THE Line of Control (LoC) is one of the world’s most unstable flashpoints, situated in the shadow of the Himalayan mountains where borders are hazy and tensions are always simmering.
The region is once again on the verge of disaster as a result of the current military conflict between India and Pakistan in May 2025. The international community must now confront the difficult question of whether the world has done enough to avert catastrophe or if it is once again slouching towards a war with worldwide repercussions, as it observes with measured remarks and passive diplomacy.
The unresolved conflict over Jammu and Kashmir, the growing militarization of the Line of Control and the unsettling breakdown of diplomatic protections that once served as a buffer between two nuclear-armed states are the answers. De-escalation may become impossible and calamity inevitable if the current track is not stopped.
There were rumors of a militant ambush in Pahalgam, Indian-occupied Jammu & Kashmir, on the evening of May 6, 2025. India accused Pakistan-based elements of cross-border infiltration within hours. Reiterating the events of February 2019, Indian fighter jets broke into Pakistani airspace near Balakot the next evening. Pakistan put its defence forces on high alert in response, conducting air patrols and issuing diplomatic threats.
Even though there were no direct losses in this fight, the strategic ramifications are terrifying. Despite the grave dangers, both states showed a willingness to employ physical force when political pressure mounted. There were simply hurried narratives, state-sponsored blame games, and an increase in troop presence along the Line of Control—no impartial fact-finding mission, independent investigation, or international mediation.
Following years of animosity, the February 2021 reaffirmation of the LoC ceasefire accord was seen as a diplomatic victory. However, its breakdown in the face of resurgent political tensions highlights how flimsy confidence-building initiatives are without regional trust and political will. Originally intended to act as a buffer against confrontation, the LoC has once again become a theater of brinkmanship.
India maintains that Kashmir is an”internal matter,” which is counter to both international law and UN mandates, despite Pakistan’s repeated pleas for organized dialogue, including on the status of Jammu and Kashmir in accordance with UNSC Resolutions.
Five Global Strategic Lessons 1. There is an exponentially higher chance of making a mistake. A modest tactical incident could turn into a strategic disaster due to the speed of modern combat, tactical nuclear weapons, and the absence of real-time deconfliction procedures. In the absence of strong crisis communication plans or early-warning systems, even unintentional encounters could be mistaken for acts of war.
2. Violations of the ceasefire are a symptom rather than the cause. The unresolved state of Kashmir, where the aspirations of 13 million people are neglected, is the root cause of the transgressions along the Line of Control, even if they are frequently reported in isolation. Ceasefires will remain short-lived and precarious as long as Kashmir is viewed as a security issue rather than a political and human rights one.
3. There is no assurance that nuclear deterrence will prevent war. The existence of nuclear weapons has promoted conventional adventurism under the nuclear umbrella rather than discouraging the small hostilities between India and Pakistan (Kargil, 1999; Operation Parakram, 2001; Balakot, 2019). Catastrophe becomes a genuine possibility and escalation domination a myth in such an unstable paradigm.
4. The Media Can Promote Peace or Inflame War. The hyper-nationalist media in India has evolved into a political extension of the government, frequently promoting unsubstantiated allegations, extolling military action, and stifling criticism. In addition to hardening public opinion, this information warfare environment puts pressure on decision-makers to act recklessly in order to achieve immediate political advantage.
5. Impunity Is Made Possible by International Silence. The international community has mostly kept quiet about Kashmir’s many human rights abuses, from mass arrests and enforced disappearances to internet bans and demographic engineering, out of concern for potential diplomatic repercussions with India. In addition to encouraging more repression, this silence exacerbates animosity, radicalism, and instability in the area.
The world must work toward long-term solutions based on international law and regional diplomacy in order to go beyond temporary de-escalation. Important actions consist of: Reviving Bilateral Dialogue: If required, neutral third parties should mediate talks, which should be unconditional and include Kashmir on the agenda. Strengthening of UNMOGIP: More power and access should be granted to the UN Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan so they may keep an eye out for and confirm ceasefire violations.
Implementation of UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir: These resolutions, which are still enforceable under international law, demand a plebiscite overseen by the UN, a political procedure that the Kashmiri people have long been denied. Creation of a Joint Crisis Management Mechanism: A permanent joint military and diplomatic crisis cell, modeled after Cold War hotlines, could stop miscommunications from getting out of hand. Restoration of Human Rights and Media Freedoms in Kashmir: Restoring confidence and democratic legitimacy in Kashmir requires the release of political prisoners, judicial supervision, and press access.
More than merely a boundary, the Line of Control serves as a mirror reflecting South Asia’s more profound shortcomings in justice, accountability, and diplomacy. The region becomes more unstable, militaristic, and vulnerable with each crisis that is handled but not addressed. The world must prevent the LoC from turning into a diplomatic cemetery. De-escalation cannot be pushed under the rug of political expediency and economic interests; rather, it must be institutionalized, maintained, and bolstered by an honest assessment of the Kashmir dispute. We have a clear and pressing decision: the possibility of irreparable catastrophe or significant de-escalation via discussion and the law.
—The writer is contributing columnist.
