Connect with us

South Asia

Why Hot-Cold Rivalry between India and Pakistan?

Published

on

Authors: Amna Qureshi, Bisma Anwar,and Sabahat Hameed

India and Pakistan are two nuclear rivals glued in enduring territorial dispute over the State of Jammu & Kashmir. The Indian partition plan was designed to integrate the areas of Indian Subcontinent into newly formed nation states of Indian Union and Pakistan based on their geographic, religious, ethnic and political affinity. Therefore, the accession of Jammu & Kashmir was quite obvious based on its Muslim majority, but the Hindu ruler Maharaja Harri Singh clandestinely signed the instrument of accession with India, which gave birth to acrimonious relations among the two neighbors. Subsequently, the both neighbors fought three full-fledged wars in 1947-48, 1965, 1971 and a limited conflict on Kargil heights in 1999. However, the two nations failed to integrate the Jammu & Kashmir militarily and ultimately waged the covert war against each other. The covert warfare is largely fought through intelligence arms of armed forces of two states which are tasked to gather sensitive information and destabilization of domestic law and order through the attacks on key government installations and on public place to placate panic. But these tactics often brought New Delhi and Islamabad to the brink of nuclear war which is particularly dangerous for South Asian region and the world as whole.

Hot-Cold Rivalry

To explain the episodes of military standoffs, the term ‘Hot-Cold Rivalry’ is relevant here. It means that bilateral relations of the two states often experience surprise abnormality and increase the military confrontation on the Line of Control (LOC) and sometimes on international border. Being a major and emerging player in the regional and global affairs, it is normal behavior of India to accuse Pakistan for each and every incident of terrorism on its soil. The examples are include; the 2001 Indian Parliament attacks and subsequent Indo-Pak military standoff, Mumbai Attacks, Pathankot, Urri and the Pulwama terrorism. Back in 2001, without wasting time the Indian government alleged Pakistan for sponsoring attack and started war preparations. There are three key assumptions that India opt hot-cold strategy while dealing with Pakistan.

First India is a mighty power with huge landscape and military personnel’s. The Indian forces are stationed on various locations deep inside the territory, which can make difficult for New Delhi to deploy on Pakistani border in a short notice. India think that military deployment and a limited warfare can restrain Pakistan to use Jihadi outfits for destabilizing New Delhi. Therefore, to speed up military deployment, the Indian government has developed the “Cold-Start Doctrine”. It is a Military doctrine that was developed to use in a possible war with Pakistan. The origins of this doctrine can be traced from the Sunderji Doctrine which was developed by seven “defensive Corps” of the Indian armed forces and deployed near the Pakistani border. Meanwhile, the holding corps under the Sunderji Doctrine were tasked to check Pakistani advance with limited offensive power. The offensive corps were made by mechanized infantry and artillery under the said doctrine. Contrary to defensive corps, the offensive forces of Sunderji Doctrine were deployed inside India which were unable to move abruptly on Pakistani border to launch the offensive. Therefore by acknowledging the flaws in existing doctrine, the military strategists in New Delhi has devised the Cold Start Doctrine.

This doctrine intends to allow Indian conventional forces to perform holding attacks to prevent a nuclear retaliation from Pakistan in case of a conflict. To fully implement the doctrine Indian forces has practiced for 10 times but weaknesses were observed in the strategy. The aggressive military strategy has shaken the peace and stability of South Asian region. But to test its offensive power, India has launched the so-called surgical strike on Pakistan in 2016. The Indian claimed surgical strike was out of airdropped soldiers but on some points the Indian soldiers crossed the Line of Control (LOC) a de-facto border between two nations and hit some Pakistani border posts. But this cannot be claimed as surgical strike because the surgical strike can be conducted deep into enemy territory and the strikers should be dropped from air. Again in 2019, Indian Airforce crossed over Pakistani territory and dropped bombs on Pakistani city of Balakot. The Indian attack hyped the tensions between two nations and a day later Pakistan Airforce downed two Indian jets and captured one Indian pilot which was later released as showing the goodwill gesture.

Second, the International pressure often restrain India to launch full-fledged war against Pakistan. The Indo-Pakistan crisis of 2001-02 and subsequent tensions after Pulwama witnessed the shuttle diplomacy carried by various responsible powers. To name China, United States, Japan, Britain and Russia have played decisive role to cool down the recent tensions. The international community is aware that South Asia is a nuclear flashpoint and any miscalculated adventure leads to a nuclear warfare. Thus, these powers always seek a diplomatic solution for India-Pakistan disputes and urge two nations to resolve the tensions through diplomacy and negotiations. During the post Pulwama tensions, the United States President Trump claimed that the US had been mediating between the two sides and the US efforts were paid off through restraint expressed by New Delhi and Islamabad.

