Crossing the Line of Control: How Irregular and Hybrid Warfare Could Shape a Renewed India-Pakistan Confrontation

The Resistance Hub

The Resistance Hub does not take positions on the India–Pakistan conflict or advocate for the use of force by any actor. This article analyzes potential irregular, asymmetric, hybrid, and unconventional warfare scenarios that could arise if tensions escalate between these two nuclear-armed states. All assessments are speculative and based solely on publicly available information. The goal is to understand how non-conventional strategies might be used to manage, contain, or shape the battlefield below the threshold of full-scale war.

A Flashpoint Rekindled

Tensions between India and Pakistan have surged again following a series of violent incidents in the Kashmir region, renewed rhetoric from political leaders, and the looming threat of military retaliation. Though not unfamiliar with confrontation, the stakes between these two neighbors are among the highest in the world: both possess nuclear weapons, have engaged in multiple conventional wars, and maintain contested territorial claims that evoke deep national pride and identity.

But full-scale war is not the only—or even the most likely—path forward. In today’s security environment, where the cost of confrontation is often politically or economically intolerable, nations increasingly turn to tools of non-conventional warfare: asymmetric operations, proxy violence, psychological manipulation, cyberattacks, and deniable sabotage. These tactics can shape the battlefield, influence perception, and inflict costs—all while avoiding clear violations of the rules-based order or triggering nuclear escalation.

In this context, examining the potential use of irregular and hybrid tactics by either India or Pakistan is analytically sound—it may also illuminate how conflict can be managed below the threshold of total war. This article explores those possibilities, drawing from history, doctrine, and contemporary capability assessments to map how the next phase of Indo-Pakistani confrontation could be waged in the shadows.

A Brief History of Regional Irregular Conflict

While India and Pakistan have fought openly in 1947, 1965, 1971, and during the 1999 Kargil conflict, much of their post-2000 confrontation has shifted toward less visible domains.

• Kargil (1999) saw Pakistani forces and militants infiltrate Indian positions along the Line of Control (LoC) in a bid to recast the status quo without triggering nuclear war. Though repelled, the episode became a textbook case of irregular warfare under a nuclear umbrella.
• Mumbai (2008), in contrast, was a well-coordinated terrorist attack by Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) operatives that exploited maritime infiltration, urban terrain, and media manipulation. It exposed the blurred lines between state tolerance of militant groups and plausible deniability.
• Balakot (2019) marked a rare Indian airstrike across the LoC targeting a JeM training camp. The retaliation by Pakistan and subsequent aerial dogfights signaled both a willingness to escalate and the dangers of tit-for-tat logic.

Each of these incidents reflects a growing trend: neither side desires total war, but both may engage in calculated provocations, primarily through unconventional means. Investments in cyber capability, information warfare cells, intelligence networks, and local proxy influence further support this logic.

Asymmetric Warfare: The Art of Uneven Engagement

At its core, asymmetric warfare involves a weaker party using unequal tools, tactics, or strategies to exploit vulnerabilities in a stronger adversary. In the India-Pakistan context, this does not always mean one state is weaker than the other—instead, it refers to areas where one side chooses to exploit low-cost, high-impact tools.

Cyberattacks and Infrastructure Disruption

India’s critical infrastructure—from its electrical grid to financial services—has become a frequent target for cyber intrusions. In 2021, a suspected China-linked malware attack on a Mumbai power grid hub briefly disrupted electricity across parts of the city. While Pakistan has not been conclusively linked to similar incidents, it is plausible that in a future crisis, both sides might target:

• Rail and logistics control systems
• Telecommunications switching centers
• Banking and digital payments systems (e.g., UPI, NADRA)

These attacks could cause confusion or financial loss, signal capability, create fear, or force an adversary to divert resources to domestic stability.

Economic Leverage and Soft Sabotage

In an asymmetric context, economic measures—legal or illicit—can also play a role. This might include:

• Disruption of trade routes or port access
• Targeting commercial infrastructure through sabotage or “accidents”
• Financial disinformation campaigns to cause capital flight or currency instability

Given India’s growing global investment profile and Pakistan’s reliance on IMF support and Chinese capital, both are vulnerable in different ways to economic targeting that avoids overt military action.

Non-State Actor Activation

Both sides have been accused—often credibly—of supporting or tolerating militant proxies.

• Pakistan-based groups like Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) and Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) have operated in Kashmir and beyond.
• India, for its part, has been accused by Pakistan of supporting Baloch separatists and TTP-linked elements in border regions.

In a simmering conflict, the activation of these groups could create escalating pressure without clear attribution. A high-profile attack on a military convoy, religious site, or infrastructure node could shift public opinion or force the adversary into a corner.

Irregular Warfare: Weaponizing Disorder

Irregular warfare (IW) refers to sustained, population-centric conflict waged by, with, or through irregular forces—militias, partisans, or non-state actors. Unlike hybrid or asymmetric strategies, IW focuses on influencing populations and delegitimizing authority rather than inflicting damage.

The Kashmir Battleground

Kashmir remains the epicenter of irregular conflict in South Asia. While the intensity of insurgency has fluctuated, the region continues to host:

• A robust security presence from the Indian Armed Forces and paramilitaries
• Local grievances are tied to political representation, autonomy, and religious identity
• A youth demographic vulnerable to recruitment, especially amid economic stagnation

If tensions escalate, both sides may resort to surrogate irregulars:

• Pakistan might increase support for Kashmiri insurgents or foreign jihadist infiltration.
• India could deepen intelligence and propaganda efforts in Pakistani-administered Kashmir or Balochistan.

