AT PENPOINT
Though the latest Indo-Pak war scare is not over, with forces still at the border in an eyeball-to-eyeball confrontation, it has apparently passed its peak, and the intervention of the great powers has made the two countries refrain from attacking each other.
Pakistan showed its strength at the Pakistan Day parade, when it not only showed its military might, but also had several other countries join in with their forces. However, even though he was chief guest at the parade, Malaysian PM Mahathir Muhammad’s statement that his country would not take sides in a Pak-India conflict indicated that attendance did not mean support for Pakistan. Thus, all the foreign commandos who took part in the skydiving display ending the parade did not represent a commitment by their countries of any support for Pakistan in a conflict with India.
It cannot be ignored that none of the countries invited, with the possible exception of China, have conducted the sort of ‘military conversations’ with Pakistan that are necessary for real support in time of war. Indeed, except China and Turkey, none have forces that can make more than a token presence in a conventional conflict, and even they do not have the transport capacity for more than a symbolic presence. China and Sri Lanka are the only ones with a border with India.
The peace has been kept by the intervention of outside powers, like the USA, Russia, China and Saudi Arabia. This is not a very good method of keeping the peace. It is a little like the war plan that Pakistan had, which had the armed forces fighting off India until outside powers intervened. 1971 showed how things could go awfully wrong with this approach, because that showed how it was up to India to convince the world powers of its goals, and then to achieve them. Nuclearisation may have meant that world powers would work to prevent a war that would bring them a share of destruction, but is no substitute for policy.
Indo-Pak relations have disturbing resemblances with Europe before World War I, where the actual conflict was preceded by a series of crises in the six years before. As a matter of fact, the third Balkan crisis, caused by the assassination of the heir presumptive to the Austrian throne, the Archduke Ferdinand, led to the war. One very important reason was the alliance system. If one country went to war, its allies also did. Another important factor was that the mobilisation plan of each country had to be started earlier than the opponent’s, and once started could not be stopped. There was also the problem that the German mobilisation against France involved violating Belgian neutrality, which was underwritten by Britain. Thus a war plan directed against France involved bringing in Britain as an opponent, even though Britain would have preferred to remain neutral.
It should be remembered that the breakdown of the peace meant that the crises’ participants would go to war. Those keeping the peace between India and Pakistan will not go to war. True, they will suffer the fallout from the war, in the shape of nuclear winter. Indeed, that fear has got them keeping the peace.
One idea, if it ever emerges, will make an Indo-Pak clash more likely: that a nuclear war can be won
The Indian allegations that Pakistan supports jihadi groups in Kashmir finds an echo in pre-War Europe. The Balkans was the arena for competition between Serbia and Austro-Hungary. Serbia felt it was backed by Russia, which was allied to France. Serbian military intelligence was involved in backing South Slav groups, which were working on getting territory out of Hungary and into Serbia. This included Bosnia, which had been taken from the Osmanlis and placed under Austrian rule in 1878 at the famous Berlin Congress, and formally annexed by it in 1908. One of the groups Austrian intelligence backed were Croatia separatists, one of whom, Gavrilo Princip, assassinated the Archduke. This was an act meant to convince Austro-Hungary to give Croatia to Serbia, which was developing into the Yugoslav kingdom.
Austro-Hungary was backed by Germany as it tried to extract revenge from Serbia. Russia was backing Serbia, so Austria had to move its forces against Russia. In support, Germany also mobilised against Russia, and also against France. Britain tried to stay out, but couldn’t.
Another factor is that of an arms race. Before 1914, the European powers armed against each other with vigour. Of particular note was a naval arms race between Britain and Germany. Pakistan and India have of late engaged in a nuclear arms race. However, their arms race lacks in intensity, perhaps because neither country has a powerful enough economy to afford the level of military spending needed.
However, one factor in common with pre-War Europe is all-round militarism. This was reflected in a reverence for the uniform, and in Germany for the military’s refusal to be controlled by the civil arm. The essentially political decision to bring Britain in a war on France’s side (by violating Belgian neutrality) was made on purely military grounds, by its military planners. There is one big difference: most European armies depended on conscription for their manpower. Like the British Army of that era, the Pakistani and Indian armies are all-volunteer.
While there are no alliance systems, there are important allies. 1965 and 1971 were battles in the USA-USSR Cold War, with the USA offering Pakistan lukewarm support, the USSR helping India, and both trying to bring about peace once war started. Now, Pakistan is friendly with China, and India with the USA. At the same time, Sino-US relations are increasingly unstable, because of the rivalry between them over global leadership and trade, manifested in the South China Sea. So far, both powers seem committed to Indo-Pak peace, but might prefer them to clash rather than going head-to-head. It is not known to what extent the 1965 and 1971 Wars occurred because the USA and USSR did not wish a direct clash.
One idea, if it ever emerges, will make an Indo-Pak clash more likely: that a nuclear war can be won. In 1914, all powers went to war believing they could win. None foresaw defeat, and not even the eventual winners foresaw the horrors of trench warfare, and the stalemate it meant. The Cold War never turned hot because of the Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) in place. India and Pakistan have a MAD in place. It keeps the peace. But how long can it be relied on?
