India-Pakistan Escalation of Conflict: Promoting Positive Peace Through a Bottom-up Approach

TRANSCEND MEMBERS, 19 May 2025

Bishnu Pathak – TRANSCEND Media Service

Abstract

15 May 2025 – Since the partition from India in 1947, Pakistan has been engaged in around a dozen significant and minor conflicts with India. Wars and negotiations are carried out based on the interests and directives of the respective central governments. Both Indian and Pakistani citizens are worried about a full-scale conflict, and the wounds of numerous wars are deeply felt at the local level. Recently, the population has been traumatized by Operation Sindoor and its subsequent retaliation. This research aims to promote peace by placing the people at the forefront, educating them about peace, and exerting pressure from the grassroots level up to the provincial and national levels to restore peace, unity, coexistence, security, and prosperity. The objectives are to promote positive peace between the two nations by empowering local people, fostering connections between them, and sharing the findings with interested parties. Information was gathered through networking-tracking methods and archival research. This state-of-the-art paper uses experiences and literature reviews to examine the bottom-up approach in conflict resolution or transformation, focusing on past conflicts between India and Pakistan (yesterday), current local-level applications (today), and the potential for promoting positive peace in the future (tomorrow). In the current era of nuclear weapons, the best way to minimize war and the destruction of property, infrastructure, and loss of life is to prevent catastrophe by raising public awareness. Thus, this study pursues a bottom-up approach to attain positive peace for all at schools, health centers, workplaces, parks, walking streets, and homes.

Introduction

Before near the edge of catastrophe, on May 10, 2025, high-ranking military officials from India and Pakistan were set to discuss the terms of a ceasefire agreement brokered by the US, which had led to a temporary cessation of hostilities (The Economic Times, May 14, 2025; Al Jazeera Staff, May 9, 2025; & Biswas, May 9, 2025). The agreement, announced by President Trump, brought an end to four days of intense shelling and aerial incursions between the two nuclear-armed nations. Both countries remain on high alert. India took a step towards de-escalation by reopening 32 airports for civilian use on May 12, helping to alleviate tensions in the long-disputed region of Kashmir since its partition in 1947 (Jan, May 12, 2025). This tension was neither the beginning nor the end. India and Pakistan fought in 1947-48 (Ho & Gupta, May 10, 2025), 1965 (Kumar, September 6, 2024), 1971 (Sutherland, May 8, 2025), the Kargil War in 1999 (Dh Web Desk, May 3, 2025), and Operation Sindoor in 2025. The recent conflict, which resulted in numerous casualties and properties along with loss of life, had sparked concerns of a full-scale war. Despite the ceasefire, both countries have claimed military successes, raising concerns of a potential full-scale war.

On May 7, India retaliated against Pakistan and Pakistan-administered areas in response to a militant attack in Indian-administered Kashmir. The attack, which occurred on April 22, 2025, resulted in the killing of 26 individuals, including Hindu and Christian tourists, a local Muslim, and one Nepali, by five militants in the picturesque Pahalgam valley (PTI, May 15, 2025). India accused a Pakistan-based terrorist group of carrying out the attack, while Islamabad denied any involvement (France 24, May 9, 2025). Tensions escalated as both nations accused each other of cross-border shelling and claimed to have downed drones and aircraft. India reported targeting 11 Pakistan Air Force bases and asserted that Pakistan suffered casualties at the Line of Control (Ahlawat, May 15, 2025). Pakistan retaliated by striking military installations in India and claimed to have shot down five Indian aircraft (Siddiqui, May 14, 2025). India refuted these claims, stating that all its pilots returned safely.

Prior to May 7, 2025, India had a significant influence on the economics and geopolitics of South Asia. India saw itself as the big brother to all countries in this region, and it was. After a militant attack in Pahalgam, India accused Pakistan of being responsible, possibly to divert attention from its own security vulnerabilities. Pakistan, on the other hand, denied the accusations and called for an impartial international investigation, claiming to be a victim of terrorism.

