Protracted War, as a terminology, theorizes of a military strategy, penned by Mao Zedong, in On Protracted War (1938), emphasizing long-term struggle and attrition, drawing the enemy into favourable terrain, and gradually escalating from guerrilla warfare to mobile warfare. In contemporary strategic thinking, it refers to a period characterized by prolonged military conflicts that lack decisive resolution, potentially leading to a gradual erosion of resources and morale. This contrasts with short, decisive wars that typically conclude with a clear victor. The World Wars, the Vietnam War and the Iran-Iraq War were protracted wars! The ongoing Russia-Ukraine War and the Israel-Hamas War have become protracted and open-ended. If the reining strategy of Pakistan against India is of ‘thousand cuts’ and ‘thousand years’, which implies protracted war, it must be planned for accordingly. Contemplating Pakistan, three facets are imperative.

Firstly, for Pakistan, a nation having taken birth without a clear identity, and with its inability to create and nurture one subsequently, maintaining sovereignty and territorial integrity itself is an onerous task. Anti-Indianism in the garb of the two-nation theory was championed by the Muslim League, which argued that Hindus and Muslims were distinct nations and required separate homelands. This theory is the most oft repeated and rubbed-in philosophy in Pakistan in the last eight decades. Hence, Pakistan COAS Gen Asim Munir’s remarks to Pakistani diaspora on two-nation theory on 16 April 2025, resonate accordingly. India debunked the two-nation theory, and instead embraced and stood by a secular, inclusive model of nationhood. This rejection was rooted in the idea of a single Indian nation, encompassing diverse religious communities, rather than religious identity.

Pakistan crisis of identity brings with it an omnipresent threat of Balkanisation, with Baluchistan declaring independence on 12 August 1947. The grave asymmetries in development among the provinces, the favouritism in favour of Punjab and the extraordinary role that Pakistan Army has played, compounds the anxieties on the state of Pakistan presently and in the future. Its current poor economic state and attempts to seek soft loans adds fuel to fire. Hence any great socio-political change in Pakistan from one that existed since independence, would lead to attitudinal change of Pakistan Army, may not happen without attendant internal upheaval and instability.

Second, the geo-strategic location of Pakistan is significant for the US and the West due to its position at the crossroads of major maritime and land routes a key transit country for trade and energy, and an unstable region being epicentre of terror. This location allows Pakistan to play a crucial role in regional security dynamics and further enhance its strategic importance for the US. Invariably, the relationship underscores the continued threat of the Islamic State, and more particularly the Islamic State Khorasan Province (ISKP), which has seen notable increase in their activities. Hence, while initial response to a dastardly act like the Pahalgam massacre was international condemnation, gradually the West has commenced seeking to avoid escalation between Indian and Pakistan!

Third, it is obvious that animosity with India and J&K issue lends Pakistan credence of identity and becomes the DNA of the Pakistan Army – which virtually controls the polity of the nation. This is unlikely to be done away with, in any foreseeable future. Pakistan, defines its security in tangible terms - as military capability to thwart a military threat from India, which provides legitimacy to Pakistan Army as the custodian of nationalism. Pakistan has often been accepted it is the epicentre of terror, and uses terrorism as State policy.

India has fought conventionally with Pakistan in 1947-48, 1965, 1971 and 1999, and protracted proxy war, especially in J&K, for the last eight decades. The recent horrific terrorist attack at Pahalgam, follows a planned series of barbaric attacks orchestrated by Pakistan establishment over many decades. Pakistan’s lies and falsehoods like the silly and foolish false-front claim, or call for impartial inquiry attempt to hide its complicity. After the 2016 attack on the Pathankot Air Force base by Jaish-e-Mohammed, which left eight people dead, Pakistan dispatched a joint investigation team - including members of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) - to India from 27 to 31 March 2016. However, the collaboration ultimately yielded no tangible results. India had meanwhile sent to Pakistan judicial requests, detailed dossiers, DNA samples of terrorists related to various attacks, but it has ignored the evidence.

In the Mumbai terror attack of 2008, Mohammed Ajmal Kasab, a Pakistani terrorist and member of Lashkar-e-Taiba was caught red-handed and spilled the beans in detail! In his deposition, David Headley spoke about his involvement in the Lashkar-e-Taiba and planning for the Mumbai attacks. He had given evidence about his contacts with the Pakistani army, particularly Sajid Mir and Major Iqbal, who gave him constant and regular instructions about his activities, and also for planning attacks in India, especially in Mumbai in 2008. Pakistan’s false-front and impartial investigation are, hence, bogeys that even the world refuses to believe in!

Fourth, India has continuously attempted to improve relations with Pakistan over the last eight decades, and yet recurringly faced treachery. Be it accepting the detrimental Indus Waters Treaty or the Tashkent and Shimla Agreements, Indian conciliatory approach was always been taken advantage of by Pakistan. Prime Minister Vajpayee was idolised as a sincere peacemaker when he undertook the bus to Lahore in Feb 1999. All this while Gen Musharraf was treacherously executing the plans to occupy the heights of Kargil that led to a bitter war from May to July in the same year! Despite the terror attack at the Parliament and Operational Parakaram, India invited President Musharraf for talks at Agra.