Another reason is Pakistan’s nuclear deterrence which budge the Indian malicious designs against Pakistan. Pakistan has developed a credible nuclear deterrence to ward off the Indian conventional military superiority and is consistently improving its nuclear program. The National Command Authority disclosed that Pakistan has achieved the Full Spectrum Deterrence FSD) capability, which is more comprehensive with three elements including; full spectrum of nuclear weapons, with full range coverage of the large Indian land mass and its outlying territories”. In other words, the FSD determine to utilize whatever methods are important to secure Pakistan. Pakistan has also introduced the short-range tactical weapons (TNWs), which according to General Khalid Kidwai of Pakistan’s Strategic Plans Division would remove India’s ability to wage a limited war against Pakistan. These short range ballistic missiles are designed to target major Indian installations without risk to full scale war.

In short, it can be claimed that chances of a full scale war between India and Pakistan are minimum, due to both countries doctrines. India has designed and developed the Cold Start Doctrine for a limited offensive against Pakistan. In the meantime, international pressure and shuttle diplomacy in the time of high tensions play positive role to restrain. Last but not least is Pakistan’s credible nuclear deterrence which further remove the threat of full-fledged war but left chance of hot-cold rivalry between two neighbors.

Authors are MSC Students of International Relations at Women University of Azad Jammu & Kashmir Bagh, Pakistan 

Continue Reading
Comments

South Asia

Afghanistan and the Quest for Democracy Promotion: Symptoms of Post-Cold War Malaise

Published

on

The U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan should be the first step in a reduced American overseas force posture. Democracy promotion in the form of perpetual force deployment and endless military engagements has resoundingly failed to deliver tangible benefits for the United States. Those who celebrated in the wake of the USSR’s collapse as an unqualified vindication of liberal democracy ignored the role of strategic overextension and deteriorating domestic affairs in the latter. The unipolar U.S. moment was bound to be ephemeral, and should have been used to reevaluate and refocus strategic goals in order to ensure we avoid the same fate of our ideological counterpart.

Instead, the United States dispensed with any notions of humility and allowed democratic peace theory to continue guiding its foreign policy decision-making. Even though it is true that democracies are less likely to engage in military confrontations with one another, only hubris could have led us to believe we could universally create this sufficient condition. Afghanistan is a definitive rebuke to the notion that we can simply will the circumstances for democratic peace—on our own terms and with no compromise—into existence.

Luckily, there is still time to readjust the country’s strategic calculus and begin allocating its limited resources in a less myopic manner. Following through with withdrawal could be a starting point for a new trend of U.S. restraint. The most logical region of the world to address next would be its position in Europe. Relative European weakness at the end of World War 2 threatened the balance of power on the continent as the specter of Soviet Communism crept its way West. With Russia a shell of the Marxist empire, there is no logical reason for the United States to maintain its current outsized military presence in Europe; indeed, the EU collectively holds a GDP 11 times the size of Russia’s, has 3 ½ times the population size, and spends 4 times as much on defense.

The United States should demand that European allies adopt a share of their own defense that is more commensurate with this fact. The decision of the previous U.S. administration to remove 12,000 troops due to Germany’s inability to meet NATO spending targets was a good step. The current administration could continue to capitalize on this trend and set more targets for troop withdrawals. Withdrawal will also signal to countries that use political tension with Moscow to decrease their saber rattling. This includes Eastern European NATO members, as well as countries like Ukraine and Georgia. It must be made explicit to the latter two that they cannot engage in bellicose political brinkmanship, and then hope to simply rely on U.S. led NATO to come to their defense should the situation escalate. It may seem counterintuitive, but this may very well result in a more stable European security environment, at least in regard to its posture towards Russia.

This will also reverberate back into the European political arena, as there will be less incentive for inflating the Russian threat. Moscow acts strategically in accordance with its limited national security interests, anticipating Western responses and reactions. Clear signaling that the United States and NATO do not have the goal of encircling Russia and rendering it strategically inert will only serve to increase U.S.-Russian relations, as well as European-Russian relations. This will free up U.S. resources for more pressing national security interests such as preparing for strategic and economic competition with China. It will also decrease the incentive for closer Russian-Sino cooperation.