In response to the situation, India conducted airstrikes (Operation Sindoor) on many locations in Pakistan-administered Kashmir, targeting terrorist hideouts. Pakistan refuted these claims, asserting that civilians were the ones affected. Nepal reacted emotionally to the incident, with some showing support for Pakistan and others for India. The Chinese-made J-10C fighter jet shot down a French Rafale fighter jet flown by India, leading to increased tensions in India and Western countries regarding the use and production of arms and ammunition manufactured by China (Shah & Ali, May 9, 2025). The downing of a French Rafale jet by a Chinese-made J-10C counterpart heightened tensions, raising concerns about China’s technological advancements, socio-economic strategies, and nuclear capabilities. The conflict shifted the focus to China’s growing influence, with previous wars rooted in ideology and identity.

The Nepalese government appeared uncertain in its stance, stating it was combating terrorism, while India believed Nepal supported its actions. That was not true. The United States condemned the terrorist attacks in India, leading India to believe it had US backing support. China supported Pakistan, citing its own struggles against terrorism, while Western nations stood in solidarity, condemning the terrorist attacks, potentially seeking to benefit from the conflict. There were attempts to pressure India to distance itself from the BRICS group.

Amid escalating tensions, the Pakistani Director Generals of Military Operations reached out on May 10, 2025, to the Indian counterpart and proposed a temporary ceasefire (Dutta, May 13, 2025). Despite external and internal pressures, India quietly accepted the ceasefire offer. During the phone call, both countries agreed to cease all military actions against each other on land, in the air, and at sea. Even before the news of a ceasefire agreement between India and Pakistan was made public, the US President revealed that a ceasefire had taken place through his mediation. Pakistani Prime Minister Shahbaz Sharif has openly thanked US President Trump, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, China, and Turkey, but India is silent. Recently, President Trump expressed a desire to resolve the long-standing India-Pakistan conflict permanently.  With Trump clearly taking credit and showing his vested interest, India is in a dilemma.   This development has shifted the focus to India, potentially causing feelings of humiliation. It raises questions about Trump’s role and the United States’ intentions to assert control over regional resources and security against China’s advancement.

The primary economic driver of the US is the war economy. The US intervened in the India-Pakistan war for two main reasons. Firstly, the US had depleted its weapons stockpiles for the first time since World War II due to the Russo-Ukrainian conflict. Secondly, with even Rafale unable to match Chinese counterparts, it was inevitable that India would deploy its own US-manufactured fighter jets against Pakistan. Trump’s push for negotiations may stem from a desire to avoid global humiliation and vulnerabilities resulting from the use of US-made fighters against Chinese jets.

The purpose of this study is to explore the effectiveness of a bottom-up approach in promoting positive peace among grassroots communities in India and Pakistan. Positive peace requires a shift in mindset and awareness at the local level. It is essential to integrate the concept of positive peace through a bottom-up approach into educational curricula and make it accessible to the public to benefit from its insights.

The overall objective of this pioneering paper aims to serve as a guide for learners to understand the bottom-up approach. The specific objectives include explaining how positive peace can empower local people and prevent conflicts between India and Pakistan, establishing connections among people from the two nations, and sharing the findings with interested individuals and organizations.

The study on the bottom-up approach to attain peace in India and Pakistan seeks to provide descriptive and explanatory insights based on universal principles. Information was gathered through networking and tracking methods.

This state-of-the-art paper utilizes experiences and archival literature reviews to explore the bottom-up approach, drawing on past (yesterday) conflicts between India and Pakistan, the axiomatic truth of the bottom-up approach at the local level in the present (today), and fostering hope by sharing knowledge on present understanding to promote positive peace for the future (tomorrow). The work is based on personal experiences and observations accumulated over four decades, rather than relying solely on theoretical concepts.

Conflict Transformation by Means of Peace

Conflict transformation is a process that aims to address the root causes of conflict in order to create positive peace (Pollack, May 9, 2025). By changing perceptions and responses to conflict, it seeks to promote understanding, cooperation, and reconciliation for long-term peace, security, and stability.  This approach recognizes conflict as a natural part of human interaction and seeks to use it as a catalyst for positive change. It focuses on addressing underlying issues such as injustice, discrimination, inharmony, and indignity, while promoting dialogue, empathy, coexistence, and mutual respect. Conflict transformation operates at various levels in track 1, 2, and 3 levels, from interpersonal disputes to large-scale conflicts, in order to prevent violence and build resilient and inclusive societies. This proactive and holistic approach to peacebuilding through conflict transformation aims to create a more peaceful and just world by fostering dialogue, understanding, and cooperation.

