Introduction

In an increasingly unstable international context, marked by sudden escalations, hybrid wars, and informational competition, the ability to intercept weak signals that precede a conflict is a strategic skill.

This article aims to explore how the Travel Security, Situational Awareness & Early Warning team at Kriptia, through a systematic approach to open-source intelligence (OSINT), succeeded—via historical context—in detecting and contextualizing early indicators of the India-Pakistan crisis before the mainstream narrative acknowledged its intensification.
Identifying and interpreting the signals of an escalation like the one between India and Pakistan is no simple task and requires the transformation of data into operational signals.

This is not mere collection work, since in a saturated informational scenario—where tweets, breaking news, videos, and articles emerge every minute—the analyst’s task is not to “discover everything,” but to distinguish the meaningful from the trivial, the signal from the noise.
This role requires deep knowledge of the geopolitical context, essential for discerning events that fall within the normal dynamics of a complex regional scenario from significant deviations (e.g., identifying anomalous patterns in troop movements, communication flows, or official statements).

It’s a matter of understanding when a semantic change in state media is not just rhetoric, but part of a narrative and diplomatic escalation that precedes a crisis; and of managing uncertainty and assessing the reliability of a public source without falling into the trap of manipulation or overconfidence.

In this, organizations like Kriptia—operating in an innovative, structured, and rigorous manner—can provide a real informational advantage for businesses and stakeholders who cannot afford to be blind until it’s too late.

Historical Narrative and Pattern Search

What happened on May 6 and 7 between India and Pakistan cannot be read in isolation, in light of a single event, but must be understood through a long-term analysis.

In this analytical perspective, events are not connected in a sterile and aseptic way, but seen in a systemic crescendo, allowing for the understanding of the present.

Historical narrative, in this case, is meant to serve the present, and not merely as a story: understanding the past serves to understand the present and interpret the future—not just or at all to recall events in sequence, but to identify structures and root causes.

In the geopolitical context under analysis here, the past influences the present, in the way memories, frictions, doctrines, and struggles continuously feed off each other, reaching such a complexity that it is often difficult to find a single cause.

In this complexity, the point is to identify regularities in what one side demands, how it acts, and how the other side reacts. This is why it is essential to speak of patterns, of systematicity. One must think of all events not only as having happened, but as perceived.

What happens today is new, but it is also a memory of what happened in 1947 with the creation of Pakistan, the two Kashmir wars, and so on. Here, we want to understand the past not only as an event but as a “nourishment” and a phenomenon each time new and different from the previous one. The past should thus be seen as an interpretive laboratory, to be constantly observed.

Figure 1) Map of the territorial border between India and Pakistan [1]

Fractures

Between India and Pakistan, according to this historical dimension, there are about eighty years of precedents of mutual intolerance and rejection, more or less indirect, from the creation of Pakistan in 1947 to today.

The original fracture manifested in the dispute over the state of Jammu and Kashmir, majority Muslim but with a Hindu presence, whose controversial accession to India generated the first Indo-Pakistani conflict.

However, the age-old issue of Kashmir is only the manifestation of a deeper rift—that is, a difference in the conception of the idea of nation, of common destiny, of citizenship, participation, and obviously of historical memory, conceiving the idea of “memories,” often conflicting and dual.
While India claims a multireligious territorial and cultural continuity, albeit with Hindu predominance, Pakistan is built and above all conceived upon an idea of religious and political autonomy.

In this framework, nationalist rhetoric has gradually hardened, thus feeding the symmetrical representation of “civilizations in conflict.”
To this must be added external influences, from the Cold War to the acrimonious Sino-Indian rivalry, from U.S. support to Pakistan during the Afghan war.

These opposing alliance networks in the complex international chessboard have contributed to freezing and rendering the conflict static. The long historical duration therefore becomes long duration in a civilizational conflict, and new political lines exacerbate the underlying social and identity tensions, a cauldron of a deep and complex conflict.

Also consider the structure of the two countries: India with a population of just under one and a half billion people, Pakistan with 250 million, and we generally see widespread support for the leaders of both countries—Prime Minister Narendra Modi for India and Shehbaz Sharif for Pakistan.

---

Background of the Crisis

In this context, understanding the historical and strategic roots of the India-Pakistan crisis is essential to correctly interpret the recent escalation.
A precise reconstruction of the main political and military events that have marked nearly eight decades of intermittent conflicts allows us to identify those patterns of behavior and reaction that still today define the fragile balance in the region.