Ideally, this would cascade into a reevaluation of U.S. strategic postures in other regions as well, such as Southeastern Asia and the broader Middle East. The former is another area in which the United States could reduce its force presence and incentivize increased defense spending by allies. A decreased U.S. presence would also message to China that the United States does not inherently oppose Beijing as a threat. It should, however, be made explicit that aggression towards a U.S. treaty ally would be met with an asymmetric response, but that does not mean that increased tensions with China need to be the status quo. In the Middle East, large scale U.S. military withdrawal in exchange for a primarily diplomatic mission to the region could also serve to decrease one of the major sources of terrorist recruitment.

An interventionist foreign policy was perpetuated as the product of learning the wrong lessons from U.S. victory in the Cold War. A communist doctrine of proselytizing to the alienated masses with axiomatic dogmas and theological certainties failed not because of the weakness of its scripture (which would require a much different, longer article), but because its millenarian quest for world revolution led the Soviet empire to overextend itself beyond its economic means. Behind the façade of military might, the domestic population grew increasingly disillusioned and dissatisfied. Unfortunately, there are alarming parallels with the current domestic situation in the United States today.

Refusing to remain mired in Afghanistan could be an important catalyst in beginning to reevaluate U.S. foreign policy. If Washington focuses its resources on limited goals that prioritize key national security interests, it can better tend to the state of its own republican government and society. It might not be as romantic as crusading for democracy, but it could be essential in preserving the Union.

Continue Reading

South Asia

What, in fact, is India’s stand on Kashmir?

Published

on

Women walking past Indian security forces in Srinagar, summer capital of the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir. Nimisha Jaiswal/IRIN

At the UNGA, India’s first secretary Sneha Dubey said the entire Union Territories of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh “were, are and will always be an integral and inalienable part of India. She added, “Pakistan’s attempts to internationalise the Kashmir issue have gained no traction from the international community and the Member States, who maintain that Kashmir is a bilateral matter between the two countries (Pakistan is ‘arsonist’ disguising itself as ‘fire-fighter’: India at UNGA, the Hindu September 25, 2021).

It is difficult to make head or tail of India’s stand on Kashmir. India considers the whole of the disputed state of Jammu and Kashmir as its integral part. Yet, at the same time, admits it to be a bilateral matter still to be resolved between India and Pakistan.

What bars Pakistan from agitating the Kashmir dispute at international forums?

India presumes that the Simla accord debars Pakistan from “internationalizing” the Kashmir dispute. That’s not so. Avtar Singh Bhasin (India and Pakistan: Neighbours at Odd) is of the view that though Pakistan lost the war in East Pakistan, it won at Simla.

Bhasin says, `At the end, Bhutto the “dramatist” carried the day at Simla. The Agreement signed in Simla did no more than call for `respecting the Line of Control emerging from the ceasefire of 17 December 1971. As the Foreign Secretary TN Kaul [of India] said at briefing of the heads of foreign mission in New Delhi on 4 July 1972, the recognition of the new ceasefire line ended the United Nations’ Military Observers’ Group on India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP) role in Kashmir, created specifically  for the supervision of the UN sponsored ceasefire line of 1949, since that line existed no more. Having said that India once again faltered for not asking the UN to withdraw its team from Kashmir, or withdrawing its own recognition to it and its privileges (Document No. 0712 in Bhasin’s India-Pakistan Relations 1947-207).

Following Simla Accord (1972), India, in frustration, stopped reporting ceasefire skirmishes to the UN. But, Pakistan has been consistently reporting all such violations to the UN. India feigns it does not recognise the UNMOGIP. But, then it provides logistic support to the UMOGIP on its side of the LOC.

India keeps harassing the UNMOGIP vehicles occasionally. Not long ago, three members of the UNMOGIP had a close call along the LoC in Azad Jammu and Kashmir after Indian troops shot at and injured two locals who were briefing them on the situation after ceasefire violations.

India even asked UNMOGIP to vacate 1/AB, Purina Lila Road, Connaught Place, from where it has been functioning since 1949.

Bhasin says (p.257-259), `The Pakistan Radio broadcasts and…commentators took special pains to highlight …the fact: (i) That India have accepted Kashmir to be a disputed territory and Pakistan a party to the dispute. (ii) That the UNSC resolutions had not been nullified and contrarily (iii) Kashmir remained the core issue between the two countries and that there could not be permanent peace without a just solution based on the principle of self-determination for the people of Kashmir. And Pakistan was right in its assessment. It lost the war won the peace. At the end India was left askance at its own wisdom’.

Obviously, if the UNSC resolutions are intact, then Pakistan has the right to raise the Kashmir dispute at international forums.

