In the dynamic and evolving landscape of international politics, the ongoing rivalry between India and Pakistan has held political and cultural significance for decades. These neighbouring South Asian nations have been locked in a battle for supremacy through various strategies over the years. While overt confrontations have periodically occurred between the two nations, a subtler strategy that appears to have been employed is hybrid warfare, a combination of conventional and unconventional warfare tactics. This article delves into the psychological underpinnings of the hybrid nature of the conflict between India and Pakistan, and analyses the motivations and actions of the actors involved. It also aims to provide insights into the affective consequences of these actions on the warring parties and the population in these regions.

Foundations of distrust 

Following a tumultuous partition of centuries of shared history, the Indo-Pakistan relation was built on mass migration and immense bloodshed. The trauma and communal violence endured by both nations have created deep-rooted narratives of victimhood, perceived injustices, and a desire for retribution, fuelling the misperceptions that lay the ground for hybrid warfare and pervade present-day conflicts between the nations. 

The conflict between India and Pakistan extends beyond power and military strategy, involving individual perceptions, collective identity, and societal attitudes. Some of the theoretical frameworks relevant to understanding the dynamics between India and Pakistan are explained below.

Social Identity

Individuals define their identities in relation to their membership in social groups. This leads to ingroup and outgroup categorization, resulting in ingroup favouritism and outgroup hostility. In the case of India and Pakistan, individuals identify themselves as part of their respective nations, viewing their own country as the ingroup while considering the other as the outgroup. This sense of national identity becomes a powerful force, influencing how individuals perceive themselves and others, and driving their actions during conflict. The continuous cycle of hostility and conflict shapes the minds of citizens, creating a fertile ground for mistrust. As a result, a narrative of “the dangerous Other” is created. Such conditioning amplifies and perpetuates animosity, hampering meaningful dialogue and diplomatic resolutions. Under extreme circumstances, cognitive and affective biases emerging from societally reinforced stereotypes, or political propaganda can result in devaluing and dehumanizing members of the other group, which has been characteristic of India and Pakistan’s relations with each other.

Collective Identity

Collective identity encompasses the shared beliefs, values, narratives, and experiences that bind individuals within a particular group. It represents the entire group’s identity and is different from social identity, which is part of a person’s self-concept. Collective identity plays a significant role in shaping individual and group behaviour, by instilling a sense of solidarity, purpose and commitment towards one’s group. In India and Pakistan, collective identities are closely connected to history, religion, and nationalism. It substantially contributes to the complex intergroup relations in the dynamics between the two countries.

For instance, one of the central points of magnified mistrust between the countries is the territorial dispute over the region of Kashmir. Combined with its strategic and symbolic importance, authority over Kashmir has led to competing ideologies and has become a catalyst for psychological warfare (PsyWar). To India, the Muslim-majority region of Kashmir represents the collective identity of a secular nation where diversity can co-exist, and for Pakistan, it represents the essence of its nationhood and its objective to protect the Islamic way of life, aside from geostrategic factors. This paves the way for identity politics as a strategy of manipulation used by both parties to tamper with their rival’s national narratives.

The Security Dilemma

The security dilemma is a situation in international politics when one state takes action to increase its security, which causes a rival state to perceive a potential threat and react to the action. Therefore, the net effect is a decrease in security. Several experts agree that the issue of Kashmir and border violence are merely symptoms of adeep-rooted issue between India and Pakistan. The real problem is the lack of trust that the security and foreign policy establishments of both countries have about the other’s intentions and motives. For instance, real and perceived hegemonic ambitions in the region, as well as potential insecurity caused by restricting access to shared resources such as the Indus River, have been vulnerable points of contention for both parties, in their attempts to secure their own nation, leading to various points of a non-conventional security dilemma. Thus foreign policy rooted in distrust serves as a tool of political calibration between India and Pakistan.

Strategies of Hybrid Warfare

Information Operations

One of the crucial components of this psychological battlefield is Information Operations, which resorts to influencing perceptions and manipulating opinions with the aim of sowing discord within the adversary state. Both India and Pakistan have been accused of engaging in information operations carefully curated to exploit religious and ethnic fault lines and shape public opinion around historical as well as territorial disputes. 

