The Kargil War highlighted the need for clear nuclear doctrines and strong command systems to manage escalation risks for both India and Pakistan
This article is part of the essay series: Kargil@25: Legacy and Beyond
The Kargil War, triggered by the infiltration of Pakistani soldiers and their occupation of territory on the Indian side of the Line of Control (LoC), occurred in 1999. The conflict garnered attention globally, not just because of the tense relationship between Pakistan and India but also because both were nuclear-armed states. It was a limited war with nuclear implications and stability in South Asia. Pakistani officials, especially then-Foreign Secretary Shamshad Ahmed, issued a veiled nuclear threat that there was a possibility of nuclear escalation. To be sure, this threat was issued after India escalated with massive infantry, artillery, and air attacks against Pakistani forces occupying the Kargil-Drass sector in late May 1999. India, on the other hand, maintained a position of restraint, matching its nuclear No-First-Use (NFU) policy.
Despite Pakistan's nuclear threats, India demonstrated its strategic acumen by combining military strategy and diplomatic efforts effectively. India’s response, with Operation Vijay, was characterised by a well-coordinated military campaign of 200,000 troops aimed at eliminating the intruders without crossing the LoC into Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (PoK), thereby avoiding further escalation. Additionally, India leveraged international diplomatic channels, particularly the support of the United States (US), to apply pressure on Pakistan to withdraw its forces.
Despite Pakistan's nuclear threats, India demonstrated its strategic acumen by combining military strategy and diplomatic efforts effectively.
Many experts, including Timothy Hoyt and S Paul Kapur, believe that Pakistan’s decision to infiltrate Kargil was influenced by their access to nuclear weaponry. This school of thought is intuitive, with Kargil being the first conflict between India and Pakistan in 28 years and immediately after the nuclear weapons acquisition. However, this perspective assumes nuclear weapons to be highly salient and decisive in determining Pakistan's launching of the Kargil War. The history of antagonism between Pakistan and India and longstanding territorial disputes rather than a direct consequence of nuclear capabilities explain Pakistan’s actions behind Kargil. The conflict also demonstrated the limitations of nuclear weapons in achieving conventional military objectives. Further, the possession of nuclear weapons has not influenced Pakistan to repeat such an operation, and the potential for repetition is not a matter of Pakistan’s capability as much as it is about India’s preparedness.
India’s response to Kargil mainly centred around its use of conventional military capability. Pakistan's strategy of cross-border terrorism under nuclear cover poses a significant challenge. India’s response has included bolder actions, such as the 2016 surgical strikes and the 2019 air attacks on terror camps. Despite these efforts, India’s military deterrence remains insufficient, primarily due to its inability to gauge the adversary in advance. Military efforts alone are inadequate; vital diplomatic initiatives must complement them.
India’s response to Kargil mainly centred around its use of conventional military capability. Pakistan's strategy of cross-border terrorism under nuclear cover poses a significant challenge.
Kargil taught Pakistan that such operations have high political costs, damaging its international reputation. However, it has not entirely abandoned the belief in using violence, primarily through militancy and terrorism, to pressure India. Additionally, India has attempted to use international diplomacy to its advantage, but this remains a challenge. However, one advantage is India's growing economic strength compared to Pakistan's economy, which has shifted the balance of power in India’s favour. While traditional allies of Pakistan, with a few exceptions, like China, now see India as a valuable partner. Nevertheless, India cannot unilaterally dictate terms on Kashmir and other disputes. Diplomatic engagement with Pakistan’s political and civil society is essential to addressing the causes of conflict and improving bilateral relations. The change in Kashmir’s constitutional status and a hardline approach have not reduced Pakistan’s capacity to create unrest, as evidenced by ongoing cross-border terrorism.
However, one of the more critical outcomes of the conflict was India’s approach to nuclear issues. Preceding the Kargil War, the 1999 Lahore Declaration was a significant effort by PM Vajpayee to address nuclear safety and an approach to nuclear energy, unauthorised use of nuclear weapons, and trust building regarding Kashmir bilaterally between India and Pakistan. However, the Kargil War undermined this initiative, fostering Indian scepticism towards Pakistan. India's updated strategy, post attempts at a bilateral attempt, therefore also included negotiating with Kashmiri moderates, marginalising extremists, and incorporating political forces within Kashmir.
