Causes of India – Conflict
Characteristics of South Asian Region
1.
Indo-centric
a.
Civilization link
b.
History
c.
India as the main power in the region
d.
Conflict and cooperation is usually between India and another state.
2.
Asymmetric and hierarchical power structure
a.
India on top
b.
But there is some element some bipolarity, especially with joining with China
Brief History
Kashmir
a)
Lord Mountbatten decreed that the princely states could join either Pakistan or India based on the 2 Nation Principal which was the belief that India should be divided into states (based on religion and was the principal that created Pakistan) Independence was ruled out
b)
c)
2 main ideas were Geography or ethnicity
d)
E.g. Muslim areas joined , to a large extent
e)
Kashmir and Jammu, had a problem because while largely Muslim, Maharaja Hari Singh was Hindu.
f)
Tribal outbreaks – in Oct 47
g)
Pakistan sent in troops dressed as tribesmen
h)
Soon joined by real troops,
i)
The Maharaja asked Nehru for help
a.
Would only help if Sheikh Mohammed Abdullah gave permission, leader of secular groups
b.
And that Maharaja would cede Kashmir to India
j)
Successful but still had to give 1/3 to Pakistan. So in effect Jammu and Kashmir was partitioned between India and Pakistan with 2/3 given to India (known as Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir) and 1/3 given to Pakistan (known in Pakistan as Azad (Free) Kashmir)
k)
1 Jan 48, UN was called in to mediate between the 2 sides
l)
Pakistan wanted to conduct a plebiscite, but India wanted them out of the region first.
m)
UN continued to find middle ground, but by 1960 they had lost interest. Especially since any UN Resolution would be non-binding.
n)
Numerous other war, especially the ones in 1965 and 1971.
It can be claimed that was P victor in 1st – received one third of Kashmir.
Second – stalemate, as Indian gains were traded away in Tashkent (the treaty)
1
In the Third - Indira Gandhi, felt it was cheaper to go to war than absorb refugees from Bangladesh.
Kashmir’s accession to India and Pakistan not accepting this and seeing Kashmir as unfinished business
Kashmir as key issue between India and Pakistan
“crystallizes the fear, mistrust and the bigotry that darken the subcontinent and provides a vehicle for enlarging them with modern political complications.”
Kashmir – acceded to INDIA 26 Oct 1947
Due to the 1st Kashmir War, Kashmir acceded to India for protection.
In 1940s All India Muslim League, led by Mohammed Ali Jinnah, visited Kashmir and actually preferred it independent
Did not accept that “it belonged to Pakistan”
The British at the time were recorded saying that Kashmir people were not enthusiastic about joining it
Pakistani representative Liaquat Ali Khan, however, in a broadcast said, “We do not recognize this accession. This accession is a fraud, perpetrated on the people by a cowardly ruler.”
India - 3 factors on its stand
1.
India had always been keen on the accession
a.
Nehru – ultimately the fate of Kashmir is tied up to India.
b.
Wanted to assist it in anyway
c.
Sheikh Abdullah in Kashmir was threatened by League
i.
Pakistan actions made him scared
Nehru was upset with Abdullah – seemed anti Indian
Abdullah preferred independence to accession
But many believed that Nehru wanted a plebiscite, but he was sure they would lose
Nehru also was convinced that with it going to UN for help the need for a plebiscite would not be needed
Ethnic Differences
1. Ethnic/Communal problems
-
Pluralism is being threatened at the bottom rungs
-
Examples:
o
Punjab
In India, the Sikhs like many other minorities feel under represented
Feel they have been denied a Punjab speaking state.
Wanted Punjabi recognized
o
Kashmir
2
Many Kashmiris would prefer to be under neither India or , even though they are Muslim
Kashmir is traditionally moderate Islam but more militant fundamentalism has come in more recent times
3 Problems for Kashmir’s continued problems:
•
2 competing religious nationalisms. One claiming it, one suspicious of it
•
Corrupt and inefficient government like Abdullah Farooq (1987-Jan 1990)
•
Centralizing tendencies of India
One of the reasons for accession into India was to fight Hindu nationalism. Secularists like Nehru needed Kashmir and Sheikh Abdullah’s support.
But even with the Sheikh, there was a paradox, he wanted remaining in India and secularism but also spoke of independence
2 main militant groups
•
Jammu and Kashmir Lib Front (JKLF) and Hizb-ul Mujahideen
Many especially young Kashmir feel discriminated against by India and follow these militant groups.