Western powers are attempting to hinder India’s rise as a superpower. Historically, the British sought to prolong their presence in India and exploit its resources for their benefit. In the past, the British used Mohammad Ali Jinnah of Pakistan as a tool to secede India. This manipulation persists today. It is crucial for India to avoid getting entangled in regional conflicts and concentrate on achieving superpower status. The Indian government has not emphasized this to the public, nor have the people demanded a focus on the country’s advancement and growth through peaceful dialogue with Pakistan, adopting positive and negative peace.

Dichotomous positive and negative peace refer to two different concepts in the realm of peace studies (Gallardo, February 26, 2024). Positive peace is characterized by the presence of social justice, truth and fact, vetting, harmony, and equality among individuals, families, communities, and societies. It focuses on addressing the root-causes of conflict or violence and promoting perpetual or positive peace through cooperation and understanding. On the other hand, negative peace is the absence of violence and fear of violence. It is achieved through the use of force without necessarily addressing the underlying causes. Furthermore, negative peace provides a temporary solution to violence and conflict, while positive peace is long-lasting, meaningful, and aims to restore perpetual peace worldwide (Grewal, August 30, 2003; Dijkeme & d’Hères, May 2007; & https://www.visionofhumanity.org/introducing-the-concept-of-peace/).

Johan Galtung: Summary of positive (perpetual) peace and negative peace
Source: Perpetual Peace by Johan Galtung, December 2, 2024. https://www.transcend.org/tms/2024/12/perpetual-peace-by-johan-galtung/

The author designed and created the box mentioned above to illustrate the differences between negative and positive dimensions of peace, as defined by peace veteran theorist Johan Galtung.

Bottom-up Approach through a Peace Pyramid

The bottom-up approach to peace emphasizes the importance of grassroots local participation, viewing ordinary people and local communities as the main agents of change. This approach contrasts with top-down strategies, which often prioritize institutional reforms and political elites (Accord, December 20, 2021 & Coyne, 2023).  The “bottom-up approach” involves starting from the smallest, most basic units and building up to a larger, more complex system or structure (Coyne, 2023). The Bottom-up Approach Peace through a Pyramid (BAPP) given below symbolizes strength through unity and collective efforts. Unity and collaboration are essential for progress and success, whether in personal or professional endeavors, as Henry Ford famously said, “Coming together is the beginning. Keeping together is progress. Working together is success.”  (Peoria Magazine, Undated).

The BAPP is a civilian initiative that operates at the local level to facilitate conflict transformation among the Indian-Pakistani population. It helps in resolving tensions and promoting peace through two stages: ex-ante and ex-post peace. By fostering collaboration between leaders and the community, the program focuses on promoting dialogue, diplomacy, conflict resolution, and transformation. The key components of the program include the Peace Accord, Justice, and Reculturation, which are essential for building a more peaceful, hopeful, prosperous, and culturally enriched society. The ultimate goal is to create a harmonious and prosperous society for all following the signing of a peace accord.

India and Pakistan have not signed a peace accord, only a ceasefire agreement. The Peace Accord is the final stage of the peace process, following dialogue tracks 1, 2, and 3 as outlined in the Pyramid. This accord typically sets out the terms of the ceasefire and establishes a framework for future post-conflict initiatives. The signing of the Accord would be a major milestone in the peace process and would be celebrated by people from both India and Pakistan involved in all dialogue tracks.

When examining global armed conflicts or violence, it is evident that those at the grassroots level are the most victimized, oppressed, marginalized, and vulnerable. India and Pakistan cannot escape from this fact. This study aims to empower these individuals through a bottom-up approach. The short paper is based on personal experiences, passion, and participant observation collected over four decades, rather than relying solely on theoretical concepts.

