USIP interviews Jalil Abbas Jilani and Maleeha Lodhi, former ambassadors of Pakistan to the United States, and Nirupama Rao and Arun Singh, former ambassadors of India to the United States, to get their perspectives on the main foreign policy and security challenges facing their respective countries, options for rapprochement, and the role of the United States and other global powers in supporting peace and stability in the region.

At the 75th anniversary of independence, what do you see as the primary foreign policy and security challenges facing your country in the coming five to 10 years? 

Rao: This is a time of heavy turbulence in global politics. Power equations are not stable, the world where globalization seemed to assure a better future for billions of aspiring youth is an image receding from our rear windows, and negotiated multilateral or regional solutions for lingering geopolitical problems, and questions of war and peace, are no longer assured. South Asia is a different place today with China’s assertive military and financial clout generating challenges for India’s neighborhood policy. Our relationship with Pakistan will continue to remain fraught and weighted down by cross-border “gray zone” confrontation and militancy targeted against us. Of even more consequence is the hostile and adversarial state of India’s relations with China, where the lack of resolution of problems on the high Himalayan borders we share has created a potent cocktail of mistrust and dangerously close military confrontation.

Lodhi: Pakistan’s greatest security challenges will continue to emanate from its neighborhood — from the unsettled situation on its border with an unstable Afghanistan and from troubled relations with India. An imposing foreign policy challenge will be to navigate the growing confrontation between the United States and China, two global powers with which Pakistan has its most important bilateral relationships. 

Ties with China will remain an overriding priority for Islamabad. The strategic direction relations have taken in recent years has given this long-standing partnership added significance at a time of a fundamental change in the international balance of power brought about by China’s rise as a global power; the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) is emblematic of this. 

Pakistan seeks a reset of ties with the United States, but relations will inevitably be affected by Washington’s standoff with Beijing. Islamabad wants to avoid being sucked into this big power rivalry. But this is easier said than done. So long as U.S.-China relations remain unsteady it will have a bearing on Pakistan’s effort to reconfigure ties with the Washington. Redefining Pakistan-U.S. relations will be a daunting task in the changed context of America’s military withdrawal from Afghanistan and its choice of India as its strategic partner in the region in its strategy to contain China. Aspects of America’s Indo-Pacific strategy also have security implications for Pakistan, not least because it injects Cold War dynamics into the Indian Ocean, which Islamabad has long sought to prevent becoming India’s Ocean.

Singh: The world is now moving decisively from its unipolar moment to a multipolar phase. India will have to carefully navigate its relations with the three major powers: United States, Russia and China. There is growing convergence in Indian and U.S. interests, particularly in the Indo-Pacific, and growing strength in various aspects of the bilateral relationship: trade, investment, value chain, technology, defense and diaspora. There will be difference on Russia, with which India has a legacy, a strong defense supply dependence, a productive energy partnership, and need to prevent Russia from taking anti-India positions on India-China issues. India also has to manage its relations with China, complicated by differences and confrontation on the boundary between them; China’s growing concerning presence in South Asia, the Indian Ocean and space; and growing Chinese defense and cyber capabilities. Threading the needle of these three relationships, in an era of intense geopolitical competition, will pose the primary foreign policy and security challenge to India in the coming five to 10 years. Many of the other challenges that India may face, including terrorism, will be a subset of this primary challenge.

India and Pakistan have experienced repeated hostilities over their post-independence history, but for the past year and a half, a tenuous cease-fire agreement along the Line of Control has been upheld. How could the neighbors build on this toward a greater stability in bilateral ties?

Jilani: The history of Pakistan-India relations can be characterized as one of lost opportunities. Mistrust, hostility and conflict has undermined efforts toward peace and stability. Since independence, Pakistan and India have had numerous wars, border skirmishes and military stand-offs. They also continue to have unresolved disputes, lingering irritants and a history of broken promises.

Attempts made by the two countries in the past seven decades to address disputes have not been successful due to various domestic, regional and global factors. India’s position on almost every issue regarding Pakistan has hardened ever since the emergence of India as a “strategic partner” of the United States and other Western powers. Developments since 2018, including New Delhi’s unilateral decision to repeal Articles 370 and 35A and alter Kashmir’s constitutional status, which Pakistan considers to be a violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions and the Simla Agreement, have further strained ties between the two countries. 

Although issues between Pakistan and India are long-standing, progress is possible. Leaders on both sides of the border need to develop a national consensus in support of the peace process and bring all stakeholders including the core constituencies, media and opposition parties on board. As in the past, the United States and United Kingdom can also play an important role in defusing tensions. 

