Op-ed: The India-Pakistan imbroglio

www.dailytimes.com.pk Ishtiaq Ahmed It is quite possible that a nuclear war will break out in South Asia. If some people survive the massive devastation, perhaps then a lasting peace may emerge. Western Europe could extricate itself from the grip of pathological politics only after two world wars and the holocaust At dusk everyday the flag-lowering ceremony at the Wagah-Attari Border, situated between Lahore on the Pakistani side and Amritsar on the Indian side, is a perverse spectacle. The soldiers symbolically seal the border by ramming the iron-gates with a fierce bang. Such a gesture is undoubtedly meant to emphasise that an impassable barrier exists between the two countries and their peoples. There are always large crowds on both sides who watch this charade. They nervously clap and shout slogans and the more vulgar ones employ course Punjabi abuse and bodily gesticulations to manifestly loathe and denounce the other side. It is not uncommon to see foreigners present on both sides. A look of utter disbelief and wonderment can easily be discerned on their faces and some are visibly awe-stricken by the perversity and depravity of the scene. Perhaps similar public expressions of dislike and hatred can be witnessed at the border crossing between Israel and its Arab neighbours. It is doubtful if elsewhere such grotesque rituals are enacted on such a regular and steadfast basis. Before the partition of Punjab some people daily travelled by the early bus or train from either of these cities, did their job or business in the other, and returned. The distance between them is some 30 miles. Now for more than 55 years there has hardly been any contact between people of the two cities. It was not a problem for smugglers and terrorists to cross the border till recently. They could easily cross over to the other side, but now a barbed wire has been erected by India and such traffic has come down significantly. We need to ponder if such mutual repugnance and hostility is in the interest of these two neighbours. Both states have been raising their defence expenditures over time. Although China should worry the Indian defence planners more than Pakistan, most of India’s actual armed encounters and wars have taken place with the latter. Pakistan’s defence planning has always been based on the assumption that the main threat to its security comes from India. During 1948, India and Pakistan fought an undeclared small-scale war in Kashmir. The United Nations-based cease-fire came into operation in January 1949. A Line of Control (LoC) constitutes an unrecognised border between them. There is enough evidence to suggest that India did not give Pakistan its proper share of the common military assets inherited from the colonial state and generally adopted an unfriendly posture towards the latter, exacerbating its sense of weakness and vulnerability vis-à-vis the bigger and more powerful neighbour. Pakistan began already in 1948 to seek closer relations with the West, while India adopted a neutralist foreign policy posture. In the 1950s, India became an important player in the non-aligned movement while Pakistan sought membership in the western defence pacts of the Southeast Asian Treaty Organisation and Central Treaty Organisation. India cultivated closer ties with the Soviet Union in the 1960s; Pakistan reached an accommodation with the People’s Republic of China during the same period. In 1962, China inflicted a humiliating defeat on India in a border conflagration. India requested American military intervention, but was provided arms instead. Britain and France also rushed arms to India. The West in general increased its military and economic aid. During September 1965, India and Pakistan fought a major border war for 17 days over Kashmir. In December 1971 India and Pakistan fought their third war, when the Indian army intervened in behalf of the East Pakistani Bengalis fighting the Pakistani army. It resulted in a crushing military defeat for Pakistan and the loss of East Pakistan, which became the independent state of Bangladesh. In 1974 India exploded a nuclear device. In Pakistan Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto vowed that Pakistanis would acquire their own bomb even if it meant eating grass. During the 1980s and into the 1990s both states spent huge sums of money to brace their military capabilities. Both sides have provided military training and bases to secessionists on the other side. On May 11 and 13 1998 India detonated altogether five nuclear devices. Pakistan followed suit a few days later with its own series of six test explosions on 28 and 30 May. The most alarming aspect of this hostility is that large numbers of people on both sides were jubilant when their governments conducted the tests. Since then, the governments in the two countries have vastly expanded their expenditure on armaments, intensified cross-border terrorism, connived, some would say, patronised the ultra-nationalist extremists parties and movements in their own societies. In addition, they have fought a limited war at prohibitive heights in the Kargil region of Kashmir in May 1999, which many feared could end in a nuclear confrontation. After the terrorist attack on the Indian Parliament on December 13, 2001 both countries deployed hundreds of thousands of their soldiers along the international border and the LoC; only international mediation, and thanks mainly to the pressure from the USA and Britain, things did not get worse and thus no war broke out. How far the ruling elites and the hawks in the two establishments will pursue confrontational politics is difficult to say. The recent diplomatic row accompanied by expulsions is indicative of a continuing dangerous and hopeless situation. The leadership in both countries seems to believe that because both sides are armed with such weapons, no major war can take place between them. It has been noted that small-scale military showdowns along the Line of Control in Kashmir have increased, maybe as an alternative to major confrontation. It is quite possible that a nuclear war will break out in the region, perhaps accidentally. If some people survive the massive devastation it is likely to inflict, perhaps then an atmosphere conducive to building a lasting peace may finally emerge. Western Europe could extricate itself from the grip of pathological politics only after two world wars and the holocaust had demonstrated the utter futility of pursuing ethno-nationalism, colonialism and racism. Perhaps societies do not learn to forgo the path of war unless they are forced to pay a heavy price in blood for their lack of foresight. The only hope seems to be greater effort by Indian and Pakistani intellectuals to campaign and lobby for peace. The author is an associate professor of Political Science at Stockholm University. He is the author of two books