Citing a report by EU Disinfo Lab in December 2020, Pakistan’s foreign minister and media  have accused  India of being involved in attempts to discredit Pakistan on the international stage through fake news outlets. The report by the European NGO exposed a 15-year operation by Shrivastava Group, a New Delhi-based entity, targeting the United Nations and the European Union with fake news to serve Indian interests against Pakistan. Although the report did not attribute the campaign to the Indian government or its intelligence agencies, and there was no evidence of the government’s involvement, this cyber disinformation campaign was instrumental in shaping international opinion, leading to Pakistan’s addition on the FATF grey list, with charges of financing violent extremism. 

India has also been accused of being involved with Coordinated Inauthentic Behaviour (CIB), based on propaganda trends on Twitter, including the use of hashtags such as #CivilWarInPak through fake as well as verified Twitter accounts and media outlets, during Tehreek-e-Labaik Pakistan’s protests in Lahore, in April 2021. This cyber meddling intensified Pakistan’s distrust of its neighbour. Pakistani media was quick to challenge the claims through fact-checks. It also raised allegations of attempts by India at inciting sectarian violence in an already volatile Pakistan, resulting in doubts and questions about the credibility of Indian media. It also reopened discussions about Indian media previously having “manufactured” a non-existent civil war in Karachi in October 2020 to portray Pakistan as a country torn by war and to diplomatically isolate the country from the international community by conveying an image of terror, violence, and human rights violations.  

India retaliated to these allegations by claiming that Pakistan is the “best example” of disinformation campaigns by referring to records of sheltering international terrorists and unsuccessfully trying to cover the tracks of the alleged mastermind behind the 26/11 Mumbai attack. Social media jihad by Pakistan has been discussed in academia and media on several occasions as aimed at appealing to religious ideologies by portraying insurgency as pious through misleading information. A report backed by the UK Government published in February 2023 as a part of its scheme to prevent terrorism highlighted how rhetoric from Pakistan was instigating extremism and stirring anti-India sentiments among the Muslim community in the UK. The report evinces how rhetoric can be a potent tool in manipulating emotions and swaying beliefs, attitudes, and actions of individuals or larger groups. By strategically employing such persuasive linguistic devices, actors in the political landscape instill a sense of fear and doubt towards the adversary while bolstering confidence, loyalty, and support for one’s own side.  

Efforts by Pakistan to cultivate false narratives through digital propaganda had also been observed after the abrogation of Article 370 from the Indian constitution. The article granted the region of Jammu and Kashmir a certain amount of autonomy as a “temporary clause” following its accession to India in 1947, which included a separate constitution and differential laws on permanent residence. By abrogating the article in 2019, the government of India sought to repeal Jammu and Kashmir’s special status and integrate it with the Indian constitution. The move was received by the opposition as a “calculated insult” and a humiliation for the citizens of the region, because the stakeholders were not consulted. It also evoked frustration in Pakistan surrounding the exposure of its proxy forces, which is discussed in the next section. Attempts by Pakistan to re-ignite hybrid war with India through separatists provoking violence within the region and conventional fire at the Line of Control (LoC) were unsuccessful due to deployment of Indian security forces and restrictions on electronic communication. Other hybrid threats initiated by Pakistan such as lowering of diplomatic and economic relations with India, stopping rail communication, and blocking air routes also turned out to be a disadvantage to Pakistan. The resulting resentment and exasperation led to the launch of an information warfare against India. Social media campaigns from Pakistan stigmatized Indian security agencies and accused counter-terror measures of violating the rights of  Kashmiri civilians, further fuelling bitterness within the region of Kashmir towards the government and security agencies. 

The information operations between India and Pakistan have gone beyond mere propaganda, exploiting the cognitive biases and emotional vulnerabilities of the target audience. Emotional appeals, selective framing, and strategic communal politics have heightened tensions by undermining the adversary’s credibility. For instance, even the nomenclature surrounding the territorial dispute, such as India referring to Azad Kashmir as Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir (POK) and Pakistan identifying the rest of Kashmir as Indian-Held Kashmir (IHK) highlights how perceptions can be shaped and emotions can be evoked through the use of language. A scrutiny of the media and literature disseminated by the countries reveals that both parties have attempted to reinforce nationalistic sentiments and strengthen support for their respective governments’ policies and actions, while polarizing public opinion about the adversary, through a blurring of lines between fact and fiction. As doubts, ambiguity, and mistrust fester, the rival nation becomes a caricature of malevolence in the eyes of the general public.