Peacebuilding is a new approach that aims to transition from conflict to peace by restoring justice and promoting peace and stability (https://www.un.org/peacebuilding/). It involves the participation of all parties, civil society, and local elected bodies in truth-seeking activities. During conflict, humanitarian aid is crucial at the grassroots level, known as Track 3, as an immediate response. Peacebuilding is a continuous process that aims to prevent and manage conflicts by transforming negative relationships into positive ones across different boundaries. It involves violence prevention, conflict resolution, and cultural transformation (Schilling, 2012), especially important for grassroots communities (Dialogue Track 3) compared to other Dialogue Tracks (2 and 1) (Bloomfield, 2006).

The peace agreement necessitates justice initiatives for victims of the India-Pakistan conflict. Justice embodies fairness, equality, and righteousness, ensuring all individuals are treated with dignity and receive their rightful entitlements. In a just society, laws are applied impartially to all, regardless of social status and origin. Justice holds individuals accountable for their actions and ensures consequences for misconduct.  The goal is to create a society where everyone is treated fairly and has opportunities for a fulfilling life.  In democratic transitions, justice addresses past atrocities through truth-telling, vetting, reparation, prosecution, non-recurrence guarantees, and justice policies (Pathak, April 22, 2024).

First, truth-telling about victims’ rights involves gathering and evaluating information from survivors, witnesses, and accused individuals. This includes asking questions about the violation of rights and ensuring accused persons have access to information and the opportunity to defend themselves (Barolsky & Paradies, September 7, 2023). Second, vetting is the process of carefully investigating and evaluating a person’s qualifications and background to determine suitability and credibility before the decision to hire, promote, or transfer takes place (Lucas, July 12, 2009).

Third, reparation is a type of compensation offered by the state to address victims’ psychological, material, physical, and emotional harm, including support for their livelihood through cash and other forms of assistance.  This includes relief compensation, restitution, rehabilitation, satisfaction, and memorialization (Pathak, March 24, 2005 & Redress, 2003). Fourth, prosecution is intended to deter individuals from seeking unlawful revenge and to uphold the principles of justice. It is a direct method of ensuring that those who have committed crimes in the past are held accountable for their actions (Tripathee, 2018).

Fifth, non-recurrence is to focus on institutional reforms that ensure guarantees of non-repetition at the state, semi-public institutions, and societal levels (McAuliffe, December 2022). Justice is being characterized by truthful, fair, impartial, and just behavior. It guides distributive, retributive, and restorative justice efforts in transitional justice (Sanders, 1974).

Reculturation and (transitional) justice are crucial for resolving conflicts and achieving positive peace after a peace accord. The study focuses on grassroots efforts in Dialogue Track 3, involving project preparation, initiation, formulation, planning, and development; conflict transformation; and management (Simplilearn, November 20, 2024). This bottom-up approach aims to understand the needs of the people involved (Main, November 30, 2023). Typically, grassroots study begins with peacebuilding, peacekeeping, and peacemaking in dialogue tracks 3, 2, and 1, respectively. Post-peacebuilding, as proposed by Boutros Boutros-Ghali, emphasizes preventive measures in the peace accord agenda (Reychler, December 2017).

Confidence-building strategies can be enhanced through a combination of indirect and direct sharing as well as snowball tactics. Formal and direct communication, knownwn as front-channel communication, is utilized in the protocols to initiate a dialogue between two parties in Track 1. A mediator or facilitator is responsible for managing front-channel communication, which follows formal diplomatic procedures aimed at achieving a peace accord. Track 1 involves official representatives such as heads of state, ministries, and senior government officials. The peace agreement is signed by the Head of Government or their representative and the Head of the Conflicting Party or their representative in Dialogue Track 0.5.  In Track 2, the conversation process, discussions, decisions, and peace accord from Track 1 are relayed to Track 3.