Figure 2) Timeline of the main moments of tension between India and Pakistan [2]

Starting with the brief narration of the 1947–48 biennium, and therefore with the First Kashmir War, during which armed Pakistani tribes invaded Kashmir, followed by defense of the territory, until the ceasefire of January 1949 mediated by the United Nations, establishing the Line of Control (LoC), jointly dividing Kashmir between the two geopolitical actors.

In 1965, the so-called Second Kashmir War took place, during which Pakistan launched Operation Gibraltar, infiltrating forces in order to foment an insurgency similar to a civil war, causing the Indian military response, leading, with the mediation of the U.S. and the Soviet Union, to the Tashkent Declaration and peace. Notable is the involvement—during the height of the Cold War—of two such opposing powers to resolve a localized issue, a sign, already 60 years ago, of the global relevance of the conflict

After a few years, in December 1971, the Bangladesh War took place, during which India intervened in the conflict between East and West Pakistan, supporting the Bengali independence movement against Pakistan, eventually leading to the creation of Bangladesh and the surrender of about 90,000 Pakistani soldiers.

Approaching the 21st century, between May and June 1999, the Kargil conflict occurred, where Pakistani forces and sympathizing militants occupied strategic positions in the Kargil sector, prompting India’s response with an offensive to reconquer those high-altitude territories, eventually leading to a Pakistani withdrawal, once again under international pressure.

Between 2001 and 2002, an attack on the Indian Parliament, attributed to militant groups based in Pakistan, led to a massive military mobilization on both sides, ending without open conflict but with constant tensions. This can be seen as the start of a new form of latent conflict—less warlike and direct, but stable.

In 2008, a series of coordinated attacks in Mumbai caused over 170 deaths, allegedly by Lashkar-e-Taiba, a group based in Pakistan according to Indian sources.
In 2016, the Uri attacks occurred, resulting in the death of 19 Indian soldiers, and the so-called “surgical strikes” by India, targeting militant camps beyond the LoC.

In this analysis, it is crucial to highlight how the Pulwama attack of 2019 and India’s subsequent response in Balakot marked a critical threshold in the recent history of the conflict, signaling a clear shift in the limits of tolerance and the dynamics of reaction.

The predictability of the crisis thus emerges, as 2019 marked the first real high-intensity reprisal deep within Pakistani territory since 1971. In 2025, the conflict showed very similar characteristics: a high-visibility attack against civilians claimed by a militant group, strong internal political pressure on the Indian government, suspension of bilateral dialogue, cancellation of agreements and embassies.
The existence of these indicators—patterns—such as infiltrations along the LoC in preceding months, increased militant propaganda, absence of intelligence dialogue, already suggested in the pre-crisis phase a ripe condition for escalation.

Patterns and Conclusions

From the systematic and multidisciplinary analysis of historical, political, and strategic events related to the India-Pakistan escalation, several recurring patterns clearly emerge that have resurfaced over time, allowing contemporary crises to be effectively anticipated and interpreted.

First, the crucial role of the asymmetric attack as a triggering element of escalation becomes evident. Such attacks, often with high symbolic and media impact, are effective in creating internal and external pressure that inevitably leads to a visible and direct military response by India. This response is not merely reactive but often takes on strategic characteristics aimed at sending strong deterrent signals both domestically and internationally.

At the same time, an intensification of conflictual rhetoric, mirrored and symmetrical on both sides, is consistently observed. This rhetoric is not merely propaganda but serves a preparatory function in mobilizing internal consensus and justifying military actions. It also acts as a predictive element, indicating an imminent increase in hostilities.

Kashmir remains the symbolic and strategic heart of the dispute. Not only for identity or religious reasons, but above all due to its geostrategic centrality and the water resources that make it vital for the economic security of both nations. The revocation of Jammu and Kashmir’s autonomy in 2019 marked a decisive turning point, eliminating all ambiguity about India’s intention to strengthen direct control and further intensifying latent tensions.

Furthermore, India’s suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty has become a powerful strategic weapon that directly threatens Pakistan’s economic and social stability.

From a military point of view, the presence of comparable nuclear arsenals—with about 170 warheads each—makes every escalation potentially catastrophic, requiring extreme caution in the international diplomatic management of the crisis.
Pakistan’s current economic condition, particularly critical due to high foreign debt and insufficient reserves, further exacerbates vulnerabilities, turning military crises into multifactorial crises with strong economic, diplomatic, and social repercussions.

The analyses conducted through open sources by the Travel Security, Situational Awareness & Early Warning team at Kriptia have demonstrated how the interpretation of weak signals, combined with rigorous historical and strategic contextualization, allows for the accurate anticipation of geopolitical crises.

This approach represents a decisive strategic advantage for companies and institutions operating in complex international environments, where timely anticipation can mean the difference between managing a risk and passively suffering it.