Posted on 24-5-2002

War Without End?
by Alan Marston

India and Pakistan moved even closer to open war Thursday with the Indian
Prime Minister touring the Kashmiri front lines and Pakistan reporting
multiple deaths from artillery fire overnight. Twenty-four people are
reported dead after a week of heavy shellfire across the disputed border,
or "line-of-control", running through the predominantly Muslim region of
Kashmir. The current crisis between the subcontinental neighbours began on
May 14 when Islamic separatist gunmen killed 35 Indians near Jammu.

The roots of the dispute, the karmic traces, run deep, stretching back
beyond even the division of British India into mainly Hindu India and
Muslim Pakistan in 1947. Since that time, two wars have been fought between
the neighbours over Kashmir. Like the Balkans, Africa, South America, there
is a complex of festering nationalism amoungst a plethora of
religious/ethnic/racial groupings, not just in the India sub-continent but
also in the whole of Asia. Kashmir is the most obvious sign of trouble, it
is however only that, a sign, not a source. Unless and until the problem of
globalisation homogenisation versus local inequality is made workable or is
moved past, world politics will continue to be dominated by wars of people
seeking political and economic independence and control over their destiny.

After the recent attack, which India indirectly blames on Pakistan, at
least a million soldiers from both sides have been moved to the border.
Several hundred thousand more Indian troops are stationed in states in the
region, and both antagonists have a nuclear capability. It is that nuclear
shadow which galvanises the West into action, otherwise the US, UK and
Europe would probably be happy to let the sides fight it out. As they do
for other localised conflicts, that is, unless there is a possiblity of
manipulating the situation for commercial advantage.

If full-scale conventional erupts between Indian and Pakistan, the outcome
is easily predicted in the short term. In the first couple of days Pakistan
would probably be able to blunt a full-scale Indian attack, but over a week
or so, the scale of Indian forces would overcome Pakistan's defences. The
real question then is would the conventional exchange translate into a
nuclear exchange.

Western politicians and business leaders want to avoid nuclear weapons use,
that is not controllable. Yet there is not much they can do to intervene
between the old enemies. Hence the high profile of this conflict. Pakistan
already feels that it's given a lot of ground in the face of Indian
demands, but India says it's not enough. India is using very much the same
rhetoric, and same line of reasoning in its campaign that the US and
coalition have used in their campaign against terror in Afghanistan, so
it's quite difficult for the Americans to criticise Delhi. There's no goody
and bady here and despite the presence of US troops in Pakistan, and the
support given to Washington by Pakistani President Musharraf, there exists
no formal alliance between the two countries.

Bad scene. Outcome unpredictable. Such is the legacy of the placing of
nuclear weapons on the war-room table. The US and Russia are trying to
reach an oligopoly over nuclear weapons, the latest 3 page agreement is a
big step in that direction - its too late though, nukes are in the hands of
up to 10 other states and an unknown number of stateless military
groupings. The US as Global Policeman isn't going to work.

NOTE: PTV programme in Early June on the state of the (nuclear) world.