Front-channel dialogue in Track 1 is direct communication between India and Pakistan, either verbal or non-verbal, in real-time. It is commonly used in direct and formal, face-to-face conversations, phone calls, and video chats, allowing for immediate feedback and clarification. On the other hand, backchannel dialogue at Track 2 is a form of communication that occurs during a conversation where one person provides feedback or responses to the speaker without interrupting them. This can be done through non-verbal cues like nodding or verbal cues like “uh-huh.” It helps show the speaker that the listener is engaged and encourages them to continue sharing their thoughts. Tracking dialogue at Track 3 is the process of monitoring and understanding the conversations between the actors from India and Pakistan.

Peacebuilding at Dialogue Track 3 is crucial at the grassroots level because people at the local level are the most vulnerable in the India-Pakistan conflict compared to those at the provincial (Track 2) and central (Track 1) levels. Track 2 involves conflict resolution or transformation initiatives led by practitioners and theorists (Davidson & Montville, 1981-1982), with involvement from provincial government leadership, civil society representatives, and mid-level political party leaders. Backchannel dialogue, facilitated by unarmed peacekeepers, allows for indirect and informal discussions among stakeholders (Heinz, 2002). This dialogue requires support from officials in Track 1 to apply pressure and offer global moral support. Unarmed peacekeeping at Dialogue Track 2 bridges the gap between peacemaking (Track 1) and peacebuilding (Track 3), focusing on grassroots efforts for sustainable peace.

Conclusions

The conflict between India and Pakistan is causing suffering for the people of both countries, and Nepal is also concerned as it shares a 1,880-km long porous border with India. Being a small, landlocked country, Nepal relies on India for petroleum products. The ongoing tension between India and Pakistan has led to shortages of cooking gas and food grains in Nepal.

The recent rise in tensions between India and Pakistan has raised concerns about the potential for more violence and instability in the SAARC region. To prevent further escalation and promote lasting peace, it is essential to adopt a grassroots approach that addresses the root causes of the conflict. A crucial aspect of this approach involves collaborating with local communities and civil society organizations to facilitate dialogue, reconciliation, conflict resolution, and conflict transformation. By empowering local stakeholders and actors to spearhead peacebuilding efforts, trust can be established, cooperation can be nurtured, and a shared commitment to positive peace and stability can be forged. Additionally, it is imperative to address the underlying issues that fuel the conflict, such as economic disparities, justice inequalities, socio-cultural exclusion, and political marginalization. By advocating for social justice, inclusive development, and good governance, a more equitable and peaceful society can be cultivated, thereby reducing the likelihood of future conflicts and violence.

India and China have contrasting ideologies. India is disorderly and under-governed compared to the orderly and over-governed China. India follows a bourgeois-cum-competitive multi-party democracy, while China practices a non-competitive proletarian people’s democracy. China’s economy is governed by proletarian power and politics, while India’s power and politics are influenced by economically affluent individuals (Pathak & Bastola, 2022). Therefore, even though India has some of the richest businessmen in the world, the government is poor.  In contrast, in China, the government is wealthy because the industry and business are under government control. Pakistan, on the other hand, has a controlled democracy with military influence.

India has competitive relations with neighboring countries such as China, Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and Pakistan.  Despite strong societal, cultural, familial, and religious ties between India and Nepal, the people of Nepal have a close relationship with the Indian people but a strained one with the government. India has influenced Nepali leaders by offering cash or incentives to maintain their support, leading to negative sentiment towards the Indian government among the Nepalese people. India perceives the frustration of the Nepali people as being due to its proximity to China, but that is not true.

India is against the internationalization of the Kashmir issue and rejects foreign interference, including facilitation or mediation.  Several US presidents have attempted to meddle in the Kashmir issue before President Trump. The US seeks to keep an eye on India and strategically encircle China by getting involved in this matter due to Kashmir’s border with China, too.

In conclusion, promoting positive peace in the India-Pakistan region necessitates a comprehensive and holistic approach that tackles the root causes of the conflict and empowers local communities to drive the peacebuilding process. By collaborating to build a fair, inclusive, and peaceful society, a sustainable peace that benefits all individuals in the region can be achieved.

