Few bilateral rivalries in modern geopolitics match the persistent volatility and complexity of India-Pakistan relations. While overt military engagements and diplomatic gestures often dominate headlines, the underlying reality is more discreet, shaped by an intense, ongoing contest between their intelligence agencies: India’s Research and Analysis Wing (R&AW) and Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI).
Understanding the evolving dynamics of this intelligence rivalry is critical for policymakers, defense planners, and strategic analysts. In an era where traditional deterrence models are being tested by asymmetric threats, cyber vulnerabilities, and disinformation warfare, failure to manage the intelligence dimension could prove catastrophic.
Intelligence Rivalry: Strategic Posturing or Strategic Overreach?
The intelligence contest between India and Pakistan is not new. R&AW was established after the 1962 Sino-Indian War, with a mandate focused on external intelligence collection and safeguarding national interests. Its evolution has remained largely defensive, aimed at pre-empting cross-border terrorism and countering strategic threats.
By contrast, ISI, with its deep entanglement in Pakistan’s military establishment, has pursued a broader, more aggressive doctrine, blending traditional intelligence work with support for non-state actors. The 1999 Kargil conflict exemplified this divergence. Pakistani troops, under ISI guidance, infiltrated Indian territory, prompting a limited war that exposed deep intelligence and operational failures on both sides. However, while India’s institutional response led to intelligence reforms (notably the establishment of the Defence Intelligence Agency and National Technical Research Organisation), Pakistan’s military-intelligence complex doubled down on covert operations as an instrument of state policy.
Similarly, the 2008 Mumbai attacks, coordinated by Lashkar-e-Taiba with alleged ISI complicity, demonstrated the strategic risk of outsourcing escalation to proxies. For New Delhi, the attacks underscored the limits of conventional deterrence when facing a state-nurtured hybrid threat landscape.
While India’s intelligence community has since enhanced its focus on preemptive counterterrorism and strategic surveillance, the reactive nature of operations, particularly during high-tension periods, remains a critical vulnerability.
Diplomacy and Intelligence: An Uneasy Relationship
The India-Pakistan diplomatic track has historically been fragile, easily derailed by intelligence operations or terror attacks. Following the Balakot airstrikes in 2019, a direct response to the Pulwama suicide bombing claimed by Jaish-e-Mohammed, both countries came dangerously close to conventional escalation.
Backchannel diplomacy through third-party facilitators, such as the UAE, reportedly helped de-escalate tensions. However, the absence of direct, institutionalized intelligence-to-intelligence communication, akin to U.S.-Soviet mechanisms during the Cold War, leaves the two nuclear-armed neighbors vulnerable to misinterpretation and delayed crisis management.
India’s consistent diplomatic stance has emphasized dialogue under the condition of an end to cross-border terrorism. However, without credible curbs on ISI’s activities or internal restructuring within Pakistan’s security apparatus, diplomacy remains largely reactive rather than transformative.
The challenge is compounded by India’s increasing global responsibilities. As a leading Indo-Pacific actor and a growing strategic partner to the United States, India faces a dual task: maintaining regional stability while countering Pakistan’s asymmetric threats without becoming embroiled in perpetual tactical conflict.
Strategic Risks in the Emerging Technological Environment
The technological environment is changing the nature of intelligence risks. During the Balakot crisis, social media fueled rumors, speculative reporting, and misinformation, significantly complicating strategic messaging. Future crises will be shaped by ground realities and digital perceptions, manipulated through deepfakes, cyber intrusions, and AI-driven information warfare.
In such a compressed decision-making environment, a tactical intelligence error, whether an intercepted communication misread, a cyberattack falsely attributed, or a spoofed military signal, could accelerate escalation cycles beyond political control.
Moreover, the blurring of strategic thresholds, conventional, sub-conventional, and nuclear, raises the specter of inadvertent escalation. The absence of clear red lines regarding the use of tactical nuclear weapons by Pakistan’s military further complicates India’s strategic calculus.
Toward a Strategic Intelligence Doctrine
India’s response must go beyond operational agility toward building a strategic intelligence culture that prioritizes:
- Long-term threat assessments over short-term tactical wins.
- Institutionalized crisis communication mechanisms, both formal (hotlines) and informal (Track 1.5 dialogues).
- Robust cross-domain situational awareness, integrating cyber, space, and electronic warfare intelligence.
- Enhanced political-military decision support systems to manage cognitive overload during crises.
Positive developments are visible. India’s National Security Council Secretariat has expanded its strategic forecasting capabilities, and recent efforts to integrate civilian and military intelligence have created more coherent policy responses. However, institutionalizing best practices requires political continuity, professional cadre development, and safeguarding intelligence Rivalry agencies from politicization.
Conclusion: Intelligence Must Serve Strategy, Not Drive It
India’s intelligence community, despite facing a highly adversarial and asymmetric environment, has demonstrated resilience and adaptability. However, the structural risk remains that intelligence Rivalry operations, if not framed by strategic discipline and diplomatic engagement, can become instruments of escalation rather than security.
Managing the India-Pakistan relationship in the coming decade demands not just vigilance but wisdom: the ability to distinguish between tactical provocations and strategic priorities, between shadow battles and the need for sustainable peace.
In an increasingly volatile global order, South Asia cannot afford another Kargil, another Mumbai, or another Balakot. Intelligence Rivarly must serve strategy, not subsume it.
Read more sharp insights on global strategy and intelligence—only on IMPAAKT, a top business magazine for impactful analysis.