Proxy Warfare

Proxy warfare refers to the use of non-state actors, armed groups, or insurgent organizations to carry out operations on behalf of their benefactors. When rival countries attempt to destabilize each other by operating through intermediaries, proxy warfare becomes a hybrid threat. By employing proxies, India and Pakistan have been exploiting existing fault lines and stoking ethno-religious tensions within rival territory, shielding themselves from direct confrontation and maintaining elements of ambiguity as well as deniability. From a psychoanalytic perspective, proxy warfare can be seen as a means for externalizing aggression and preserving a sense of moral superiority by distancing oneself from the direct consequences of one’s actions. Feelings of insecurity and fear are perpetuated among the target population, fostering support for the proxy forces, and undermining the legitimacy of the rival government. 

The first instance of Indian engagement with proxy warfare against Pakistan can be traced back to its support toward the Bangladesh Liberation Force, known as the Mukti Bahini, during the fight for independence of East Pakistan in 1971. Presently, allegations of India’s involvement in the long-standing Baloch separatist movement in Pakistan’s Balochistan province, through financial, political, and logistical support exemplify proxy relations. The arrest of a former Indian naval officer, Kulbhushan Jadhav, by Pakistani authorities in 2016, on charges of espionage and terrorism intensified friction surrounding the Balochistan issue. With India arguing that Jadhav was innocent and no longer in service, and against Pakistan’s death sentence, the case sparked a diplomatic dispute between the countries. 

In the same year, the Prime Minister of India, Narendra Modi, responded to Pakistan’s continued intrusion in India-administered Kashmir through a speech that expressed gratitude towards the people of trouble-prone areas in Pakistan such as Gilgit, Balochistan, and PoK for thanking him for his support in their struggle. This remark about the country’s indigenous conflict was driven by the objective of sending a message to Pakistan that any sort of conventional or nonconventional intervention in Indian domestic affairs would be met with retribution. The remark placed Pakistan on high alert, confirming its suspicions of India’s medical and possibly logistical aid to Baloch insurgents. Later in 2020, a comment by Indian-army veteran Major Gaurav Arya claiming that he has connections with Baloch freedom fighters aggravated doubts about India’s role in Baloch insurgency. 

Pakistan has long been accused of supporting various militant groups operating in Indian-administered Kashmir. These groups, such as Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), have been involved in acts of insurgency in the region, carrying out attacks against Indian security forces and civilians, striking the population with terror and insecurity. Pakistan’s support for these proxies is viewed as a method to destabilize Kashmir and keep the region’s agitation dynamics active, by creating an ethnic and sectarian divide and triggering a communal backlash. The move is also an attempt to portray the issue as an international flashpoint and exert pressure on India. The series of coordinated terrorist attacks in Mumbai in 2008 and several attacks across the LoC also heightened tensions between the two countries, with India accusing Pakistan of supporting and sponsoring terrorists involved in the attacks, despite the latter denying involvement. Records of Pakistani sleeper cells in India further point to terrorism as a possible means of proxy warfare in the India-Pakistan conflict. 

The psychological consequences of this form of warfare are significant for both countries. The target population in the affected regions experiences trauma, fear, and a constant sense of insecurity due to acts of terrorism carried out by proxy forces. The presence of terrorism can lead to heightened levels of anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and a breakdown of social trust within communities. Attempts at weakening the adversary by destabilizing them from within have proven effective several times in the case of India and Pakistan. Furthermore, individuals may develop cognitive biases and prejudices, as well as harbour resentment and animosity towards the opposing country, which can hinder prospects of peacebuilding and reconciliation. The reinforcing of deep-rooted divisions keeps the cycle of violence going and makes it challenging to establish cooperation between the two nations.