The bottom-up approach to peace promotes mutual respect, mutual benefit, mutual sovereignty, and territorial integrity from local to national levels. It advocates for mutual coexistence, non-interference, and non-aggression even on an international level.
This approach is not just a goal for today or yesterday but for tomorrow, envisioning a peaceful future for all.  It involves seeking peace within oneself and understanding our inner selves, as Galtung emphasized.

Promoting positive peace through a bottom-up approach is essential in addressing the underlying causes of the escalating India-Pakistan conflict.  Engaging local communities and empowering individuals at the grassroots level can lead to a more peaceful, genuine, and prosperous future for the region. By fostering dialogue and reconciliation, both countries can create a favorable environment for stability, security, dignity, respect for identity, and prosperity. Empowering grassroots individuals is essential for a more peaceful, harmonious, and coexistent South Asia and, ultimately, a more peaceful world.

References:

1. (2021, December 20). Bottom-up approaches to peace: a holistic approach to conflict prevention and peacebuilding. Retrieved on May 11, 2021, from https://www.accord.org.za/analysis/bottom-up-approaches-to-peace-a-holistic-approach-to-conflict-prevention-and-peacebuilding/.
2. Ahlawat, Sumit. (2025, May 15). Nearly 20% Of Pakistan Air Force Infra “Knocked Out,” Global Media Appears To Validate Indian Military’s Claims. Retrieved May 15, 2025, from https://www.eurasiantimes.com/nearly-20-pakistan-air-force-infrastructure-knocked/.
3. Al Jazeera Staff. (2025, May 9). India-Pakistan tensions: A brief History of Conflict. Al Jazeera. Retrieved May 10, 2025, from https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/5/9/india-pakistan-tensions-a-brief-history-of-conflict.
4. Barolsky, Vanessa and Paradies, Yin. (2023, September 7). Why is truth-telling so important? Our research shows meaningful reconciliation cannot occur without it. Retrieved May 14, 2025, from https://theconversation.com/why-is-truth-telling-so-important-our-research-shows-meaningful-reconciliation-cannot-occur-without-it-197685.
5. Biswas, Soutik. (2025, May 14). “How real is the risk of nuclear war between India and Pakistan”. BBC News. Retrieved May 15, 2025, from https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c2e373yzndro.
6. Biswas, Soutik. (2025, May 9). “The first drone war opens a new chapter in India-Pakistan conflict”. BBC News. Retrieved May 13, 2025, from https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwy6w6507wqo.
7. Bloomfield, David. (2006). On Good Terms: Clarifying Reconciliation. Berghof Research Center for Constructive Conflict Management.
8. Coyne, Christopher J. (2023). Peacemaking: Top-Down Vs. Bottom-Up. George Mason University Working Paper in Economics. NO. 23-42. Retrieved May 12, 2025, from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4566357.
9. Davidson, William D. and Montville, Joseph V. (Winter, 1981–1982). “Foreign Policy According to Freud.” Foreign Policy, No. 45.
10. Dijkeme, Claske & d’Hères, Saint Martin. (2007, May). Negative Versus Positive Peace. Retrieved November 28, 2024, from https://www.irenees.net/bdf_fiche-notions-186_en.html.
11. Dutta, Amrita Nayak. (2025, May 13). “India, Pakistan DGMOs agree to reduce troops on borders”. The Indian Express. https://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-pakistan-dgmos-agree-to-reduce-troops-on-borders-9999355/.
12. France 24. (2025, May 9). Pakistan blames India for ‘reckless conduct’ as death toll in Kashmir clashes tops 50. Retrieved May 9, 2025, from https://www.france24.com/en/asia-pacific/20250509-india-accuses-pakistan-of-launching-fresh-drone-and-artillery-attacks.
13. Gallardo, Luis. (2024, February 26). “In Memory of Johan Galtung: An Inspiration for Fundamental Peace and Happytalism”. TRANSCEND Media Service. Retrieved November 5, 2024, from https://www.transcend.org/tms/2024/02/in-memory-of-johan-galtung-an-inspiration-for-fundamental-peace-and-happytalism/.
14. Grewal, Baljit Singh. (2003, August 30). Johan Galtung: Negative and Positive Peace. Retrieved May 9, 2025, from https://www.buildingpeaceforum.com/no/fred/Positive_Negative_peace.pdf.
15. HD Web Desk. (2025, May 3). Kargil War began on this day in 1999 | The Kashmir conflict, Operation ‘Vijay’ & how India won back its land. Retrieved May 13, 2025, from https://www.deccanherald.com/india/kargil-war-began-on-this-day-in-1999-the-kashmir-conflict-operation-vijay-how-india-won-back-its-land-3523259.
16. Heinz, Bettina. (2002). “Backchannel responses as strategic responses in bilingual speakers’ conversations”. Journal of Pragmatics. Volume 35. Issue 7. doi:1016/S0378-2166(02)00190-X.
17. Heinz, Bettina. (2002). “Backchannel responses as strategic responses in bilingual speakers’ conversations”. Journal of Pragmatics. Volume 35. Issue 7. doi:1016/S0378-2166(02)00190-X.
18. Ho, Vivian & Gupta, Gaya. (2025, May 10). “How India’s partition in 1947 led to the strife over Kashmir today”. The Washington Post. Retrieved May 11, 2025, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/05/10/kashmir-history-partition-india-pakistan/.
