Indian escalatory actions, crossing into Pakistani air space for the first time in almost 50 years, indicate the reputational pressures Modi perceives he is under. Either New Delhi did not forecast serious Pakistani actions – misjudging its ability to prevent an air strike by the Indian air force and retaliate to the incursion – or Modi’s kitchen cabinet concluded that the risks were worth it, given the need to look strong as elections near.

The exact role of the United States and other global and regional powers in preventing the crisis from worsening is unclear.

Continued ad hoc crisis diplomacy by great and regional powers is likely. Western countries plan to push forward sanctions at the United Nations Security Council against terrorist leader Azhar, further constraining his group’s ability to operate in Pakistan. The US, France, Britain and India will press China not to block those sanctions. Regardless of whether the sanctions go ahead, Pakistan will have to take further action against JeM and other terrorist groups, given that it is currently on the grey list of the anti-terrorism Financial Action Task Force (FATF) and must implement its demands before another review this year.

Pakistani moves to comply with FATF and potential UNSC requirements may ultimately trigger meaningful de-escalation in the subcontinent. But conditions in Indian-occupied Kashmir are likely to continue, making the volatility endure.

India-Pakistan crisis: Modi is gambling with nuclear stakes

India faces what is effectively a “people’s revolt” in the predominantly Muslim Kashmir Valley, with local civilians intervening during live Indian security operations targeting suspected militants, pelting Indian security personnel. Both the February 14 suicide attacker Ali Ahmad Dar, and the alleged purchaser of the vehicle used in the attack, Sajjad Bhatt, were locals who joined JeM after being abused by Indian security forces, their family members say.

So even if Pakistan takes meaningful action against JeM, India’s brutal counter-insurgency campaign and almost unanimous local opposition to Indian rule both mean that the situation in the Kashmir valley will continue to fester. New Delhi is a driver of militancy in Kashmir, which has intensified under the Modi government’s “Operation All Out”.

In addition to street protests and militant violence, the public in the Kashmir valley made its opposition to New Delhi clear when turnout in last year’s municipal polls fell below 4 per cent.

If world powers focus solely on counterterrorism, this will not address the underlying drivers of violence in Kashmir. And it puts Pakistan in an untenable situation in which it may be held responsible for major attacks in Indian-occupied Kashmir even if there are no direct links to actors in Pakistan.

For China, 62 billion reasons to be cautious in India-Pakistan crisis

As a result, in the immediate term, the US, China, and other world and regional powers will have to sustain their efforts to manage the India-Pakistan crisis and reduce tensions between the two countries. But the tit-for-tat escalation witnessed this week is an indication of the need not just for crisis management, but also crisis prevention. A comprehensive dialogue between India and Pakistan, including on the future of Kashmir, is necessary after India holds general elections and a new government settles in. ■

Arif Rafiq is a non-resident fellow at the Middle East Institute in Washington and president of Vizier Consulting, LLC, a political risk advisory company