Escalation and Retaliation

One of the recurring themes in the conflict between India and Pakistan is escalation and retaliation. A crucial factor perpetuating the conflict is that acts of aggression or hostility by one side lead to retaliatory measures by the other. Such a cycle fosters a sense of urgency, and a desire to maintain a position of strength among decision makers and security institutions of both nations. This creates a dynamic where each action provokes a response, fuelling a continuous cycle of escalation. The constant threat of escalation and anticipation of retaliatory actions intensify the anxieties experienced by individuals living in these regions. It leads to a climate of tension, fear, and insecurity among the populations of India and Pakistan. 

The occurrence of standoffs, border skirmishes, and surgical strikes such as the events of 2019 adds another layer to the psychological dimensions of the conflict. These military actions can evoke feelings of anger, and revenge among the populations, aggravating hostility. The affective consequences of such events are often utilized as a tool to rally public support, strengthen nationalistic sentiments, and justify further military action. Through low-level and non-military provocations, the cycle also leaves room for manipulating the narrative and portraying the adversary as the aggressor by claiming that the retaliation was uncalled for.

Another factor to be taken into consideration in this context is public opinion. The voice of the public often shapes the response of political leaders of these democracies directly or indirectly, as they must navigate the expectations and demands of their respective populations, who are often emotionally invested in the conflict and desire retribution. This exerts a pressure on leaders to respond forcefully, escalating the tensions between the two nations. 

Perceptions and misperceptions further contribute to the cycle of escalation and retaliation. Each side’s interpretation of the other’s actions, intentions, and capabilities can be influenced by biases, preconceived notions, and historical narratives. This becomes an important driver of the cycle, considering the history of distrust that India and Pakistan share. Perceptions, whether accurate or distorted, can lead to misjudgements, and have a profound impact on decision-making processes, as they shape the strategies, responses, and justifications adopted by both nations. 

Calibration, which refers to the careful management and adjustment of actions, responses, and strategies to maintain a delicate balance and avoid unintended escalation in interactions, is a significant element in the India-Pakistan dynamics. It involves the continuous assessment of the situation, understanding each other’s thresholds, and the fine-tuning of policies to prevent the situation from spiralling out of control. It requires a nuanced understanding of the psychological, political, and strategic factors at play to navigate the complex relation to minimize the risk of miscalculation. Calibration constitutes various components, including the management of rhetoric, military deployments, and responses to incidents and provocations. Decision makers in both countries must carefully calibrate their statements and actions to avoid inflammatory rhetoric or provocative gestures. Establishing direct lines of communication and confidence-building measures can help prevent misunderstandings and provide an avenue for de-escalation in times of heightened tensions. Between India and Pakistan, calibration is particularly important due to the presence of nuclear weapons and scope for misinterpretation.

Nuclear Deterrence

The psychological implications of the presence of nuclear weapons in India and Pakistan have created a unique security environment that poses challenges to traditional deterrence theories. The doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD), which assumes that the threat of nuclear devastation prevents major conflicts, may not be applicable to the India-Pakistan dynamic. The lack of clear red lines to prevent the accidental tipping of nuclear thresholds, the involvement of non-state actors or proxy forces, the history of deep-rooted distrust, and a lack of mutual understanding increase the risk of miscommunication and misperception.

Ambiguity and uncertainty surrounding deterrence are further compounded by the long-standing Kashmir conflict. The disputed territory is closely tied to the political legitimacy of both countries, making it a highly sensitive issue. The Pakistani military establishment, which has control over the country’s nuclear strategy, uses the ‘India threat’ rhetoric to maintain domestic legitimacy and justify unwarranted military action. This perpetuates tensions and raises the stakes in any crisis or conflict between the two nations.

The presence of nuclear weapons can also create a paradoxical situation where both countries may engage inlow-level military provocations. Brinkmanship, for instance, involves the use of psychological tactics to push the adversary to the edge of conflict while stopping short of direct confrontation. The strategy relies on psychological factors such as intimidation and the manipulation of risk perceptions to gain leverage and maintain a strategic advantage. Because India and Pakistan trust that the opponent’s fear of nuclear escalation will constrain retaliation to such provocations, the likelihood of dangerous escalation increases if both sides misjudge the risks of crossing nuclear thresholds. Furthermore, India’s consideration ofpreemptive strike capabilities against Pakistan’s weapons adds an alarming dimension to the scenario. In 2003, India’s External Affairs Minister Yashwarnt Sinharemarked that “India has a much better case for preemptive action” against Pakistan, which was taken seriously byinternational actors to prevent the situation from getting out of hand. The fact remains that India could try to strike first if it believed that it was the only way to permanently stop infiltration. Meanwhile, if Pakistan sensed India’s real or perceived motive to strike first, Pakistan would have the incentive to initiate an attack. Either way, the nuclear-armed atmosphere in the already volatile South Asian subcontinent has much scope for misinterpretation, potentially heightening the risk of a catastrophic escalation.