19. Jan, Farah N. (2025, May 12). “Ceasefire can’t mask India-Pakistan’s dangerous new conflict norms”. Asia Times. Retrieved May 14, 2025, from https://asiatimes.com/2025/05/ceasefire-cant-mask-india-pakistans-dangerous-new-conflict-norms/.
20. Johan Galtung distinguished between positive and negative peace. Retrieved November 28, 2024, from https://www.visionofhumanity.org/introducing-the-concept-of-peace/.
21. Kumar, Abhijeet. (2024, September 6). Flashback to 1965: The war and India’s Army near capture of Lahore. May 15, 2025, from https://www.business-standard.com/external-affairs-defence-security/news/flashback-to-1965-the-war-and-the-indian-army-s-near-capture-of-lahore-124090600488_1.html.
22. Lucas, Brian. (2009, July 12). Vetting Public Employees. Governance and Social Development Resource Centre. Retrieved May 10, 2025, from https://www.academia.edu/29220663/Vetting_Public_Employees.
23. Main, Paul. (2025, January 25, 2025). Top-Down Processing And Bottom-Up Processing. Structural Learning. Retrieved January 25, 2025, from https://www.structural-learning.com/post/top-down-processing-and-bottom-up-processing.
24. McAuliffe, (2022, December). Two Logics of Non-Recurrence after Civil Conflict. International Human Rights Law Review. Number 11, Volume 2. DOI:10.1163/22131035-11020001.
25. Pathak, Bishnu and Bastola, Susmita. (2022). Negotiation by Peaceful Means: Nepo-India Territorial Disputes. Illinois: Cook Communication.
26. Pathak, Bishnu. (2024, April 22). “Transitional Justice (Part 57): Six Pillar of Transitional Justice”. TRANSCEND Media Service. Available Online at https://www.transcend.org/tms/2024/04/transitional-justice-part-57-six-pillar-of-transitional-justice/.
27. Pathak, Bishnu. (2025, March 24). “Magna Carta of Peace”. TRANSCEND Media Service. Retrieved March 24, 2025, from https://www.transcend.org/tms/2025/03/magna-carta-of-peace/.
28. Peoria Magazine. (Undated). Coming Together, Keeping Together, and Working Together. Retrieved May 13, 2025, from https://www.peoriamagazine.com/archive/ibi_article/2010/coming-together-keeping-together-working-together.
29. Pollack, Jeremy. (2025, May 9). What Is Conflict Transformation? Definition & 5 Historical Examples. Pollack Peacebuilding System. Retrieved May 10, 2025, from https://pollackpeacebuilding.com/blog/conflict-transformation/.
30. (2025, May 15). Pahalgam Attack: India Seeks UN’s ‘Terror Organisation’ Stamp For Pakistan-Backed TRF. Retrieved May 15, 2025, from https://news.abplive.com/news/india/pahalgam-attack-india-seeks-un-terror-organisation-stamp-for-pakistan-backed-trf-1772384.
31. (2003). Reparation: A Source Book for Victims of Torture and Other Violations of Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law. Retrieved May 11, 2025, from https://redress.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/SourceBook.pdf.
32. Reychler, Luc. (2017, December). “Peacemaking, Peacekeeping, and Peacebuilding”. Oxford Research Encyclopedias. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.013.274
33. Sanders, Joseph. (1974). The Vanishing Middle Ground: Retributive and Distributive Justice in Tart Law. CRSO Working Paper 98. The Center for Research On Social Organization. University of Michigan.
34. Schilling, Katharina. (2012). Peacebuilding and Conflict Transformation. Retrieved May 12, 2025, from https://www.ziviler-friedensdienst.org/sites/default/files/media/file/2022/zfd-peacebuilding-conflict-transformation-1889_21.pdf.
35. Shah, Saeed & Ali, Idrees. (2025, May 9). “Exclusive: Pakistan’s Chinese-made jet brought down two Indian fighter aircraft, US officials say”. Reuters. Retrieved May 11, 2025, from https://www.reuters.com/world/pakistans-chinese-made-jet-brought-down-two-indian-fighter-aircraft-us-officials-2025-05-08/.
36. Siddiqui, Usaid. (2025, May 14). “Did Pakistan shoot down five Indian fighter jets? What we know”. Al Jazeera. Retrieved May 14, 2025, from https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/5/14/did-pakistan-shoot-down-five-indian-fighter-jets-what-we-know.
37. (2024, November 20). Learn Top-down and Bottom-up Approaches with Examples. Retrieved January 25, 2025, from https://www.simplilearn.com/top-down-approach-vs-bottom-up-approach-article.
38. Sutherland, Callum. (2025, May 8). “India and Pakistan: A Timeline of Tensions Over Kashmir”. Time. Retrieved May 12, 2025, from https://time.com/7283794/india-pakistan-kashmir-tensions-timeline-history-conflict/.
39. The Economics Times. (2025, May 14). How China will feel the hit of India-Pakistan conflict. Retrieved May 15, 2025, from https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/how-china-will-feel-the-heat-of-india-pakistan-conflict/articleshow/121159050.cms?from=mdr.
40. Tripathee, Rewati Raj. (2018). Prosecution Journal. Office of the Attorney General. Retrieved May 14, 2025, from https://ag.gov.np/storage/postFile/Prosecution%20Journal,%20Vol%204_1544166889.pdf.
41. United Nations Peacebuilding. (Undated). Retrieved May 14, 2025, from https://www.un.org/peacebuilding/.
42. What is Strategic Peacebuilding? Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies. Retrieved January 26, 2025, from nd.edu/about-us/what-is-peace-studies/what-is-strategic-peacebuilding/.[i]