Additionally, despite the outcome of the Kargil War immediately after the Lahore Declaration, India continued to foster a positive bilateral environment, focusing on normalising relations through cultural exchanges, trade, and confidence-building measures. This move is motivated by maintaining international diplomatic relations that encourage discussions on Kashmir to be contextualised within broader bilateral improvements. However, a bilateral settlement is still elusive. However, this move may be misguided and further embolden Pakistan's actions, which are primarily rooted in long-standing ideological and territorial assumptions and not in negotiable differences that do not drive the security competition between the two nations.
The threats issued by Pakistan, referenced earlier, recognised by Indian stakeholders, led India to take nuclear issues seriously across multiple dimensions. Pakistan's willingness to use its nuclear arsenal to support limited conflicts and deter Indian counteractions reinforced the need for India to develop rapid-response capabilities. New Delhi had readied its nuclear capabilities during the crisis as a precaution, indicating the importance of being prepared for similar threats in the future. Despite the scepticism about India’s policies and practices and global concern over its nuclear tests, New Delhi has established institutions and processes that match the highest global standards. The Kargil War, thus, highlighted the importance of cultivating international support by behaving responsibly towards neighbours, enhancing India's global image. Further, the crisis altered Indian perceptions of nuclear weapons' roles in limited conflicts, possibly leading to significant changes in India’s nuclear posture. India's response has influenced its approach to nuclear security even today, including developing a credible minimum deterrent and determining possible threats and threat levels, enhancing institutional frameworks for managing nuclear capabilities like the Nuclear Command Authority (NCA), and preparing for potential nuclear crises.
The threats issued by Pakistan, referenced earlier, recognised by Indian stakeholders, led India to take nuclear issues seriously across multiple dimensions.
Pakistan's behaviour is driven by its military's desire to stay powerful in its neighbourhood. Having nuclear weapons gives Pakistan's military and intelligence the confidence to support terrorist activities against India, assuming that India would not retaliate strongly because of the nuclear threat. This aggressive stance makes it very difficult for India and Pakistan to find a peaceful solution that satisfies both sides. Additionally, international demands for the two countries to negotiate have added to the confidence of the Pakistani Army, believing their nuclear threats force other countries to pressure India into making concessions on important issues. The lessons from Kargil, thus, emphasise the importance of military readiness, nuclear deterrence, and diplomatic engagement in handling future conflicts and maintaining regional stability. India prioritises an internal solution to the Kashmir issue, primarily driven by its nationalist perspective and legal framework.
The Kargil conflict has left a lasting legacy on the nuclear strategies of both India and Pakistan. It underscored the need for clear nuclear doctrines and robust command and control systems to manage escalation risks. The conflict also highlighted the crucial role of international diplomatic engagement in de-escalating nuclear tensions. The lessons learnt from Kargil continue to shape both nations' nuclear policies and military postures, contributing to the ongoing efforts to maintain stability in South Asia. India’s careful balance in international diplomacy cannot sacrifice its position against a repetition of the Kargil War. The Kargil Review Committee recommended a series of defence reforms, but implementation over the last 25 years has been incremental and sub-optimal. This slow progress is particularly concerning given the intensifying conflict with China, which underscores the need for faster and more effective defence transformations. These reflections call for a holistic approach that combines robust defence reforms, enhanced deterrence capabilities, and proactive diplomacy to address the legacy issues from the Kargil War and improve India’s global stance. By focusing on these comprehensive strategies, India can strengthen its national security while maintaining its diplomatic balance.
Shravishtha Ajaykumar is an Associate Fellow with the Centre for Security, Strategy and Technology at the Observer Research Foundation
The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.
Shravishtha Ajaykumar is Associate Fellow at the Centre for Security, Strategy and Technology. Her fields of research include geospatial technology, data privacy, cybersecurity, and strategic ...
Read More +
PREV
