Kashmir conflict
is f mar crat renc whe The 'nuclear deterrent' has India says it had no option but to use air infe not prevented the escalation power to soften up the intruders and cut clai of Indo-Pakistan conflict over off their supply lines. Any delay would have encouraged Pakistan to extend its abo the disputed territory of operations; non-eviction of the The Kashmir. "infiltrators" would have changed the to i Praful Bidwai alignment of the LoC to India's limi disadvantage; the security of the vital Srinagar-Leh road would have been bila Three months after their "historic" threatened; and continued occupation of of r summit for peace and reconciliation at the heights would have led to further "na Lahore, India and Pakistan resumed infiltration. tal shelling and insulting each other across In the absence of full and verifiable wea the Kashmir border. For the first time in information, it seems that after the Indian The 27 years, India has deployed its air force army failed to dislodge the militants, thei in border hostilities. Over 60 Indian perhaps atter sustaining high casualties con soldiers have died in ground operations. (according to the local Kashmiri press), SiOt
Although India says the conflict is the government decided to launch air exti confined to its side of the line of control sup (LoC), as the disputed boundary is These strikes are being carried out by called, Pakistan claims that some bombs helicopter gunships and a range of have fallen on its territory and it regards combat aircraft including MiG-21s and the matter as "very, very serious". MiG-27s, with MiG-29s providing cover.
Both states accuse each other of These strikes add a new element of speed breaking the letter and spirit of both the to the military confrontation and involve Lahore Declaration of February 21 and the risk of aircraft straying across the the Simla Agreement signed after the border, and bombs and rockets missing Bangladesh war of 1971. targets and hitting militarily significant
Both countries claim sovereignty assets in Pakistan. over the divided Jammu and Kashmir The border is undemarcated on the regions. Both are insecure about each ground. This increases the chances of other's military capacities and intentions, retaliation and strategic misperception. and foreign policy-making Strategic miscalculation has been a M
This confrontation began when the constant factor in India-Pakistan rivalry. Indian army detected the presence of In 1965, Pakistani General Ayub Khan SI armed "infiltrators" on the Indian side of thought that merely parachuting troops the LoC. Pakistan says the men are into Kashmir would trigger a popular b Kashmiri mujaheedin (guerrillas), rebellion against India. This started a St fighting for independence of India's only bitter war which Pakistan did not win. Muslim-majority state. In 1986-87 and again in 1990, Indian d
Such cross-border forays have been military exercises convinced Pakistani routine for years, especially after the generals that attack was imminent. In winter snows melt. More than 350 1990 the Pakistan government lined up exchanges of heavy artillery fire were trucks at the Kahuta uranium enrichment reported in the six months both countries plant. demonstrating its willingness to exploded nuclear tests in May 1998. escalate the confrontation to the nuclear CI
What is new about the present case is level. the relatively large number of guerrillas The present stand-off raises three crossing the border (unofficially estima- serious questions: Was the Pakistan army a ted in India at 1,000 to 1,500) and their or its Inter Services Intelligence agency success in penetrating 7km into Indian- really involved in the "infiltration"? If so, controlled Kashmir. The guerrillas have did it act independently or with the established relatively well-equipped civilian administration's concurrence? n camps over an area reportedly as large as Why did all the mutual-consultation and 15km'. Apparently, the Indian army's confidence-building measures agreed by th routine operations failed to dislodge the the two states fail to avoid conflict? And militants. what determined the timing of the Indian
Army sources say this is the first time air strikes? in 50 years that Kashmiri guerrillas have If the Pakistani army was involved established permanent control over that would cast doubts both over the Indian-controlled territory near the viability of limited "good faith" agree- 2 border. ments such as those reached at Lahore
Indian home minister L.K. Advani and the ability of the Nawaz Sharif claims that the infiltrators included Paki- government to prevail over the army m stani "army regulars and mercenaries." which is considered all-powerful and the
final arbiter of political decisions in Pakistan.
If, on the other hand, the Indian claim is false, then that would put a questionmark over the transparency that "democratic India" professes. Such transparency has always been low in Kashmir where the public has limited access to information and cannot verify official claims.
The Lahore accords are not really about serious arms restraint and control. They are a declaration of good intentions to improve relations and introduce a limited form of transparency.
India and Pakistan did not agree to bilateral measures to reduce the danger of nuclear war, but only to (unspecified) "national measures" to reduce "accidental or unauthorised use of nuclear weapons under their respective control." They agreed "to continue to abide by their respective unilateral moratorium on conducting further nuclear test explosions-unless either side... decides that extraordinary events have jeopardised its supreme interests."
Pakistan
The timing of the Indian decision to deploy air power reflects the temptation of the Vajpayee "caretaker" government (which has lost Parliament's confidence) to outmanoeuvre its domestic political opponents.
The ruling coalition is in deep trouble and its principal opponent, the Congress, is on the upswing with the return of Sonia Gandhi as president. (She had earlier resigned as party leader after opponents said her "foreign origins" disqualified her from leading the country.
Congress and other opposition parties have criticised the government handling of the conflict, and refused nationalistic demands for unconditional "national
In Pakistan, the Sharif government has brutally cracked down on critical journalists and public-spirited NGOs and women's groups as it desperately seeks a fig leaf of legitimacy through Islam to cover up corruption and misgovernance.
But most of all, the current conflict exposes the false claim that nuclearisation could introduce stability or maturity
БлігО * in India- Pakistan relations, or reduce the danger of a conventional conflict. In reality, nuclearisation has created more insecurity. * © Inter Press Service. The author is a well-known left wing journalist on the Times of India and Frontline magazine and has co-authored with Achin Vanaik a series of studies and tracts against nuclearisation.
### NUCLERM
FREE AIRLOTT
Indian author Arundhati Roy ok nuc ear protests after the May I to Tariq "May 28 is being observed
"Bread not bombs!" Only the radical left has dared oppose the India-Pakistan war in Kashmir, and the arms race between the two countries. Mohammed Farooq Skirmishes with India along the cease-fire line in Kashmir are a blessing for Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. The Pakistan Muslim League [PML] government is trying desperately to rekindle the nationalist fervour that followed tit-for-tat nuclear tests by India and Pakistan twelve months ago. War is a welcome distraction from the multiple economic and political crises that surround the government.
The state-run electronic media and a large section of the press blinded by years of anti-India indoctrination lend the government a helping hand in glorifying the nuclear adventure.