The year 2008 is another case in point in treacherous behaviour. India joined framework agreement between Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan on a $7.6 bn gas pipeline project. A series of Kashmir-specific CBMs were also agreed to (including the approval of a triple-entry permit facility). In September 2008, President Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh announced the opening of several trade routes between the two countries. In October, cross-LoC trade commenced.

However, in July 2008, India had blamed Pakistan’s ISI for a bomb attack on the Indian embassy in Kabul, which killed 58 and injured another 141. The worst was on 26 Nov, when ten LeT terrorists landed in Mumbai from the sea, and attacked the Taj Mahal Palace & Tower, the Oberoi Trident Hotel, the Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus, Leopold Cafe, Cama Hospital, Nariman House Jewish community centre, Metro Cinema and St Xavier’s College. More than 160 people were killed in the attacks. Consequently, there were often terrorist attacks at Pathankot AF Base, Nagrota, Sunjawan and Uri.

In a 1965 speech to the UN Security Council, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, former Prime Minister and President of Pakistan, had declared a thousand-year war against India. Pakistani Army Chief General Zia-ul-Haq later polished and fine-tuned Bhutto's "thousand years war" with the 'bleeding India through a thousand cuts' doctrine using covert and low-intensity warfare with infiltration and terrorism. Pakistan’s malicious strategy aimed as a low-cost option to bleed India by instigating religious-political turmoil in India's border states of Jammu and Kashmir and Punjab. Pakistan military feels this is the only way to ensure some form of military parity.

A major act of terrorism against India always follows the analysis within India of response, kinetic, non-kinetic, covert or overt, or even coercion, and Pakistan’s likely response. In 2016 and 2019, India did undertake kinetic actions in POK and Balakot. On its part, as is evident in the days post-Pahalgam massacre, Pakistan’s politicians and military-men en masse make high-pitched statements of a strong military response and unleash the nuclear threat bogey, especially the use of tactical nuclear weapons. This is to deter Indian response and get the world powers involved with the jargon of ‘nuclear flash point.’ Indian public, on the other hand, seeks retribution and measures to achieve strategic deterrence against the acts of terror!

It is imperative to note that India is destined to rise in future to her potential economically and on the global stage. Pakistan, as the trends indicate, would mire itself in further morass, and constantly prepare for the next act of treachery against India! Indian attempts at diplomatic niceties, trade and economic relations, people-to-people contacts with Pakistan, all come to a naught.

Contemporary trends of use of kinetic force proves that, in future, escalation to conventional wars is always likely, and these may remain protracted and indecisive without outright results. Limited but strong kinetic actions may also be responded lethally and cause collateral damage. Hence, rational actors would certainly analyse the end-game before contemplating response. Contextually, in a very influential speech, India’s National Security Advisor, Ajit Doval, addressing the passing out parade of the 73rd batch of IPS probationers at Sardar Vallabhai Patel National Police Academy in Hyderabad in 2021, stated that civil society is the new frontier of warfare and that the ‘will of the nation’ is under attack. Wars have ceased to become an effective instrument for achieving political or military objectives. They are too expensive or unaffordable and, at the same time, there is uncertainty about their outcome. It is the civil society that can be subverted, suborned, divided, manipulated to hurt the interests of a nation.

Naturally, responses to a vicious terror attack like Pahalgam, will be multi-faceted and even spread over a duration. If Pakistan is estimated to continue the policy of thousand cuts against India, India also must not seek a war of quick decision to damage enemy armed forces substantially and seize territory. A speedy lets-do-it-once-and-for-all doctrine may turn counter-productive.

India must develop her own the Strategy for Protracted War. In contemplating this strategy, India must not only examine the long-term end-state, but the ways employable towards the end-state, and the means necessary. In a long-term menu of responses, there ought to be diverse and imaginative variety of covert and overt means including those that do not denote attributability. All major responses are NOT necessarily military, IWT is a case in point! It is also of significance to examine exploiting Pakistan’s regional Achilles Heel, which it has aplenty! We must change the ‘grammar’ and definition of war for Pakistan! If the reining philosophy is ‘thousand cuts’ and ‘thousand years’, then so be it, and let the war be open-ended, not related to seeking response options to each act of treachery!

In the interim, creation of military and non-military capabilities must be analysed such that adversary’s brandishing of kinetic and nuclear threats is negated. Political and military leaders collectively must develop effective security strategy, even if threat of tomorrow cannot be defined.

(The paper is the author’s individual scholastic articulation. The author certifies that the article/paper is original in content, unpublished and it has not been submitted for publication/web upload elsewhere, and that the facts and figures quoted are duly referenced, as needed, and are believed to be correct). (The paper does not necessarily represent the organisational stance... More >>