These youth believe in the concept of “heroic terrorism”
Muslims in India feel persecuted
Affected relations with neighbouring states
Fears that the secular system would fail.
Middle East states also condemned. Countries like Afghanistan would support Pakistan.
2. Religious Differences
Hinduism and Islam are very incompatible. Islam is the youngest, simplest and most explicit. One God, Muhammad as the messenger and Quran as the message.
Hinduism however is rooted in the past. And does not have a prescribed dogma or scripture.
Many Muslims saw the Indian Congress as wrong because there was patronage and the wealthy dominated.
Accusations of the Congress being “machine politicians” – that is part of the Greater majority which was essentially Hindu.
Also felt threatened by Hindu communal sentiment.
Today, India has 120 million Muslims, even more than in Pakistan while Pakistan, on formation actually drove away all non-Muslims.
Kashmir includes a population that has around 77% Muslim, 20% Hindu and 3% other minorities.
3
Refugee problems of Pakistan.
-
Afghans in Pakistan
-
The Pakistan minority in Bangladesh who want repatriation to their homeland.
-
This will come to a bigger crisis in the second Kashmir War
India
-
Ethnic question is vital (as is religion)
-
Separation was contingent on the fact that the Muslims believed that they should get their own state. (2 Nation Principal)
-
But the raison d’etre of (a Muslim state that was viable) was eroded by West Pakistan and East Pakistan splitting up, leading to India to help form Bangladesh
-
Led to problems over Punjabi – Sikhs fighting for autonomy and some wanted an independent Punjab state.
-
So in effect, India faced huge socio-religious domestic issues which emphasized why Kashmir’s situation was the key issue.
-
In addition, there were problems of Terrorism.
-
India was/is convinced that Pakistan is aiding and training them
-
Gun running through Pakistan but Pakistan’s government claim that its not within their control
-
Kashmir
o
Both countries control parts of it
o
Tremendous symbol to nation building
-
Both India and Pakistan see the issue in terms of ethnicity.
o
But India would like secular politics but wants religion to play the main political structure.
Ideological Differences
India is secular versus Pakistan being theocratic
Idea of “troublesome irredenta”
Failure of post-colonial arrangements –
There is a model – There is an irredentist state, anti-irredentist neighbour and a shared ethnic grouping.
Between India & Pakistan – can be traced back to days before the division of the subcontinent. Muslims always believed that they would have a strong independent state. All these were not resolved by the time they were granted independent (15 Aug 1947.)
India wanted a Secular Congress while Pakistan wanted the Muslim League.
Kashmir needed to be incorporated to complete Pakistan – because Islam is the unity to ensure the “completeness” of Pakistan.
For India, it needed Kashmir to show the dominance of secularism to show that Muslims could live in the system. If Kashmir was given up it would show that this belief was merely cosmetic.
4
India was fiercely determined in its belief that secular politics was the only way that the state and region could survive.
Believed in democracy
Pakistan wanted a religious state. As such both sides therefore became embroiled in a political struggle that meant that they existed on opposite ends of the spectrum.
Pakistan suffered a blow in its attractiveness, when Bangladesh separated, showing that if it could not get its own people to subscribe to its politics, what hope for others.
Pakistan wanting to bleed India
-
They are fearful of the regional situation. In early 1990s Pakistan spent 40% of GDP on defense, and India 3-4%.
-
They also are not willing to use nukes
-
So the best way is to keep India occupied in low intensity conflicts in Punjab and Kashmir.
-
Keep them fighting to reduce morale of Indian troops
-
Drug smuggling will loosen their resolve
-
India made the mistake of not doing enough in the early years when weapons etc were pouring into Kashmir valley.
-
In early 1990s, 5 rounds of talks between the 2 sides
-
E.g. New Delhi 1991, 18 August
-
India tried to get Pakistan to stop all aid to militants and secessionists in Kashmir and Punjab
-
The Foreign Minister of Pakistan – Shaharya Khan believed however, goodwill was undermined by Nawaz Sharif’s interview in Newsweek on the threat of War over Kashmir.
-
Led to outrage in India.
Military Rivalry
India believes Pakistan is behind state sponsored terrorism.
Hard to prove but it does seem clear that Pakistan does help the militants
If something is not done Indian will continue to bleed in Kashmir.
An example was the conflict over Siachen.
War between the 2 sides
A decisive total war has never been fought
Neither has the ability.
India has 1.7x troops – not enough for decisive victory, and gap is getting smaller.