Implications for Global Security

The hybrid warfare between India and Pakistan extends beyond national and regional boundaries, and the countries’ attempts to balance relations with South Asian neighbours and other state actors results in implications for South Asian politics and international security. Positioned at a geostrategic location, in the midst of rising Chinese activities and the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT), elements of the Indo-Pakistan dynamics, including the cycle of escalation and retaliation, nuclear deterrence, and brinkmanship, are prominent in the larger security landscape. India and Pakistan’s strategic interaction with each other and their South Asian neighbours posits a case for how hybrid threats can influence the threat perception of other nations as well. Similarly, the adoption of strategic neutrality by both countries following Russia’s war on Ukraine, aiming to sustain relations with major global powers and safeguarding their own interests while balancing each other’s influence, holds significance  for understanding their role in global geopolitics. 

The protracted conflict between India and Pakistan involves a complex interplay of psychological factors that perpetuate a cycle of problematic interactions. Driven by national pride, the desire for revenge, mistrust, and a hostility for the outgroup, various individual and institutional actors of both countries contribute to the propagation of insecurities and terror among the affected populations. Additionally, the presence of nuclear arsenal compounds the complexity of the conflict. Nuclear deterrence creates a psychological barrier that prevents direct confrontation, but at the same time increases anxieties, misperceptions, and tensions between India and Pakistan. Brinkmanship tactics, proxy war, and disinformation campaigns make it challenging to establish trust between the countries and engage in meaningful diplomacy.   

Despite the recent calls for peace, the absence of serious diplomatic relations between India and Pakistan, and the age-old mistrust make reconciliation appear unlikely in the near future. The public pressure on decision-makers to prioritize the ‘Kashmir cause’ creates additional obstacles for peace negotiations, especially in light of the upcoming national election in Pakistan and the Indian general elections scheduled for 2024. In Pakistan, public sentiment regarding Kashmir often plays a significant role. Candidates who emphasize a hardline approach or nationalist and communal rhetoric regarding Kashmir may attract support from segments of the population who value assertive action on the issue. Conversely, candidates advocating for dialogue, diplomacy, and conflict resolution may resonate with those seeking a peaceful resolution. In the Indian context, however, the weight of the Kashmir issue on the outcomes of elections varies significantly between constituencies. While it remains an important topic, other factors such as economic development, national security, and political ideologies may have a more substantial influence on electoral outcomes. Nevertheless, a candidate’s stance on Kashmir can still impact their popularity and electoral prospects, and the perceived handling of the Kashmir issue by political leaders can sway public opinion as voters tend to align themselves with candidates who prioritize their collective national interests.

Understanding the motivations, decision-making processes, and potential consequences of the cycle of hybrid war between India and Pakistan plays a major role in informing potential solutions. Recognizing the psychological dimensions at play in the issue highlights the need for effective communication and conflict resolution mechanisms. This could include establishing sustained and meaningful dialogue by engaging in diplomatic discussions at various levels, including government officials and civil society representatives, to foster understanding. Implementing confidence-building measures is vital in reducing tensions and enhancing trust. Encouraging cultural exchanges, people-to-people interactions, trade cooperation and joint projects in areas of mutual interest can bridge the communal divide and lead to positive engagement. Engaging neutral mediators such as international and regional actors can possibly create an environment conducive to negotiations. Furthermore, promoting media literacy, fact-checking initiatives, and responsible reporting can counter false narratives and combat disinformation campaigns that perpetuate hostile sentiments between the countries. Finally, efforts to address underlying grievances and prejudices to break the cycle of conflict by providing platforms for genuine representation, respecting human rights, and addressing social disparities, particularly in Kashmir, could perhaps pave the way for a more stable and peaceful relationship between the nations, and instill hope for stability in South Asia.