THE RISKS OF INDIAN-PAKISTAN CONFICT AND ITS INFLUENCE TO CENTRAL ASIA
Otegulov Oralbek J.
Master student of L.N.Gumilyov
Eurasian National University, Astana, Kazakhstan
E-mail: JohnFKennedy@mail.ru
Scientific supervisor: Bibigul B. Byulegenova
Аңдатпа. Бұл мақалада 1947 – жылдан бері жалғасып келе жатырған Үндістан мен Пәкістан арасындағы қарулы қақтығыстар мен екі елдің әскери күш-қуатына талдау жасалады. Бұл көршілес екі мемлекет Тәуелсіздік алған уақыттан бері Кашмир аймағын бөлісе алмай келеді. Осы уақытқа дейін бір-бірімен 3 рет соғысқан екі мемлекет те ядролық қаруға ие. Кезекті бір әскери қақтығыс кезінде екі ел бір-біріне қарсы ядролық қаруларын қолданатын болса, мұның арты үлкен саяси, әлеуметтік, экономикалық және экологиялық апатқа алып келеді. Мұндай апаттың зардабы аймақтағы көршілес елдерге ғана емес, Орталық Азиядағы елдер, оның ішінде Қазақстанға да үлкен әсерін тигізеді. Сондықтан да, Қазақстан екі ел арасындағы Кашмир дауын шешуге бірнеше рет талпынғанымен әзірге ешқандай нәтиже шықпай келеді.
Кілт сөздер: Үндістан, Пәкістан, Кашмир дауы, ядролық қару, қауіпсіздік, қарулы қақтығыстар
Of the numerous areas of global tension, arguably the most perilous is that between India and Pakistan. And recent events in Kashmir have made the situation even more dangerous. The reason is straightforward: India and Pakistan are in a long-running and incendiary dispute, they are both nuclear powers, and crossing a confrontational threshold could ignite a nuclear war between them. Indeed, arms control investigators have long identified the subcontinent as one of the world’s likeliest nuclear flashpoints. India and Pakistan share a long and complicated history, and they have been in conflict over the disputed territory of Kashmir since 1947. The Himalayan region is one of the most militarized regions on Earth – former US President Bill Clinton has called Kashmir “the most dangerous place in the world” [1].
Under the partition plan provided by the Indian Independence Act of 1947, Kashmir with its Muslim majority was free to accede to either India or Pakistan. But the local ruler, Hari Singh, decided against giving the population a choice, leaving the region in a geopolitical limbo and with a disputed border. A two-year war erupted between India and Pakistan in 1947 and another broke out in 1965. In 1999, the Kargil crisis, when the two countries again came to blows, may have been the closest the world has come to nuclear war since the end of World War II.
Diplomatic interventions have previously helped to defuse the military tensions, but an enduring peace has remained elusive. Both sides have dug in along the disputed border and military skirmishes are commonplace.
It has long been argued in international security circles that having nuclear weapons deters countries from using them in warfare. Indeed, in the post-World War II era, no state has used them – despite there still being around 15,000 nuclear weapons in the world. But horizontal nuclear proliferation has made the world a dangerous place; the more countries that have them, the more likely they are to be used at some stage.And while the presence of nuclear weapons may forestall a nuclear exchange, they don’t discourage nuclear states from using conventional military power against one another. And, as conventional conflicts can quickly escalate, the possibility of a nuclear exchange remains a real, if remote, possibility.
So what are the chances of India and Pakistan (which both have between 130 and 150 warheads) engaging in a nuclear war? The most recent escalation is just another example of the ongoing tensions between these nuclear neighbours. It was triggered by a Kashmiri militant suicide bombing of an Indian paramilitary convoy in mid-February. In that attack, more than 40 people were killed, mostly Indian military personnel – and Jaish-e-Mohammed, an Islamist terrorist group situated in Pakistan, claimed responsibility for the attack.
Indian Prime Minister NarendraModi, currently caught up in election fever, warned of a
“crushing response”, and launched air strikes on targets in the Pakistan-controlled Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province. It was not long before both sides were exchanging artillery fire across the line of control and the conflict quickly escalated.
Meanwhile, in a national televised speech, Pakistan’s prime minister, Imran Khan, stated that any further escalation between the nations would be beyond the leaders’ control, warning: “With the weapons you have and the weapons we have, can we afford miscalculation? Shouldn’t we think that if this escalates, what will it lead to?” The ball is now in India’s court. Modi has the choice of escalating the conflict by deploying more jets into Pakistani territory, which could lead to a flurry of “tit-for-tat” retaliations. So what could be next?