Perceptions about military strength – India has more troops but they fear Pakistan is qualitatively better.
5
Siachen
-
Conflict since 1948
-
Not a declared war
-
Siachen Glacier is inhospitable.
-
76km in length, 2 to 8km in with, routinely dropping to below 40 degrees
-
Indian troops 12k feet above sea level
-
Indian exercise Brass-tacks 1986 involved 13 Divisions, 1.6m troops, for deep penetrations into Indus River line. This would cut it into 2.
-
Pakistani army moved troops to north, threatening Amritsar, Gurdaspur and Pathankot.
-
Mid level war
- Rare example of when Indian troops moved first.
- Usually conflicts are started by Pakistan
- By putting troops in high ranges, effectively denying it movement
- For India the losses are great.
- Pakistan lost much less
- In the conflict, Pakistan has lost every single battle and skirmish but could still win the war overall. Pakistan believes in defeating the Indian resolve.
Differences in election beliefs
Plebiscite as a way out seems unacceptable to India. They believe the accession to India is valid and legal.
Plus the situation in Kashmir is not good for elections
Problem made worse by “freedom march” organized by Amanullah Khan, Leader of Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front.
Tried to cross border from it to India controlled Kashmir.
However both sides against this crossing. Shows that this method is not the way.
More realistic solution is to accept Line of Control, maybe under UN control.
The Simla declaration that no force would be used to alter line seems the best way.
India not wanting 3rd party mediation
-
In Soviet era, India received military and economic aid.
o
It had played a major role in supporting India in 1972 Simla Agreement.
o
Its veto kept the regional conflict from becoming an international problem.
-
USA was not as trusting of Delhi
o
Also seemed to favour China in Asia
o
But USA fearful of nuke capability
-
Post CW – India lost a valuable ally, but in 1993 Yeltsin signed Treaty f Peace and Friendship
6
- India now also looking to USA – e.g. joint naval exercises, in June 1992
-
For Pakistan, approaches to Central Asia and Middle East to exploit religious affinity
Peacekeeping
India is opposed to outsiders and prefers bilateral agreements
Bilateral agreements - PMs 1998, Vajpayee and Nawaz Sharif created an agreement for better environment.
Lahore Agreement was also bilateral too.
India’s Security Environment
Some say that Pakistan’s seizing Indian Kargil, almost led to a nuclear war, but Clinton intervened.
Because India was disadvantaged in fighting in Kargil, it wanted to open up fronts in Punjab and Rajasthan like in previous wars.
Use new Gahuri-2 missiles if India expanded war
Clinton met with Sharif in Washington and persuaded their removal
India feels less secure.
1.China is in NPT
2.Pakistan has nuclear weapons. (it tested in 1998 (could hit Delhi, Mumbai and Chennai)
3. Japan is rising
4. No more USSR
5. Economic costs of an arms race
There are genuine fears that the proxy war in Kashmir could lead to nuclear conflict but unlikely.
Peace making
In a Bipolar world
In Cold War, both sides were supported by the 2 superpowers
US supported Pakistan and USSR supported India
However, both wanted to increase trade and military cooperation with the other side but because of the conflict helping one would alienate the other.
So both wanted to end conflict and increase its influence.
USA
-
US chose Pakistan because India unwilling to join US’ confrontation of Communism. India was supposedly non-aligned
-
Pakistan had close relations (and proximity) to Central Asia (USSR)
-
Pakistan was open to US alignment
7
-
But still wanted to help India/Pakistan relations
-
As long as India/Pakistan conflict continued, it would be hard for US to get both together
-
USA tried to bring them together for talks in 1963-65
o
1st round at Rawalpindi
Both kept to plebiscite issue
o
2nd round, seemed to have agreement on partition
o
3rd, Pakistan wanted territory in valley which India did not want to give up.
o
Also had talks on refugees
o
4/5th stalemate on issue of Valley of Kashmir to it in exchange for partition
-
So in effect very little came out of these talks
-
Later in 60s, US actually aided India in border war with China, despite all friendship with it, it was seen that India was fighting the communists.
-
1962 Chinese invasion of India
-
Pakistan also began to see that US was not helping it enough vs India, and began to look for allies, so -> China
-
By 1979, after the USSR invasion of Afghanistan, USA gave Pakistan aid
-
Especially under Reagan
-
So determined it was to fight the SU in Afghanistan, that it gave it billions.