______________________________________________

Prof. Bishnu Pathak was a former Senior Commissioner at the Commission of Investigation on Enforced Disappeared Persons (CIEDP), Nepal who has been a Noble Peace prize nominee 2013-2019 for his noble finding of Peace-Conflict Lifecycle similar to the ecosystem. A Board Member of the TRANSCEND Peace University holds a Ph.D. in interdisciplinary Conflict Transformation and Human Rights in two decades. Arduous Dr. Pathak who is an author of over 100 international paper-book publications has been used as references in more than 100 countries across the globe. Immense versatile personality Dr. Pathak’s publications belong to Human Rights, Human Security, Peace, Conflict Transformation, and Transitional Justices among others. He can be reached at ciedpnp@gmail.com.

This article originally appeared on Transcend Media Service (TMS) on 19 May 2025.

Anticopyright: Editorials and articles originated on TMS may be freely reprinted, disseminated, translated and used as background material, provided an acknowledgement and link to the source, TMS: India-Pakistan Escalation of Conflict: Promoting Positive Peace Through a Bottom-up Approach, is included. Thank you.

If you enjoyed this article, please donate to TMS to join the growing list of TMS Supporters.

Share this article: email mastodon facebook 🔗 copy link

This work is licensed under a CC BY-NC 4.0 License.

There are no comments so far.