By Faisal Kutty – Political instability. Nuclear and conventional missile brinkmanship. And now intense border battles. Is this a recipe for a nuclear disaster? Alarm bells about a possible nuclear conflagration are ringing a lot louder in some quarters as a result of the recent engagement between India and Pakistan over Kashmir. Having fought three wars–two of them over Kashmir–in a little over half-a-century, could a fourth one be that far off? Surely there is too much at stake to take a wait-and-see approach.

With more than a third of their citizens below the poverty line, a combined foreign debt of $100 billion and unenviable economies, India and Pakistan have a great deal more to concentrate on other than their weapons programs. Yet both are driven by security concerns to the total neglect of many other issues, including human development.

Some observers suggest that the series of nuclear and missile tests and strategic positioning by these two countries now guarantees security by deterrence, by virtue of the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction. This assumes a certain level of rationality in decision-makers in both nations. Unfortunately, rational politics has not always been good politics in the subcontinent.

Domestic politics the primary concern

Like the nuclear tests last year and the missile tests this year, the most recent engagement over Kashmir is a diversionary tactic to distract from domestic problems. If it means pushing the subcontinent to the brink of a nuclear conflict, so be it.

Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee, head of a caretaker government until September elections, has charged that the opposition recently brought down his government for trying to make the country “strong.” The Hindu nationalist leader proudly proclaimed that his administration had taken steps that others had shied away from (i.e. nuclear tests). And now his show of strength over Kashmir. What better way to mobilize the masses than catering to their sense of patriotism and commitment to the defence of the motherland?

The Pakistani government no doubt had to appease its citizens by demonstrating its ability to respond to both the nuclear and the more recent missile tests, but it was also driven by internal domestic concerns. The testing of the Shaheen was not only a fitting response but it also helped to diffuse the uproar that began in the wake of the corruption conviction and five-year sentence handed down to former prime minister Benazir Bhutto.

Such diversionary tactics are nothing new in international politics. In fact, we in North America may have the master sitting in the White House. The particular concern in the Southeast Asian context arises from the mixing of this “Wag the Dog” doctrine with the very complex problems revolving around firebrand nationalism, communalism, tribalism and power-drunk politicians who stop at nothing.

Religious and tribal wars are tearing apart Pakistan while the government barely rules by keeping feudal lords content. In India, religious and tribal clashes are occurring with increasing frequency and the electorate has not given a clear mandate to any single party in the past three years. This lack of confidence has resulted in three governments in three years. Moreover, even these were able to rule only by aligning with smaller parties. Needless to say, this kind of political instability is not conducive to military stability in the region. There is nothing to illustrate this better than the intensification of the border conflict over Kashmir as this article goes to press. On June 9.

Why Kashmir is a flashpoint

According to analysts, including the American Central Intelligence Agency, Kashmir is one of the likeliest potential flashpoints for nuclear war. In fact, the recent hot pursuit of Kashmiri separatists by Indian forces is the most likely trigger of such a war, according to the CIA. The United Nations Security Council has also expressed concerns about the threat to world peace from this Southeast Asian standoff.

Kashmiris have been struggling for the right to self-determination since the 1947 partition of British India. The Hindu Maharaja had cancelled the vote just before the region’s population (80 per cent Muslim) were to cast their ballots on whether to join Pakistan or India.

In the ensuing battle two-thirds of the territory was taken by India and one-third by Pakistan. In 1949 the United Nations called for a plebiscite to determine Kashmir’s future but it was blocked by both countries.

Since 1989, in what has become known as the Kashmir “intifada,” some 60,000 lives have been lost and thousands–both Muslims and Hindus–have been uprooted. Both the 600,000 Indian troops in the valley and some of the radical separatist forces have been accused of widespread human-rights violations. The world’s largest democracy has even blocked human-rights groups from monitoring the situation.

With Pakistan continuing to back a proxy war, and Indian forces occupying a people against their will, the lush valley of Kashmir has the potential to ignite nuclear Armageddon. Both nations’ leadership needs to demonstrate strength on this issue and both have flexed their nuclear muscle over the contested territory.

Recent efforts at negotiating a peaceful resolution have not achieved much, as the raging border war makes clear. There can be no peace without justice. Justice requires that the Kashmiri people be given an equal, if not greater role, in resolving the problem. To date both countries have tried to settle the problem as a bilateral issue. In fact, India wants the issue treated as an internal matter, while Pakistan wishes to internationalize the matter (but has jailed those calling for total independence).

The will of 13 million Kashmiris cannot be ignored in any attempts to resolve the conflict. This is the crux of the matter and must drive any attempt to find a just and lasting settlement.

How solve the impasse?

Pakistan must stop meddling in Kashmir and both countries must allow the Kashmiris their right to determine their future. Peace will come about once the distrust over Kashmir is overcome. Both can then reallocate their limited resources to benefit their citizens, and India will get the international respect it has been seeking.

A dangling carrot approach of admitting both nations as permanent members on the Security Council may prove a worthwhile incentive. India has been clamoring for a permanent seat for the last decade or so. Admitting the world’s largest democracy and a powerful Muslim nation may be a good start in initiating reforms to make the United Nations more reflective.

The time is now for the world community to reiterate calls for an internationally supervised referendum before political instability leads to nuclear destruction. Those yet to be convinced need only reflect on Pakistani Foreign Secretary Shamsad Ahmad’s statement to the press in the wake of the recent fighting: “We will not hesitate to use any weapon in our arsenal to defend our territorial integrity.”

With leaders willing to take such desperate measures to cling to power, the international community must be more cautious in how this matter is resolved. It must rethink its approach by offering incentives and cutting the fuse of this powder keg. A fuse clearly marked “Kashmir.”

Faisal Kutty is a Toronto lawyer and writer specializing in international affairs.

Note: First Published: Catholic New Times, June 20, 1999 v23 i11 p12

Tags: BJP, India, Kashmir, Nuclear, Pakistan

Short URL: http://tinyurl.com/ylxcv6d