This may appear to be a tall order but there are historical precedents and lessons the two countries can draw from. In the face of high-level tensions between 1999-2003, former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee of India initiated a unprecedented peace process from 2003-2008, leading to a nearly decade-long cease-fire, increases in bilateral trade and the establishment of Kashmir-related confidence-building measures. The two countries also addressed their respective concerns on terrorism through a discreet and candid dialogue, and came close to a resolution on several disputed boundary points. Unfortunately, the process was disrupted due to political developments in the two countries and the 2008 Mumbai attacks. 

Several important lessons can be drawn from the substantive and result-oriented peace process followed by the two countries from 2003-2008. First, visionary leadership on both sides of the border can change the course of history and break the logjam. Second, it is imperative to show flexibility and adopt a problem-solving approach. Third, dialogue is essential. Only through regular dialogue do new ideas emerge. Negotiations should not thrust anything unacceptable on any party. Fourth, building trust is of paramount importance. The only way it can develop is through engagement at all levels including between the political leadership, public officials, businesses, media and civil society. 

If we want the next 75 years to look any different from the past, adhering to the above principles could allow both Pakistan and India to live a more peaceful and prosperous future. Prudence demands that we pick up the threads from where we left off in 2008 and find common ground to work together. Only then can lasting peace become a viable alternative to endless conflicts.

Singh: The cease-fire has held despite an absence of a public working relationship or exchanges between the two governments at the moment. There was also an effective cease-fire earlier from 2003 to 2008. However, at that time there was a dialogue process, aimed at advancing cooperation, and a reportedly productive back channel for discussing some of the contentious issues. This had been disrupted by the 2008 Mumbai terrorist attack linked to official elements in Pakistan. 

One way to build on the present cease-fire would be to explore ways to advance cooperation on trade and economic issues, especially since globally, including in South Asia, there has been a significant negative impact of COVID and then the present crisis in Europe, leading to rise in energy and food process. Several South Asian countries are seeking support from the IMF. A South Asian initiative to respond to the current crisis could reinforce in popular perception of the advantages from cooperation rather than confrontation.

Lodhi: Managing difficult relations with India will continue to preoccupy Pakistan. Dialogue has been suspended for years. Trade was halted and diplomatic representation downgraded in 2019 after India’s illegal action of incorporating and bifurcating the disputed state of Jammu and Kashmir. The hope that back-channel communication between the two countries in 2021 would yield a thaw turned to disappointment when no headway was made on any front, beyond the re-commitment by both neighbors in February 2021 to observe a cease-fire on the Line of Control. This was an important development, however, as only two years earlier the two states were locked in a dangerous confrontation epitomized by the Balakot crisis, when Indian planes carried out bombing inside Pakistani territory. In view of the persisting deadlock, the future outlook for Pakistan-India relations is uncertain. Given the impasse on Kashmir, an uneasy and fragile state of “no war, no peace” is likely to continue.

Rao: It is important that the cease-fire agreement along the Line of Control between India and Pakistan should hold and that attempts by the latter to provoke pro-Pakistani secessionist elements in Kashmir should cease. It is difficult — indeed, impossible — to nurture any illusions of a better tomorrow in India-Pakistan relations, if such activities continue. There is little patience among the Indian public for talk of peace with Pakistan when we confront the turbulent history of the past few decades of relations, despite attempts made by successive Indian governments to build bridges with Pakistan and promote a functioning relationship with our western neighbor. The domestic consensus is for a firmness of approach in dealing with Pakistan in a non-conciliatory manner given this troubled history.

How do you assess regional stability and relations with your neighbors and other powers such as the United States, China or Russia? What is needed from outside partners to help ensure peace and stability in South Asia over the next 25 years?

Rao: I believe that the global consensus should be to support regional integration among the eight countries of South Asia, and to advocate this as a way forward for the secure and prosperous future of every country in the region. One neighbor, China, which is also a global power, and is not a South Asian country, has pursued a disruptive policy agenda in the region that has sought to challenge India (which is the crucial connector country in South Asia for any scheme of regional integration) rather than work with it as far as the pursuit of such integration is concerned. 

China’s regional ambitions do not support the realization of the potential of an integrated South Asia, especially since it has actively helped the advancement of Pakistan’s military and strategic ambitions against India. The United States and India have worked hard to cement their close and comprehensive global strategic partnership over recent years, and one factor in this equation has been the deep disquiet and concern about the aggressive assertiveness of China in the Indo-Pacific and the challenge this poses to a rules-based international order. Our relationship with Russia passed its heyday long ago, yet Russia remains a Eurasian power whose capacity to influence the regional trajectory cannot be denied. Russia policy therefore cannot be an area of neglect.

Singh: While outside partners have, at times, played a role in defusing acute tensions, or ongoing conflict, their involvement in South Asian affairs has not necessarily contributed to cooperation and stability. From the Indian perspective, Pakistan had earlier leveraged its relationship with United States, and now with China, to sustain an adversarial and negative approach to India. External powers could play a helpful role in current context if they stepped back and declared willingness to support South Asian initiatives to deepen economic linkages. However, I am not sanguine that this is likely in the current phase of intense competition between the major powers.