-
And ALSO TURNED A BLIND EYE TO NUCLEAR BUILDING In fact, Reagan and Bush Administrations protested innocence in Congressional reports to keep aid up to them as they were the main allies in the region
-
So US in effect “gave” them nuclear power
-
India monitored situation closely, and followed suit
-
In fact withdrawal in of UUSR troops in 1989, coincided with growth of Kashmir militarism
-
Began nuclear research, US sent Robert Gates in.
-
Pressler Amendment followed – now US trying to stop nuclear development
-
However, by 1990, Pakistan announcing achievements
-
US could not reconcile, now that it had supplied it with missiles, aid but now wanted them to stop making them.
-
Clinton in 1999 also faced a problem in Kargil, where it sent intruders past LoC.
-
Fear of nuclear conflict
-
US did have some influence over Pakistan, and put pressure on them
-
Did not accept its views that only Kashmir freedom fighters crossed the LoC
8
USSR
- More cautious than USA because it was weaker
- In the region, by the time USSR became interested in the region, Pakistan was unwilling to deal with USSR as it already had USA as an ally.
- India was the only one left, but it was more valuable (even US had wanted it first)
- In 1965 Wars – Rann of Kutch and Kashmir USSR became arbiter by default (India did not want UK because it had criticized India’s internalization of the war.)
- Tashkent Mediation - (USSR played a vital role)
- By 1966 signed a deal to provide economic aid US$112m.
- 1968 Indo-Soviet arms deal
UN
Pakistan believes the UN should compensate for it’s weaker position vis-à-vis India and reduce Indian hegemony
India believes UN should address common, global problems rather than narrow
But Both want to use it
For UN, region is important. Possible war,
Plus its 2 big members - US and USSR particularly interested because its significance – close to USSR and China
1.
Pacifying on Priority
a.
UN tries not to put blame or label anyone (but India wants the blame to be put on Pakistan)
b.
Non-condemnation
c.
In 1965, India wanted it to be labeled aggressor but UN does not want to take sides.
d.
In 1971, Pakistan wanted India punished for crossing into its territory and India wanted punishment for genocide in East Pakistan.
i.
But only condemned the nuclear test in 1989
e.
Basically UN does not want to start a war, because hard to reconcile blame
f.
But UN willing to help get ceasefire – 1947.
g.
Sep 1965, UN called in to make sure both sides took all steps to respect cease fire
h.
1971, UN demanded a ceasefire
i.
Observation: UN Mil Observer Grp in India and it (UNMOGIP) and UN India it Observer mission)
j.
Quite successful in maintaining ceasefire
9
2.
Problem solving on the backburner
a.
Mediation
i.
Attempted mediation throughout
ii.
1948 UN Commission on India/Pakistan (UNCIP)
iii.
Both agreed to withdrawals
iv.
Managed to get India to agree to plebiscite and administrator these elections.
v.
but both sides had differing interpretations to what this meant
vi.
By 1957, mediation seemed dead
vii.
Some believed it had to be done by outsider like Gunnar Jarring of Sweden or Canada
viii.
Some felt that it needed to be bilateral but
ix.
Regardless, could not find a middle ground
x.
UN lost out mediation role in Tashkent
xi.
By 1972, Simla – India/Pakistan agreed to settle through bilateral means – so no longer needed to UN.
xii.
So UN needed their consent to enter into issue.
xiii.
Post CW, UN has mediated in Namibia, Cambodia etc,
xiv.
1993 Boutros Ghali offered services but India refused
xv.
Basically both unwilling to give and leave area even if to put into hands of neutral UN
xvi.
Neither felt they could rely on UN
xvii.
Too sensitive an issue
b.
Plebiscite
i.
UN needed India and Pakistan to trust it to conduct fair plebiscite
ii.
India offered plebiscite
iii.
But later was explained that this could have meant anything from elections to mere poll.
iv.
It was more a “wish” than anything
v.
India even offered to just plebiscite its side (i.e. just in India) as a referendum for all. UN did not want this, nor could it allow this.
vi.
Even though UN had done so in Timor 1999, South Africa in 1990, it could not work here
vii.
Either not trusted or could not get parties to agree
Can UN play a role? It seems India especially doesn’t want outsiders involved.
UN so far has been cautious and piecemeal
It has reduce tensions by getting ceasefire
UN however, can’t force a solution. There must be will on both sides
They must yield some ground to each other
Unable to get plebiscite
Although, is the UN capable of handling one, especially with the fast changing landscape? 10