Round The
World
New Delhi, 18 January 2018
Undeclared War
TACKLING PAK’S N-BOGEY
By Dr. D.K. Giri
(Prof. International Politics, JMI)
Two days ago, in
retaliation to unprovoked firing in Uri, from across LoC by Pakistan, Indian
army is said to have killed seven Pakistani soldiers including an army major,
and five terrorists. On the Indian side one soldier lost his life. This is a
routine affair. Ceasefire is broken with regular intervals. It is a situation
of an ‘undeclared war’ between India and Pakistan.
Perhaps, in exasperation
and in order to deliver a stern warning, Indian Army chief, General Bipin Rawat
had said last week, “India will call Pakistan’s nuclear bluff, and give a
befitting reply to Pakistan’s continued aggression on the border.” The General’s
tough message elicited predictable response from Islamabad; its foreign
minister said, rather childishly that their “nuclear threat is real...the
General’s doubt would swiftly be removed.”
Incredibly, Islamabad
continues to brandish their nuclear options, whereas nuclear confrontation
anywhere is a catastrophe for the whole world. That is why no nuclear weapon
has been used since August 6 and 9, 1945 when United States detonated two
nuclear weapons over the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Since then,
although there has been stockpiling of nuclear arsenals, and threats of using
these, the latest being those from Kim Jong-Un the North Korean President, none
has been used.
So Islamabad
threatening to use nuclear weapons against India is technically ridiculous but
politically possible. Given the unstable, volatile politics in Pakistan which
is largely controlled by the Army and propelled by terrorist outfits, Islamabad
is capable of taking any irresponsible and suicidal step.
Arguably, a war with
Pakistan, undeclared which is underway, limited or a full blown is not an
impossibility, but precluding a nuclear confrontation should be both a burden
as well as pre-condition for such a war. Preventing a nuclear war from breaking
out at any rate between India and Pakistan should engage New Delhi, its friends
and allies and Pakistan’s patron like China. The real risk for not only India
and Pakistan but the entire world is the possibility of nuclearisation of the
conflict between these two nuclear nations.
Let us first assess
the probability of nuclear war between the two countries, and then, discuss the
possible strategies to eliminate such a scenario. Many South Asian experts
anticipate “western nuclear sky falling” over South Asia. But the Atlantic Council,
a prestigious think-tank in Washington rules out the possibility of a nuclear
war. The reasons they forward for such a hypothesis are; one, India, Pakistan
and China are committed to “an open economic order and multilateral
institutionalism”, although they may be caught in a complex rivalry.
Two, the control over
the trigger on nuclear weapons is in the hands of civilian leadership in both
Pakistan and India, with a minor role of the army. This may not be entirely
true in case of Pakistan. The think-tank further argues that three factors –
structural, normative and institutional may deter New Delhi and Islamabad to go
for the nuclear option in a war.
The same study based
on seminars in New Delhi and Islamabad suggests that the real danger is not the
existence of the nuclear arsenals, but the weakness and fragility of the
institutions controlling these. This is obviously a contradiction of its own
assumption. Pakistan and India are not developing nuclear warheads, Pakistan
has developed tactical nuclear options, but has not operationalised these, further
argues the study.
Evidently, Islamabad
and India both have the first-strike options. Islamabad is planning to use
nuclear option to back-up the army and make-up for the loss in a conventional
war with India. So it is anybody’s call if Pakistan will use nuclear weapons at
all, and if India will retaliate in nuclear terms, although India has the
technology to intercept the missiles coming from Pakistan. A nuclear war
between India and Pakistan cannot be ruled out altogether purely because of the
volatility of Pakistani leadership. The terrorist infested country has no
definite central authority.
The speculative
debate on a nuclear war between India and Pakistan is not only technical or scientific,
it should be political and diplomatic as well. As it is said, “war is science,
but prevention of war, in this case a nuclear war, is an art of diplomacy.” The
victory for India over a nuclear war with Pakistan lies in its diplomatic and
political capacity to prevent its occurrence.
Some Indian
politicians claim that India could defeat Pakistan even in a nuclear war. That
claim is plainly frivolous and irresponsible. There are no winners in a nuclear
war, only losers. A short film the “Day
After” first aired in 1983 graphically depicts the horrendous consequence
of a nuclear war, wiping out life of any kind on the planet for generations to
come. So any thought of nuclear option is madness and suicidal.
The accidents in
nuclear reactors, small leaks in Chernobyl and Fukushima have caused
incalculable harm to humans and the ecology. Countries with nuclear energy are
rattled over these accidents and are abandoning the nuclear option. Germany has
already decommissioned 21 of its nuclear plants and has switched over to
renewables to meet its energy needs. Other European countries link France and
Sweden are using nuclear energy for generating electricity etc.
Peaceful use of
nuclear energy is an option for energy/deficit countries like India and
Pakistan. They can do so with utmost care. Any negligence or oversight can
cause havoc. Clearly, the Indian
General’s allusion to nuclear threat was to desist Pakistan from continuing
warfare against India under a nuclear threat, which will deter India from
escalating the cross-border firings into a full-scale war. Islamabad was as
usual churlish and careless to call it an invitation to nuclear war.
Finally, how does New
Delhi prevent Islamabad from pressing the nuclear button? It could continue to
dialogue with Pakistani stakeholders on converting nuclear energy into peaceful
use. Second, New Delhi should work with USA, Russia and China to delink Pakistani
army from the nuclear option. In view of the terrorist presence and prevalence
in Pakistani politics, the use of nuclear option should be taken away from
Pakistan and based in a joint international control.
Further, aid and
partnership with Pakistan should be conditional to its nuclear weaponry.
Terrorists are trained and indoctrinated to use suicide squads, and human-bombs,
so, if they have any access to the nuclear button, they would not hesitate for
seconds to use it. Since a nuclear break-out between India and China could not
be localised, the impact will be felt by the rest of the world, the big powers
dealing with and patronising Pakistan would work on it. New Delhi should make
all efforts to drive home this point.
The internecine
conflict between India and Pakistan over Kashmir has to end. We have been
pleading and advocating a permanent solution to the problem in this column. In
the meantime, in military terms, India will have to maintain its decisive edge
over Pakistan and thwart all of its efforts in destabilising Kashmir. In
diplomatic terms, New Delhi will have to immobilise the Pakistani nuclear
arsenal both structurally and institutionally. No doubt this will be the
toughest test for Indian political leadership. Are they up to it? They better
be.---INFA
(Copyright, India
News & Feature Alliance)
|