Indo-Pakistani Tensions: Causes, Risks, and Potential Solutions

By

Yousef Khalifa Al-Ghufli

American University of Sharjah

Introduction: Since the Partition of India in 1947 into India and Pakistan, the new states have maintained a continuous distrust towards each other. With four Indo-Pakistani wars fought at different fronts in the South Asian region coupled with the exchange of numerous espionage operations across the border, it is understood that both countries shall continue to view the other as an existential threat (Metcalf and Metcalf 2006). However, due to political, social, economic and technological changes the world experienced due to globalization, the contentious relationship between India and Pakistan has escalated to a point that alarms the international community. The purpose of this research is to understand how India and Pakistans positions have changed in both the regional and international sphere since the Partition of India. In addition, the paper aims to identify the implications of a future war between the two states on the current international system and hopes to propose an efficient and lasting conflict resolution between India and Pakistan. For that purpose, a comparative analysis of the first Indo-Pakistani War of 1948 and the fairly recent Kargil War of 1999 shall be conducted using tools associated with Kenneth Waltzs three levels of analysis and Joseph Nyes concept of Structure and Process. In the end, the research proposes that a peaceful conflict resolution between India and Pakistan can be achieved through promoting mutual economic interdependence as well as regional cooperation in security. The Three Levels of Analysis For the purpose of this paper, Kenneth Waltzs Three Levels of Analysis and Joseph Nyes concepts of structure and process shall be used. In his book Man, the State, and War
!"#"$ % & ' " "

(1959), Kenneth Waltz presents the three levels of analysis as a way to analyzing behavior in international relations. The first level, which is the Individual Level of Analysis, is primarily concerned with human nature, which is assumed to be self-interested and the characteristics of individuals. The second level, which is the State Level of Analysis, is primarily concerned with the characteristics of the state and the way it is socially organized from within. The third level, which is the International System Level of Analysis, is considered the most critical of all levels and is primarily concerned with the state of the international system. Due to its importance, in order to analyze the state of the international system, Joseph S. Nye Sr. proposes to look at the Structure of the international system, which he defines as the distribution of power among the units and the system, and the Process of the international system, which he defines as the patterns of interactions among the units system (Nye and Welch 2009). Indo-Pakistani War of 1947: The first major conflict discussed in the paper is the first Indo-Pakistani War of 1947. The Indo-Pakistani War of 1947 was a yearlong war fought between the two newly created states in order to decide who should control the Princely State of Jammu and Kashmir (Ganguly 2001). The war occurred right after the independence of both India and Pakistan from the British Empire on August of that year. The prinicipalities that had formed part of the British Raj had to choose between India or Pakistan. As anticipated, Hindu principalities primarily chose India while Muslim principalities primarily chose Pakistan. However, the Princely State of Jammu and Kashmir that had a Hindu Maharaja ruling over a significant Muslim majority posed a problem. Due to the complex social structure of his domain, the Maharajah Hari Singh preferred independence for Kashmir over the choice of accession to either India or Pakistan. However, a tribal rebellion supported by Pakistans military compelled Singh to appeal to India for
("#"$ % & ' " "

intervention. As a precondition for intervention, Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru required Singh to accede to India. Having no choice, Singh agreed and the first Indo-Pakistani war erupted. Eventually, the war ended with a UN sponsored ceasefire that led to the establishment of the Line of Control that separates Indian-controlled Kashmir and Pakistanicontrolled Kashmir to this day. Individual Level of Analysis In the Individual Level, the causes that led to the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947 was the nationalistic fervor that had been promoted by Nehru and Jinnah as well as Singhs reluctance to accede to either county. As evident in his famous book, The Discovery of India (1994), Nehru was a strong believer in maintaining Indias national unity through the centralization of power and creating a socialist planned economy. As such, this made him a strong opponent of the TwoNation theory that was promoted at the time by the Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah. In his presidential address, Jinnah (1978) strongly believed in Muslim Nationalism and expressed the importance of having a nation for Muslims in the Indian Subcontinent in order to avoid any marginalization under the Hindu majority in a future India. Considering the opposing opinions of its leaders, it would not be surprising if these opinions would translate into state ideology and lock the two states into a circle of continuous suspicion and, eventually, conflict. Unlike most principalities in the British Raj, Maharaja Hari Singh was reluctant to accede to either India or Pakistan for several reasons. In the case of India, Ganguly and Kapur (2010) believe that Singh was reluctant to join the new nation because he feared Nehrus Socialist tendencies would cause the loss of his privileges as well as his substantial holdings. In the case of Pakistan, Singh feared repercussions from the new state due to his dynastys discrimination towards Kashmiri Muslims (Gupta 1969). Instead, Ganguly (2001) indicates that Singh had signed a standstill agreement
)"#"$ % & ' " "