These moves risk igniting uncontrollable local dynamics, where grassroots actors take initiative beyond their handlers, one of the most dangerous elements in irregular warfare.

Information Operations and Psychological Manipulation

Control of the narrative is a battlefield of its own. Both India and Pakistan have rapidly scaled their information warfare capabilities, from official “X” campaigns to botnet-driven amplification of rumors or staged events.

• False flag operations, real or alleged, could be used to justify kinetic escalation.
• Deepfake content might show fabricated atrocities or political statements.
• Influence campaigns targeting diaspora populations could shift global opinion or funding.

In a conflict constrained by nuclear risks, the battle for hearts and minds becomes even more decisive than in conventional wars.

Urban Unrest and Mass Mobilization

Irregular warfare doesn’t always come from across the border. Domestic instability, fueled by perception, misinformation, or historical grievances, can be a critical pressure point.

• India has seen protests over CAA/NRC policies and farmer rights.
• Pakistan continues to face unrest in Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, along with economic protests.

These movements could be co-opted or inflamed by covert actors to distract or degrade state authority during a standoff.

Hybrid Warfare: Combining Tools for Strategic Effect

Hybrid warfare blends elements of conventional military force with cyberattacks, psychological operations, economic pressure, and irregular tactics—all to achieve political objectives without formal war. It thrives in gray zones, where attribution is difficult and escalation is ambiguous.

In a renewed India-Pakistan confrontation, hybrid tactics could include:

• Simultaneous use of drones, cyber, and disinformation to overwhelm a crisis response
• Leverage of diaspora networks and online influencers to shift international opinion
• Strategic sabotage of dual-use infrastructure, like bridges, pipelines, or data centers
• False diplomatic signals or backchannel leaks to create confusion in global capitals

By engaging across multiple domains, hybrid actors can confuse attribution, delay response, and shape narratives, making it harder for governments to justify retaliatory action without appearing to escalate.

Unconventional Warfare: Subversion from Within

As practiced by states, unconventional warfare (UW) focuses on organizing, training, and equipping resistance or insurgent forces inside an adversary’s territory. While more often associated with great power strategy (e.g., U.S. support to resistance groups during the Cold War), India and Pakistan possess the capacity—if not the political appetite—to employ UW.

Hypothetically:

• India might foster ethnic or nationalist dissent in Sindh or Gilgit-Baltistan.
• Pakistan could exploit communal tensions in Indian border states or energize radical networks in megacities like Delhi or Bangalore.

These activities rely on deep intelligence penetration, covert logistics, and long-term strategic patience. But if activated, they could provoke internal security crises that stretch state capacity during high-stress periods.

Deterrence, Deniability, and the Nuclear Question

The specter of nuclear weapons hovers over every India-Pakistan confrontation. But rather than making conflict impossible, nuclear parity channels confrontation into lower-intensity arenas.

Irregular and hybrid warfare offer both states tools to:

• Inflict punishment without crossing red lines
• Maintain plausible deniability before global audiences
• Avoid direct attribution that could trigger retaliation
• Sustain long-term competition without immediate collapse into war

However, this strategy carries risk: if non-conventional operations go too far—such as a cyberattack that cripples a hospital system or a proxy attack that kills civilians—miscalculation and escalation are still very real dangers.

Global Stakes: External Powers in the Shadows

Neither India nor Pakistan operates in isolation. The consequences of irregular escalation ripple outward, drawing in other powers:

• China may back Pakistan quietly while securing CPEC corridors and watching India’s Quad alignment with suspicion.
• The U.S. may pressure restraint, especially during an election year, while enhancing intelligence support to India.
• With large diaspora populations and critical economic ties, the Gulf states could mediate or become leverage points.
• Russia, already entangled in other conflicts, may attempt to maintain a quiet balance to strengthen defense ties with both states.

A hybrid confrontation could disrupt global markets, delay trade through the Strait of Hormuz, or trigger international terrorism fears. The longer such a confrontation simmers, the greater the risk it poses far beyond the subcontinent.

Conclusion: Between War and Peace

The reemerging tension between India and Pakistan represents one of the most dangerous flashpoints on Earth. However, while both sides possess the tools to destroy one another, they also have tools to compete without immediate escalation.

Asymmetric, irregular, hybrid, and unconventional warfare offer options that may prevent missiles from leaving silos—but they are not without cost. These tactics can prolong instability, generate blowback, and empower actors that neither state can fully control.

Ultimately, the best resolution to the current crisis is diplomatic. But both sides must manage the shadows carefully for that window to stay open. As the world watches, how India and Pakistan wield—or restrain—their non-conventional arsenals may determine whether the subcontinent edges toward war, or pulls back from the brink.

Source List

• “Hybrid Warfare in South Asia,” Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA)
• “The Future of Conflict: Lessons from the Kargil War,” Carnegie India
• “India’s Cyber Infrastructure Vulnerabilities,” ORF Occasional Papers
• “Pakistan’s Strategic Culture and Asymmetric Warfare,” Hudson Institute
• “Balakot Airstrikes: Escalation Patterns and Strategic Messaging,” Stimson Center
• “Cross-Border Militancy in Kashmir,” South Asia Terrorism Portal
• “False Flag and Influence Operations in the India-Pakistan Conflict,” CSIS
• “Information Warfare and National Security,” Takshashila Institution
• “China’s Role in South Asia Security Dynamics,” Lowy Institute
• “The Utility of Proxy Forces in a Nuclear Environment,” RAND Corporation
• “Economic Warfare and Statecraft in South Asia,” King’s College London
• “Diaspora Influence in Geopolitical Conflict,” Wilson Center