Lodhi: Outside powers can play a constructive diplomatic role in helping India and Pakistan reinitiate a broad-based peace process, which proceeded with some promise in the past, especially between 2004 and 2008. The frequent acknowledgement by both countries that they have much to gain from trade and connectivity in economic areas has taken a back seat to revival of tensions, the shadow of unresolved disputes and geopolitical considerations by both sides. If India and Pakistan were to settle their outstanding disputes, practical issues relating to trade and connectivity should not be difficult to resolve. The peace dividend from economic engagement would be substantial, but outside intervention may be needed to nudge them in this direction.  

Related Publications

What’s Driving India-China Tensions?

Monday, March 25, 2024

By: Dean Cheng ; Sameer P. Lalwani, Ph.D. ; Daniel Markey, Ph.D. ; Nilanthi Samaranayake

Since deadly clashes between India and China on their 2,100-mile disputed border — known as the Line of Actual Control (LAC) — nearly four years ago, the two countries have remained in a standoff and amassed an increasing number of troops on either side of the LAC. While India and China have held regular exchanges at the corps commander level since 2020, each side has also continued to militarize and invest in infrastructure in the high-altitude border regions, which may exacerbate risks of clashes or escalation. India-China competition has also deepened beyond the land border, particularly in the Indian Ocean region.

Type: Question and Answer

Global Policy

Sameer Lalwani on INDUS-X and the Importance of Technology Coalitions

Tuesday, March 5, 2024

By: Sameer P. Lalwani, Ph.D.

Technology partnerships like the U.S.-India INDUS-X “are going to be critical to the U.S. being able to defend and deter rising threats in the future, including the challenge of China,” says USIP’s Sameer Lalwani. “We need the strength of our allies in these coalitions” to maintain a technological advantage.

Type: Podcast

The Limitations of India and Russia’s Transactional Relationship

Thursday, February 22, 2024

By: Dr. Jagannath Panda

Since Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, it might seem as though ties between India and Russia have strengthened. While much of the West isolated Russia, India-Russia energy trade spiked, and India made efforts to accommodate Russia on the world stage. The two countries have also had visible public exchanges, such as a mid-January phone call between Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Russian President Vladimir Putin and Indian External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar’s trip to Moscow at the end of 2023.

Type: Analysis

As Fragile Kashmir Cease-Fire Turns Three, Here’s How to Keep it Alive

Wednesday, February 21, 2024

By: Christopher Clary

At midnight on the night of February 24-25, 2021, India and Pakistan reinstated a cease-fire that covered their security forces operating “along the Line of Control (LOC) and all other sectors” in Kashmir, the disputed territory that has been at the center of the India-Pakistan conflict since 1947. While the third anniversary of that agreement is a notable landmark in the history of India-Pakistan cease-fires, the 2021 cease-fire is fragile and needs bolstering to be maintained.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

•  We're Hiring!
•  Help Center

India-Pakistan Relations

• Most Cited Papers
• Most Downloaded Papers
• Newest Papers
• Save to Library
• Last »
• India-Pakistan Follow Following
• Kashmir Conflict Follow Following
• Biological Psychology Follow Following
• Indian Culture Follow Following
• Pakistan's Foreign Policy Follow Following
• Theories of Peace and Conflict Studies Follow Following
• Conflict Resolution and Peacebuilding Follow Following
• South Asian Politics Follow Following
• India's Foreign Policy Follow Following
• Indian foreign policy Follow Following

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• Academia.edu Publishing
•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Sign up for alerts
• 13 May 2024

'Einstein’s death shattered Bose — he tore off an unpublished research paper in grief'

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Partha Ghose. Credit: Partha Ghose

Nature India : What inspired you to embark on a career in particle physics?

Partha Ghose : In 1961, I went to Imperial College London wanting to decipher what lies at the deepest core of matter. This was when physicists had already begun smashing atoms in colliders, churning out new transient particles to unveil the secrets of matter.

I was lucky to learn advanced physics from stalwarts in particle physics like Abdus Salam, P. T. Matthews and T. W. B. Kibble. In 1963, an opportunity to work briefly at CERN further spurred my interest in particle physics.

NI : How did you meet S. N. Bose?

PG : It was in mid-1963 that I met Bose, quite by chance. The famous Bengali pote Bishnu Dey, a relative of ours and Bose’s close friend, took me to meet Bose. They were immersed in discussion, and Bose suddenly turned to me and asked, ''Would you like to work with me?''. It was an offer I couldn’t refuse. He arranged everything very quickly and within days I joined his research group at the Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics in Calcutta as a junior scientist. I worked on particle physics, mainly on broken SU(3) symmetry which was in vogue at the time.