with Pakistan that enabled Kashmir to maintain basic commercial transactions, as Kashmir depended on Pakistan more than India for commercial and other transactions. Singh hoped that such arrangements would keep Kashmir away from both states. State Level of Analysis In the State Level, both India and Pakistan were dominated by a nationalist fervor that is usually the case with a country that had just received its independence from a colonial power such as Britain. Before the end of the British Raj in 1947, the Indian National Congress (INC) that had been founded in 1885 primarily dominated the struggle for an independent India (Metcalf & Metcalf, 2006). With influential leaders such as Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru, the INC heavily focused on the concept of a state based on secularism and inter-sectarian harmony between Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs and other religions. However, as the independence movement increased in popularity throughout India, the INC began to struggle in maintaining Muslim support. Frustration within the Muslim community and the fear of living in a Hindu-majority state led to the formation of the All-India Muslim League in 1906. With prominent leaders such as Allama Muhammad Iqbal and Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the All-India Muslim League believed that Hindu-Muslim harmony was not possible and a sectarian civil war was bound to fall upon both communities. Therefore, the new party believed that it was essential for Muslims to have their own independent state with the name Pakistan. As constant bickering, both parties agreed that Partition along sectarian lines was the only solution. Sadly, mismanagement and lack of coordination between both parties as well as the British administration was what led to bloody outcome of the Partition of India in 1947 in which millions of Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs were either massacred or displaced (Khan 2007). Eventually, the INC formed the first government in India while the new Pakistan Muslim
*"#"$ % & ' " "

League, which removed the All-India prefix to its name, formed the first government in Pakistan. Nevertheless, tensions between the two camps remained even with the partition. When it came to Kashmir, in the view of the INC, the accession of the Maharaja legitimizes their claim over Kashmir as it still remains within the scope of the partition agreement between them and the Muslim League. As for the Muslim Leagues view, Kashmir and its significant Muslim majority had always been destined to be part of Pakistan to the point that Choudhary Rahmat Ali (1933) who firstly coined the term Pakistan indicated that the K in Pakistan essentially referred to Kashmir. International Level of Analysis In order to characterize the international system, Structure and Process of the international system need to be defined. In 1947, Europe was on the path of recovery from the devastation of World War II. Due to the Europes enormous loss of life and infrastructure, the continent was in such a financial ruin that it was unable to rebuild itself, let alone manage their extensive imperial holdings overseas. Instead, the European states had to submit to the two new great powers of the world, the United States of America (USA) and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), who were effective in defeating the axis powers and freeing Europe from their control (O'Brien & Williams, 2010). When attempting to analyze the change in Structure, Europe had lost its traditionally powerful position and a new international system led by the US and the USSR emerged. In other words, the international system changed from a multipolar world, in which several European colonial empires where competing for hegemony, to a bipolar system, in which the conflict over world supremacy became between the USA and the USSR. When attempting to analyze the change in Process, the rigidity of alliances increased as the patterns of interaction in the new international system revolved strictly around by the US and the
+"#"$ % & ' " "

USSR. Seeing as Eastern Europe fell under the expansionist control of the USSR and became communist, Anita Inder Singh (1985) states that Western European states such as Britain viewed the US as a security guarantee. Although Britain faired relatively better than the rest of Europe, it was still financially unable to maintain control over the Indian Subcontinent (Metcalf and Metcalf 2006). Hence, the speedy abolition of the British Raj was needed to rebuild itself enough to become capable of pushing back the Soviet threat. As a result, the violent partition of India occurred and created the new states of India and Pakistan. In short, British mismanagement of the independence process led to the emergence of a Conflict Formation system in South Asia in which patterns of security interdependence became shaped by the fear of war and the expectation of the use of violence in political relations (Nye and Welch 2009). This system became directly translated into the first Indo-Pakistani war. Kargil War of 1999: Unlike the yearlong Indo-Pakistani war of 1947, the Kargil War of 1999 was a relatively short war. It occurred as a result of a Pakistani military incursion into the Kargil district in Indian-controlled Kashmir. Nevertheless, the Kargil War raised more alarms due to India than any previous conflict due to Pakistans new positions in the international system as nuclear powers. Unbeknownst to India, Pakistani regular troops with the support of Kashmiri insurgents entered the mountainous Kargil district in the spring of that year at three different points along the Line of Control (Ganguly, 2001). On May 5, India sent a routine reconnaissance patrol that was never heard from again. The disappearance raised alarms throughout India that led to increased reconnaissance that uncovered the presence of the Pakistani forces in Indian-controlled Kashmir. Such a discovery instigated a high altitude exchange of gunfire in the Himalayan

,"#"$ % & ' " "

ranges of Kashmir between Indian and Pakistani forces that ended with a ceasefire at the instigation of the international community, particularly the US (Talbott, 2004). Individual Level of Analysis In the Individual Level, the reasons behind Kargil include Indian Prime Minister Vajpayees nuclear tests as well as the militarys influence of the government in Pakistan and its hawkish views toward India in Pakistan. In 1998, the right-winged Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) managed to defeat the INC in the Indian general elections of that year for the first time making its leader, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, the next Prime Minister of India. According to Strobe Talbott (2004), once Vajpayee became prime minister, he instantly ordered the resumption of the underground nuclear tests in Pokhran that eventually led to the May 1998 detonation of five nuclear devices. Talbott further indicated that Vajpayee vied the threat from both China and Pakistan as the primary reason behind the underground testing. Nevertheless, Vajpayee had declared a universal moratorium on further nuclear testing in order to appease the United States. Furthermore, Vajpayee made the gesture of travelling by bus from Indian capital New Delhi to Pakistani city of Lahore to inaugurate the only road link between India and Pakistan and partake in a historical meeting the with Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. However, Talbott indicates that Sharif who welcomed the gesture had warned Vajpayee of the objection of his own military towards such a development. Although Sharif was Prime Minister of Pakistan at the time, it is widely believed that any decision concerning the war came primarily from the Pakistani military, especially its Chief of Staff Pervez Musharraf. According to Hassan Abbas (2005), a former Pakistani officer who worked under Musharrafs leadership, only Musharraf and three other generals had knowledge the offensive plan against India, otherwise known as the Kargil plan, and only they ordered for its execution. After Vajpayees visit had taken place, both
-"#"$ % & ' " "

the Indian and Pakistani leadership, including Sharif himself, had no knowledge of in a state of shock. However, with the end of the war and the failure of the plans objective, Abbas contends that the military decided to overthrow Sharif due to his handling of the conflict. As a result, Musharraf was declared the new head of government in Pakistan in 1999. State Level of Analysis In the State Level, India and Pakistan military power expanded as their respective nuclear capacities grew. By the time the war had started, both states had already been identified as the sixth and seventh states known to possess nuclear weapons. In 1974, India detonated its first nuclear device during a nuclear test explosion popularly known as the Smiling Buddha. !umit Ganguly and S. Paul Kapur (2010) believe that Indias nuclear ambitions came as a response to Chinas first nuclear test at Lop Nor in 1964, since China had defeated India earlier during the Sino-Indian War of 1962. However, nuclear activity in the continent had not occurred until the 1990s. As a response to Indias nuclear weapons program and Pakistans defeat in the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971, Pakistan began to have similar nuclear ambitions which culminated in its detonation of six nuclear devices in 1998, otherwise known as the Chagai-I tests. In 1998, the BJP achieved a large victory in the Indian general elections of that year making Vajpayee became the countrys next Prime Minister. Ideologically, the BJP believed in the concept of Hindutva that promotes Hindu Nationalism in India (Swain 2001). This differentiated them greatly from the INC and its staunch secular policies. Concerning Pakistan, the BJP government followed a more hawkish and security-oriented policy than previous Indian governments. Ironically, a year before Indias general elections, Pakistan had its own general elections in 1997 which led to the Pakistan Muslim League (N)s victory over the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP). The PML(N) was one of the many factions that broke away from the original Pakistan Muslim
."#"$ % & ' " "

League of Nehru and Iqbal. The PML(N)s leader Nawaz Sharif who assumed leadership of Pakistan after the 1997 general elections was also a protg of General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq who was famed for his martial law based regime and his Islamic fundamentalism (Cohen 2004). It is interesting to see the simultaneous transition of ideology in both India and Pakistan from the early leadership of Nehru and Jinnah, who both strongly emphasized the importance of secular government for their respective states (Nehru, 1994; Jinnah, 1978), to the right-wing nationalism of the mid-1990s represented by BJPs Hindutva and PML(N)s Political Islam respectively. Unlike Zia, Sharif was viewed as weak by the military establishment. As a result, the military carried out several decisions behind Sharifs back. On May of 1998, India detonated five nuclear devices as part of a nuclear test, its second nuclear test since the Smiling Buddha. The Pakistani leadership felt even more threatening and began to revitalize their defenses to avoid the Indian threat. This compelled the Pakistani military to conduct its own nuclear test through detonating six nuclear devices a few days later (Ganguly and Kapur 2010). Theses tests officially initiated the nuclear race between India and Pakistan. International Level of Analysis As mentioned earlier, the Structure and Process of the international system are essential to tools to analyze the change in the international system. In 1991, the collapse of the USSR meant that the US had become the only true power in the international system. In other words, a new international system emerged that was unipolar and in which power concentrated within the US. As stated by Ganguly (2001), during the previous bipolar phase of the international system, India had maintained strong relations with the USSR while Pakistan became a strong and essential ally to the US. However, with the collapse of the USSR, the Pakistani military had believed that, in the event of a war with India over Kashmir, the US would
/"#"$ % & ' " "

intervene on the side of Pakistan. Therefore, when speaking about Process in the international system, Pakistans military truly believed that it would benefit in the new international system where patterns of interaction will, more or less, become dictated by the US. This can be even more evident in the fact that it was the US that compelled India to extend a peace gesture to Pakistan in the first place. In the end, the patterns of interaction within South Asia can be described as a Security Regime system in which patterns of security interdependence were still shaped by fear of war and expectation of the use of violence in political relations but those fears and expectations remained restrained by an agreed set of rules as well as expectations that those rules will be observed (Nye and Welch 2009). Such a rule had been applied in South Asia, but not in the outcome Pakistan had hoped for. Instead, the US government under President Bill Clinton compelled India and Pakistan to pursue an immediate ceasefire and abide by it (Talbott 2004). Conclusion: Comparative Analysis When comparing the first Indo-Pakistani War of 1947 and the Kargil War of 1999, the changes that occurred at the individual level, the state level, and the international system level should act as indicators to how Indo-Pakistani tensions have escalated and may escalate in the future. In the individual level, leadership in both India and Pakistan has shifted from the secular and leftist ideology of leaders such as Nehru and Jinnah to the more right-wing nationalist and security-oriented ideology of the mid-1990s. In the state level, the right-wing nationalism of Indias BJP and Pakistans PML(N) fueled the ambitions of both states into becoming the sixth and seventh states known to possess nuclear weapons. Finally, in the international level, two

!0"#"$ % & ' " "

things occurred. Structure-wise, the international system changed from a bipolar system with newly independent India and Pakistan that were financially weakened by a bloody partition to a unipolar system with an India and Pakistan that now own nuclear weapons. Process-wise, however, the international system altered the patterns of interaction within South Asia from a Conflict Formation arrangement to a Security Regime arrangement. Such a change in the process of the international system can still be a positive outcome as it can indicate openness to negotiation from both sides. Nevertheless, the nuclear militarization of South Asia coupled with changing ideological trends can translate into a potentially devastating war for the region and the international community. Conflict Management and Resolution To achieve conflict management and resolution for the Indo-Pakistani tensions and avoid any future conflict from happening, I propose government reform that would increase democratization, promote bilateral economic interaction, and a regional organization that would organize the forms of interaction in the region. As mentioned by Russest and Oneal (2001), the famed philosopher Immanuel Kant had argued that world peace can be achieved through three interlinked avenues; democracy, economic interdependence, and intergovernmental organizations. Russet and Oneal further added that these three are extremely interdependent in that neither can achieve their full potential on their own. First, democratic reform is essential for pursuing peace. Although India has remained democratic over the decades, democracy in Pakistan has been strongly weakened due to years of military dictatorships. Moreover, human rights, political corruption and minority rights continue to be major issues in both states that need to be resolved as they have been used to rally public opinion against the other (Metcalf and Metcalf 2006). Second, economic interdependence has also proven to be a good instrument for
!!"#"$ % & ' " "

peace as it is evident in other regional blocs such as the European Union (EU) and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). The potential for mutual benefit from trade is massive for the two neighbors and may contribute greatly to their economic development. Finally, Russet and Oneal mentions that peace through democracy and economic interdependence cannot be achieved without the existence of an established body with an established code of law that would manage the interactions between countries within the region. The closest intergovernmental organization that would achieve that requirement is the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC). SAARC can act as a vehicle for democratic reform and economic cooperation not just for India and Pakistan, but also for other states in the region such as Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan, and the Maldives. However, SAARC remains highly influenced by the domestic leadership of India and Pakistan who continues to view the other with suspicion; therefore, hindering the aims and objectives of the organization. For conflict management and resolution, democracy, economic interdependence, and intergovernmental organizations seem to be the ultimate solution for decreasing the sense of suspicion between the India and Pakistan

!("#"$ % & ' " "

!"#$"%&'()*+,
Abbas, Hassan. 2005. Pakistan's Drift Into Extremism: Allah, the Army, and America's War on Terror. Armonk, New York, USA: M.E. Sharpe. Ali, Choudhary Rahmat. 1933. Now or Never: Are We to Live or Perish Forever? Cambridge, United Kingdom: The Pakistan National Movement. Cohen, Stephen P. 2004. The Idea of Pakistan. Washington DC, USA: The Brookings Institution. Ganguly, !umit. 2001. Conflict Unending: India-Pakistan Tensions since 1947. New York City, NY, USA: Columbia University Press. Ganguly, !umit and S. Paul Kapur. 2010. India, Pakistan, and the Bomb: Debating Nuclear Stability in South Asia. New York City, NY, USA: Columbia University Press. Gupta, Jyoti Bhusan Das. 1969. Jammu and Kashmir. The Hague, Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff. Jinnah, Muhammad Ali. 1978. "Presidential Address by Mr. M. A. Jinnah." In The Communal Award: Evolution of Muslim Political Thought in India (Vol. 4), eds. A. Moin Zaidi. New Delhi, India: S. Chand & Company, 198-213. Khan, Yasmin. 2007. The Great Partition: The Making of India and Pakistan. New Haven, CN, USA: Yale University Press. Metcalf, Barbara D., and Thomas R. Metcalf. 2006. A Concise History of Modern India (2nd ed.). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. Nehru, Jawaharlal. 1994. The Discovery of India. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. Nye, Joesph S., and David A. Welch. 2009. Understanding Global Conflict and Cooperation: An Introduction to Theory and History (8th ed.). Boston, MA, USA: Pearson Longman. O'Brien, Robert, and Marc Williams. 2010. Global Political Economy. Basingstoke, United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan. Russett, Bruce and John Oneal. 2001. International Systems: Vicious Circles and Virtuous Circles. In Triangulating Peace: Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organizations. New York, NY: W. W. Norton, 15-42. Singh, Anita Inder. 1985. "Keeping India in the Commonwealth: British Political and Military Aims, 1947-49." Journal of Contemporary History 20: 469-481. Swain, Pratap Chandra. 2001. Bharatiya Janata Party: Profile and Preformance. New Delhi, India: APH Publishing. Talbott, Strobe. 2004. Engaging India: Diplomacy, Democracy, and the Bomb. Washington DC, USA: The Brookings Institution.

!)"#"$ % & ' " "

Waltz, Kenneth. 1959. Man, the State, and War: A Theoretical Analysis. New York City, NY, USA: Columbia University Press. " "

!*"#"$ % & ' " "