IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/esprep/195929.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Game theory, Strategies and the convoluted triangle - India, Pakistan, Kashmir

Author

Listed:
  • Pradeep, Siddhartha

Abstract

Using the lens of game theory, the paper attempts to describe the ways in which it can enhance our understanding of international relations and real-world events. The author argues that the inherent instability in the game of Kashmir is due to contrasting approaches towards the game by India and Pakistan, that is, infinite versus finite respectively. To exhibit the games being played and their nature, the incidents and statements by the Prime Ministers of both the nation's post-Pulwama incident were scrutinized and decrypted using game theory. The analysis revealed that Pakistan plays the game of Mutual distrust, Chicken and Bullying while India plays the timing games. Further, both the nations play deterrence games, however, their approaches differ – classical versus perfect. Also, the frequent defection of Pakistan from mutual cooperation point in iterated prisoners dilemma inflicts dynamics between the games – shifting it to mutual distrust and to chicken resulting in tensions. Therefore, the author asserts that from a game theoretic perspective, the stability can be achieved in the long run only by complementing table talks with strict policies against Pakistan sponsored cross border terrorism. These games have been found to fit the observed story of relations between India and Pakistan, with the recent involvement of China. It also briefly discusses the role of clandestine services in strategy determination in modern information warfare.

Suggested Citation

  • Pradeep, Siddhartha, 2019. "Game theory, Strategies and the convoluted triangle - India, Pakistan, Kashmir," EconStor Preprints 195929, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:esprep:195929
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/195929/1/main%20article.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Martin Shubik, 1971. "The Dollar Auction game: a paradox in noncooperative behavior and escalation," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 15(1), pages 109-111, March.
    2. Powell, Robert, 2015. "Nuclear Brinkmanship, Limited War, and Military Power," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 69(3), pages 589-626, July.
    3. Orbell, John & Dawes, Robyn M., 1991. "A “Cognitive Miser” Theory of Cooperators Advantage," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 85(2), pages 515-528, June.
    4. Alexander J. Field, 2014. "Schelling, von Neumann, and the Event that Didn’t Occur," Games, MDPI, vol. 5(1), pages 1-37, February.
    5. Stephen J. Majeski & Shane Fricks, 1995. "Conflict And Cooperation in International Relations," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 39(4), pages 622-645, December.
    6. Alexander Evans, 2000. "The Kashmir insurgency: As bad as it gets," Small Wars and Insurgencies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(1), pages 69-81, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Matteo Migheli, 2017. "The winner’s curse in auctions with losses," Mind & Society: Cognitive Studies in Economics and Social Sciences, Springer;Fondazione Rosselli, vol. 16(1), pages 113-126, November.
    2. Florian Heine & Martin Sefton, 2018. "To Tender or Not to Tender? Deliberate and Exogenous Sunk Costs in a Public Good Game," Games, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-28, June.
    3. Feng, Sinan & Liu, Xuesong & Dong, Yida, 2022. "Limited punishment pool may promote cooperation in the public goods game," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 165(P2).
    4. Bernhardt, Martin & Spann, Martin, 2010. "An Empirical Analysis of Bidding Fees in Name-your-own-price Auctions," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 24(4), pages 283-296.
    5. A. Madureira & F. Hartog & N. Baken, 2016. "A holonic framework to understand and apply information processes in evolutionary economics: survey and proposal," Netnomics, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 157-190, September.
    6. Elinor Ostrom, 2010. "Analyzing collective action," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 41(s1), pages 155-166, November.
    7. Hwee-Rhak Park, 2023. "The Necessity to Discuss ‘Deterrence Failure’ Regarding North Korea’s Nuclear Threat," International Studies, , vol. 60(1), pages 67-90, January.
    8. Andrea Morone & Simone Nuzzo & Rocco Caferra, 2019. "The Dollar Auction Game: A Laboratory Comparison Between Individuals and Groups," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 28(1), pages 79-98, February.
    9. Kalle Pajunen, 2006. "Living in Agreement with a Contract: The Management of Moral and Viable Firm–Stakeholder Relationships," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 68(3), pages 243-258, October.
    10. Kolpin, Van, 2014. "Endogenous convention, prejudice, and trust in demographic summary games," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 128-133.
    11. Syed Eesar Mehdi, 2020. "Serving the Militant’s Cause: The Role of Indo-Pak State Policies in Sustaining Militancy in Kashmir," Journal of Asian Security and International Affairs, , vol. 7(2), pages 244-255, August.
    12. Hinnosaar, Toomas, 2016. "Penny auctions," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 59-87.
    13. Wang, Zhongmin & Xu, Minbo, 2016. "Selling a dollar for more than a dollar? Evidence from online penny auctions," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 53-68.
    14. Jordan Mansell, 2020. "Causation and Behavior: The Necessity and Benefits of Incorporating Evolutionary Thinking into Political Science," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 101(5), pages 1677-1698, September.
    15. Teck-Hua Ho & Keith Weigelt, 2005. "Trust Building Among Strangers," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(4), pages 519-530, April.
    16. Pavlović, Dušan & Arandarenko, Mihail, 2011. "Serbia: equity and efficiency – hand-in-hand," SEER Journal for Labour and Social Affairs in Eastern Europe, Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, vol. 14(2), pages 169-184.
    17. Alcalde, José & Dahm, Matthias, 2008. "The Complete Information First. Price Auction or the Importance of Being Indivisible," Working Papers 2072/13264, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Department of Economics.
    18. Bicchieri, Cristina & Maras, Marta, 2022. "Intentionality matters for third-party punishment but not compensation in trust games," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 197(C), pages 205-220.
    19. Robert Neumann, 2016. "Understanding trustworthiness: using response latencies from CATI surveys to learn about the “crucial” variable in trust research," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 50(1), pages 43-64, January.
    20. Nosenzo, Daniele & Tufano, Fabio, 2017. "The effect of voluntary participation on cooperation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 307-319.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:esprep:195929. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/zbwkide.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.