NI : How did Bose start interacting with Einstein and how was their relationship?

PG : Occasionally, Bose would reminisce about his interactions with Einstein. One day when I went to meet him at his residence, he started talking about the historic paper he sent to Einstein on 4 June 1924 along with a letter .

Bose told me that his deduction of the phase space factor in Planck’s law resulted in a factor of 4π instead of 8π. He went on to propose that the missing factor of 2 was due to the photon spin which could take only two values. In his letter back to Bose, “the old man” [Einstein] had crossed this portion out and said it was not necessary to talk about spin since the factor of 2 comes from the two states of polarisation of light.”

Bose said to me, ”I can understand a spinning particle, but what is the meaning of the polarization of a particle?” I asked him, "Sir, when the photon spin was eventually discovered, why didn’t you tell Einstein that you had already worked it out in 1924?” “How does it matter who discovered it,” he quipped. “It was eventually discovered, wasn’t it?”

In a second paper, which also Einstein translated into German and got published in Zeitschrift fur Physik , Bose proposed a probability law for interactions between matter and radiation. According to Einstein, it was inappropriate. He added a comment to the paper giving some reasons for his disagreement with Bose.

The first paper with Einstein’s strong endorsement made Bose famous. He moved to Paris on a two-year sabbatical from Dhaka University, worked in Maurice de Broglie’s and Marie Curie’s labs and arrived in Berlin in 1925 to finally meet Einstein. They discussed several issues including Bose’s new hypothesis of probabilistic interactions, but Einstein stuck to his point.

Despite their differences, Bose regarded Einstein as his master in physics. On 18 April 1955, Einstein died. The news shocked him into silence. He was writing a paper and was looking forward to discussing it with Einstein at a forthcoming conference in Switzerland to celebrate fifty years of Special Relativity. Bose tore that paper into shreds.

NI : Many say that S. N. Bose missed out on a Nobel Prize for physics.

PG : He deserved the prize for his seminal contribution to quantum theory. It led to the classification of particles into bosons and fermions and the prediction and discovery of Bose-Einstein condensates. Besides, his theories helped us understand superconductivity and superfluidity. Bose’s theories and insights shaped the works of many physicists. Some went on to win Nobel Prizes. But Bose, despite being recommended several times, was never considered for the prize.

NI : Apart from physics, you learned music, and played first-class cricket. Do you think science helps enrich music?

PG : Science can help explain music. The best example of this in India is Sir C. V. Raman who had a keen ear for Indian classical music. He could detect five harmonics in the 'mridangam' and the 'tabla' sounds. He did some experiments with Indian drums and circular membranes with central loads. He sprinkled white powder on them to see the patterns of vibrations formed as he kept changing the loads and the manner of striking. This led to a new understanding of the generation of harmonics in stretched membranes. His research in musical instruments earned him the Fellowship of the Royal Society of London even before he got the Nobel Prize for his work on light scattering.

NI : S. N. Bose advocated popularizing science in Bengali. Is it easier to communicate science through one’s mother tongue?

PG : Science is based on logic and requires precise language for its expression and understanding. Non-native speakers find it difficult to grasp the nuances of scientific terms in English. They often acquire wrong notions when they read science in English.

The language in which one dreams is one's mother tongue. Science can therefore take root and flourish in a country only when its citizens start dreaming about science in their mother tongue.

NI : What is your advice for young Indian students who want to pursue a career in physics?

PG : I will quote Bose’s last advice to me. ''Don't jump onto foreign bandwagons. Try to understand things in your way and say something new.''

Bose read the works of all leading quantum theorists of his time, including Einstein, with a critical mind, identified their shortcomings and went on to propose revolutionary new statistics. These days I see an undue rush to publish papers in reputed foreign journals, increase citations, and get quick recognition and promotion. This leads to derivative science.

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d44151-024-00054-2

Assistant/Associate Professor in Sustainable Biobased Products Manufacturing

Lubbock, Texas

Texas Tech University

Professor and Center for Vector-borne and Zoonotic Diseases Director

Assistant scientist/professor in rare disease research, sanford research.

Assistant Scientist/Professor in Rare Disease Research, Sanford Research Sanford Research invites applications for full-time faculty at the rank of...

Sioux Falls, South Dakota

Sanford Research

Postdoctoral Fellow - Boyi Gan lab

New postdoctoral positions are open in a cancer research laboratory located within The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. The lab curre...

Houston, Texas (US)

The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center - Experimental Radiation Oncology

Assistant Professor

Tenure-track Assistant Professor position in the Cell and Molecular Physiology Department at Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine.

Maywood, Illinois

Loyola University of Chicago - Cell and Molecular Physiology Department

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies