Strategic restraint

On May 10, strategic restraint pulled India and Pakistan from the brink of an all-out war. First, it was US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and then President Donald Trump who broke the news of ceasefire between India and Pakistan. Prior to that the US had stated that it had nothing to do with Indo-Pak hostilities.

Two days earlier, on May 5, the Indian retaliatory attacks over Pakistan and AJK, the Secretary General Antonio Guterres urged New Delhi and Islamabad to exercise "maximum restraint" to prevent a military showdown, warning that tensions over a deadly attack in Indian-held Jammu and Kashmir risk escalation into an open conflict. Reiterating his call for restraint after the Indian attack, a statement by the UN opined that "the Secretary General is very concerned about the Indian military operations across the Line of Control and international border. He calls for maximum restraint from both countries. The world cannot afford a military confrontation between India and Pakistan."

Trump, speaking just after the news of Indian attack over Pakistan, lamented, "It's a shame. We just heard about it as we are walking in the doors of the Oval office. I hope it ends soon." The day after the Indian attack, messages and statements from world leaders poured in calling for restraint and dialogue. China's foreign ministry spokesman offered mediation stating, "We are willing to work together with the international community and continue to play a constructive role in easing current tension." Likewise, France, Germany, the UK, Saudi Arabia and other countries called upon India and Pakistan to exercise restraint and open backchannel negotiations in order to prevent further escalation of their conflict.

What is strategic restraint, and how did it help prevent an all-out war between India and Pakistan? Could these two nuclear-armed neighbours have afforded the risk of further escalating their conflict by unleashing more rounds of attacks and counter retaliation? What are the elements of strategic restraint and how can the US, Russia, China and other world powers play their role in this regard?

Strategic restraint requires political will and wisdom on part of stakeholders to prevent an all-out war. Backchannel negotiations between India and Pakistan to de-escalate the conflict had been going on since May 7. Pakistan's Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar confirmed that contact had been established between the National Security Advisers of India and Pakistan to de-escalate tensions and to restore, through dialogue, the situation to its pre-22 April 2025 status.

A set of military confidence-building measures (CBMs) had been reached between India and Pakistan during 1980s and 1990s like establishing a hot line between Director General Military Operations, ceasefire along the Line of Control, Indus Water Treaty of 1960, and advance notice on troop movement. But such CBMs, which were launched under Track-1 (official) diplomacy between India and Pakistan, miserably failed in a crisis situation.

For India, avenging Pakistan's alleged involvement in terrorist attacks was imperative; but for Islamabad, delivering a befitting response was essential. While Pakistan claimed to have given a proportionate response to India's May 7 attack by destroying 5 aircraft, a drone and the Indian Army's brigade headquarters in occupied Kashmir, there were arguments that Islamabad must further invoke deterrence by responding to the killing of more than 30 civilians by 24 Indian missiles. The fragility of the ceasefire remains evident, with continued reports of violations emerging.

Strategic restraint, as a means to prevent further escalation of the Indo-Pak conflict, must be examined from three key perspectives:

First, through the role of the international community. This is because both countries had already escalated the conflict by launching conventional strikes and subsequent retaliation. Paradoxically, the absence of strong global leadership has created space for militant voices in India to proceed with their conflict escalation agenda. Unlike 2019, when US President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo intervened and succeeded in de-escalation after Pulwama and Balakot, the American role seems paradoxical in nature now. It is intriguing that America initially claimed it had nothing to do with the Indo-Pak conflict and that it would not intervene, but then within 24 hours, Trump tweeted an announcement of the ceasefire as a result of American mediation.

Another reality is that formal Indo-Pak Track-1 diplomacy remains largely frozen, despite Pakistan's Foreign Minister revealing that the National Security Advisers of both countries had established contact to de-escalate tensions. To sustain the ceasefire and initiate dialogue, India and Pakistan must reactivate Track-1 diplomacy, as also urged by the US. At the international level, the only credible role in promoting strategic restraint amid an ongoing conflict lies with the UN Security Council. Before it is too late and further escalation occurs, the UN Security Council must invoke Chapters V, VI and VII of the UN charter related to international peace and security by passing a binding resolution urging India and Pakistan to initiate dialogue and ensure permanent ceasefire.

Second, a culture of strategic restraint between India and Pakistan has long prevailed, particularly to maintain the threshold of nuclear deterrence. But, after April 22 and May 7, it seems that this culture is fast eroding due to India's arrogance over teaching Pakistan a lesson. The world will not act in case New Delhi further escalates the conflict. It is a very dangerous approach because Pakistan has made it clear that suspending the Indus Water Treaty will be considered as an act of war and attacking Pakistan with missiles means that New Delhi has crossed the line. Saner elements, particularly in India, must wake up and prevail over their state to exercise strategic restraint so that South Asia is not plunged into a deadly phase of conventional war leading to a nuclear war.

Finally, strategic restraint can only be exercised when stakeholders understand the relevance of peace. Irrational behaviour by Indian leadership will only lead to further escalation. The role of Indian civil society and political parties in advocating for restraint remains uncertain.