India’s shifting stands on Kashmir

At heart, the wily Jawaharlal Lal Nehru never cared a fig for the disputed state’s constituent assembly, Indian parliament or the UN. This truth is interspersed in Avtar Singh Basin’s 10-volume documentary study (2012) of India-Pakistan Relations 1947-2007.  It contains 3649 official documents, accessed from archives of India’s external-affairs ministry.  These papers gave new perspectives on Nehru’s vacillating state of perfidious mind concerning the Kashmir dispute. In his 2018 book (published after six years of his earlier work), India, Pakistan: Neighbours at Odds (Bloomsbury India, New Delhi, 2018), Bhasin discusses Nehru’s perfidy on Kashmir in Chapter 5 titled Kashmir, India’s Constitution and Nehru’s Vacillation (pages 51-64). The book is based on Selected Works of Jawaharlal (SWJ) Nehru and author’s own compendium of documents on India-Pak relations. Let us lay bare a few of Nehru’s somersaults

Nehru disowns Kashmir assembly’s “accession”, owns Security Council resolutions

Initially, Nehru banked on so-called Instrument of Accession and its authentication by `Constituent Assembly. Yet, in a volte-face he reiterated in New Delhi on November3, 1951 that `we have made it perfectly clear before the Security Council that the Kashmir Constituent Assembly does not [insofar] as we are concerned come in the way of a decision by the Security Council, or the United Nations’(SWJ: Volume 4: page 292, Bhasin p.228). Again, at a press conference on June 11, 1951, he was asked `if the proposed constituent assembly of Kashmir “decides in favour of acceding to Pakistan, what will be the position?”’ he reiterated,  `We have made it perfectly clear that the Constituent Assembly of Kashmir was not meant to decide finally any such question , and it is not in the way of any decision which may ultimate flow from the Security Council proceedings’ (SWJ: Volume 15:, Part II, page 394. Bhasin page 56). He re-emphasised his view once again at a press conference in New Delhi On November 3, 1951.

Nehru does not label Pakistan an aggressor at the UN

And then labels it so in Parliament

He never labeled Pakistan an aggressor at the UN. Yet, he told parliament on March 1, 1954 `that “aggression” took place in Kashmir six and a half years ago with dire consequences. Nevertheless the United States have thus far not condemned it and we are asked not to press this point in the interest of peace (Bhasin pp. 55-56).

Nehru disowns the Security Council as just a non-binding mediator

On July 24 1952, Nehru said, `Unless the Security Council functioned under some other Sections of the Charter, it cannot take a decision which is binding upon us unless we agree to it. They are functioning as mediators and a mediator means getting people to agree (SWJ, Volume 19, page 241. Bhasin page 56).

Security Council re-owned

Bhasin points out (page 57 op. cit.) `At the same press conference on 24 July, 1952 when asked what the necessity of plebiscite was now that he had got the Constituent Assembly [approval], he replied “Maybe theoretically you may be right. But we have given them [UN] an assurance and we stand by it (SWJ: Volume 19, pp. 240-241. Bhasin, p. 57, Bhasin pages 256-257).

Concluding remarks

Pakistan’s recourse to the UN is India’s Achilles Heel. So it is as India’s stand on disputed Kashmir is a rigmarole of inconsistent myths.

To avoid internationalization of the Kashmir issue, India’s own former foreign secretary Jagat Singh Mehta offered proposals (rebranded by Pervez Musharraf’s) to soften the LOC in exchange for non-internationalisation of the Kashmir dispute for 10 years. Mehta presented his ideas in an article, ‘Resolving Kashmir in the International Context of the 1990s’.

India had no consistent stand on Kashmir. There was a time when Sardar Patel presented Kashmir to Pakistan in exchange for Hyderabad and Junagadh. Reportedly, the offer was declined as Pakistan’s prime minister Liaquat Ali Khan thought it could retain not only Kashmir but also Junagadh and Hyderabad. Jawaharlal Nehru approached the United Nations’ for mediation. He kept harping his commitment to the plebiscite.

It is eerie that the whole architecture of India’s stand on Kashmir is erected on the mythical `instrument of accession’ and its endorsement by the disputed state’s assembly, Accession documents are un-registered with the UN. The Simla Accord text makes crystal clear reference to the UN charter.

Let India know that a state that flouts international treaties is a rogue state: pacta sunt servanda, treaties are to be observed and are binding on parties. Self-determination is not only a political but also a legal right in disputed lands. Sans talks with Pakistan, and UN or third-party mediation, what else is India’s recipe for imprisoned Kashmiris? A nuclear Armageddon or divine intervention?