Since 1974, when India stunned the world with its unexpected atomic trial of the “Smiling Buddha” weapon [2], South Asia has been viewed as a global nuclear problem. Nevertheless, to date, India, like China, has maintained a “No First Use” doctrine. This advocates that India will only use its nuclear weapons in response to a nuclear attack. The policy was proclaimed in 1999, a year after Pakistan effectively exploded five of its own nuclear weapons. But Pakistan has so far refused to issue any clear doctrine governing its own use of nuclear weapons [3].India is estimated to have an arsenal of 130-140 nuclear weapons, according to a report by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) in 2018.In 1967, India started its nuclear weapon programme. The country tested its first nuclear weapon in 1974, setting of an arms race with Pakistan.India’s nuclear weapons are believed to be plutonium-based. As of 2015, its weapon-grade plutonium stockpile is estimated to be between 570 and 600 kilograms.India has plans to build six fast breeder reactors, which will significantly increase its capacity to produce more weapons-grade plutonium.India’s nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine, INS Arihant, became operational last year, giving the country a nuclear triad — the ability to launch nuclear weapons by land, air and sea.India is building long-range ballistic missiles that are able to strike targets across China, another of India’s regional adversaries.India has a ‘no first use’ policy, meaning it has pledged not to strike first. Its strategy is to make retaliatory strikes so strong that any combatant would be unable to strike back.
The combined arsenals of Pakistan and India are small compared to those of the US, Russia or China. Nevertheless, they are more powerful than those dropped on Japan in 1945 and could unleash staggering destruction if deployed on civilian targets. Indeed, even a constrained exchange of warheads between the two nations would, in a split second, be among the most calamitous ever, notwithstanding the risk of the radioactive aftermath and the long-term impact on the environment.
India’s nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine, INS Arihant, became operational in 2018, giving the country a “nuclear triad” – the ability to launch nuclear strikes by land, air and sea. Its other ground-based ballistic missile, the Agni III, has a range of approximately 3,000km [4]. While Pakistan has a slightly larger nuclear arsenal – estimated to be 140-150 warheads in 2017 – it is less capable of delivering them to targets. Although Pakistan is developing new ballistic missiles, its current ballistic missile range is 2,000km and the country has no nuclear-armed submarines. Either way, it currently would take less than four minutes for a nuclear missile launched from Pakistan to reach India, and vice versa.
The worst case scenario is that, either through mishap or error, what began with a terrorist attack grows into a nuclear exchange aimed at one another’s civilian populations. Technological advances might also exacerbate the already incendiary situation. India’s arsenal now includes the BrahMos, a cruise missile developed jointly with Russia, which can be fired from land, sea or air and used as a counterforce weapon. Counterforce doctrine, in nuclear strategy, means the targeting of an opponent’s military infrastructure with a nuclear strike.
Discontent in the Kashmir valley could also intensify and lead to further crises. No Indian government has thus far shown the political will to solve the Kashmir crisis, to demilitarize it, or to apply the diplomatic deftness needed to negotiate a solution with Pakistan. Nor has Modi been able to control and prevent hardline Hindus from forming vigilante squads in the region and threatening and killing those they think are defiling their religious convictions. And so, on a day-to-day basis, ordinary people continue to suffer [5].
According to military analytics website Global Firepower, India has the fourth most powerful military in the world, with an annual defense spending of $51 billion. Pakistan, which is currently ranked 13 in the world in terms of military strength, has a defense budget of only $7 billion per year.
Here’s a comprehensive analysis of the military power of both India and Pakistan:
In the past, during episodes of global tension, the US has taken the lead in crisis management. But it seems unlikely that Islamabad or New Delhi would now turn to the Trump administration for assistance in deescalating the conflict. Indeed, leaders from both countries must also consider the reaction of Asia’s third nuclear power, China, which has always been the primary focus of India’s nuclear program.
Kazakhstan has tried to solve Kashmir problems between India and Pakistan. Kazakhstan is concerned about the military-political situation between India and Pakistan.Kazakhstan believes that an open and constructive political and diplomatic dialogue between the two countries is the only effective and acceptable way out of the current crisis. Kazakhstan calls on the parties for maximum restraint and compliance with the norms of international law, in order to prevent further escalation of the situation based primarily on the fundamental interests of regional and global security [6].
For now, India and Pakistan are showing some vital restraint. But they must also work towards a long-term fix. The last thing either government, or the world, needs is a mushroom cloud.
Reference
1. Independent. ‘The world’s most dangerous place’ is already at war.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/the-worlds-most-dangerous-place-is-already-atwar-282458.html 2. India Today. “Pokhran I: India’s first nuclear bomb test was carried out underground and code named ‘Smiling Buddha’”. https://www.indiatoday.in/education-today/gk-currentaffairs/story/pokharan-i-first-nuclear-atomic-bomb-test-of-india-324141-2016-05-18
3. Aljazeera.“Pakistan reaffirms commitment to nuclear deterrence”.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/12/pakistan-reaffirms-commitment-nuclear-deterrence171222075832470.html 4. “Nuclear war between India and Pakistan? An expert assesses the risk”.
https://theconversation.com/nuclear-war-between-india-and-pakistan-an-expert-assesses-the-risk112892
5. Telegraph. “A brief history of the Kashmir conflict”.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1399992/A-brief-history-of-the-Kashmir-conflict.html
6. Statement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Kazakhstan on the exacerbation of the military-political situation between India and Pakistan. http://mfa.gov.kz/en/contentview/zaavlenie-mid-rk-v-svazi-s-obostreniem-voenno-politiceskoj-situacii-mezdu-indiej-ipakistanom