Continue Reading

South Asia

Afghanistan may face famine because of anti-Taliban sanctions

Published

on

Food and blankets are handed out to people in need in Kabul, the capital of Afghanistan, by © WFP/Arete

Afghanistan may face a food crisis under the Taliban (outlawed in Russia) rule because this movement is under sanctions of both individual states and the United Nations, Andrei Kortunov, Director General of the Russian International Affairs Council, told TASS on Monday.

“A food crisis and famine in Afghanistan are not ruled out. Indeed, Afghanistan is now on life support, with assistance mostly coming from international development institutes, as well as from the United Nations, the European Union, and the United States, i.e. from Western sources and institutes close to the West,” he said. “The Taliban is under international sanctions, not only unilateral US and EU sanctions, but also under UN sanctions. That is why, in formal terms, the Taliban coming to power may mean that these sanctions could be expanded to the entire country, and it will entail serious food problems. Food deliveries from the World Food Program and other international organizations may be at risk.”

According to the expert, statistics from recent years show that annual assistance to Afghanistan amounts to about five billion US dollars, but this sum is not enough to satisfy the needs of the country’s population. “It is believed that a minimal sum needed by Afghanistan to maintain basic social institutions to avoid hunger in certain regions stands at one billion US dollars a month, i.e. 12 billion a year,” Kortunov noted. “Some say that twice as much is needed, taking into account that population growth in Afghanistan is among the world’s highest and life expectancy is among the lowest. And around half of Afghan children under five are undernourished.”

He noted that despite the fact that the issue of further food supplies to Afghanistan is not settled, some countries, for instance, China, continue to help Afghanistan but a consolidated position of the international community is needed to prevent a food and humanitarian crisis. “A common position of the international community is needed and it should be committed to paper in corresponding resolutions of the United Nations Security Council, which should provide for reservations concerning food assistance in any case,” he added.

However, in his words, the key question is who will control the distribution of humanitarian and food assistance inside the country. “There were such precedents when countries and regimes under sanctions were granted reservations and received food assistance. But a logical question arises about who will control the distribution of this assistance. This has always been a stumbling block for programs of assistance to Syria, as the West claimed that if everything is left to Damascus’ discretion, assistance will be distributed in the interests of [President Bashar] Assad and his inner circle rather than in the interests of the Syrian people. It is not ruled out that the same position will be taken in respect of the Taliban,” Kortunov went on to say. “It means that the international community will be ready to provide food assistance but on condition that unimpeded access will be granted to the areas in need and everything will not be handed over to the Taliban who will decide about whom to help.”

After the US announced the end of its operation in Afghanistan and the beginning of its troop withdrawal, the Taliban launched an offensive against Afghan government forces. On August 15, Taliban militants swept into Kabul without encountering any resistance, establishing full control over the country’s capital within a few hours. Afghanistan’s President Ashraf Ghani said he had stepped down to prevent any bloodshed and subsequently fled the country. US troops left Afghanistan on August 31.

From our partner RIAC

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Arts & Culture54 mins ago

Can democracy save the environment?

In 13 short films, each roughly 5 minutes long, Nicolas introduces us to the individuals behind environmental and community-based groups...

Southeast Asia3 hours ago

Vietnam President Visit to US for UNGA Meeting

Following his visit to Cuba, Vietnam president Nguyen Xuan Phuc visited New York to attend 76th meeting of the UN (United Nations) General Assembly and participated in the deliberations...

Finance4 hours ago

5 Valuable Reasons Why You Should Care About Your Instagram Audience Engagement to Succeed

Have you ever wondered about the connection between successful social networking and audience engagement? If you are trying to impact...

Intelligence5 hours ago

The Curious Case of Russian Cyberattacks in India

As the world grapples with the COVID-19 pandemic, the technological shifts have made working remotely a reality for millions of...

Finance5 hours ago

Cryptocurrency Lending vs. Bank Lending

Cryptocurrencies have entered the mainstream, and they are redefining financial transactions. Today, these coins are lent and borrowed. This industry...

Europe7 hours ago

The neoliberal project strikes back: Upcoming regime-change in post-pandemic Bulgaria?

In the last few years, Eastern European politics has hit the headlines around the world rather often. However, commentaries on...

Economy9 hours ago

Future of Mid Size Business Economies & Bureaucracies of the World

The Agrarian age morphed into an industrial age over a millennia, sometime later industrial age advanced to computer age in another...

Trending