Let's see, here's a conflict begun in the birth of a new state, the nexus of Islamofascist terrorism abetted by one side and extensive army operations by the other. A less-than-democratic leader is backed by the Americans, despite some stateside grumbling. He publicly promises to rein in the terror, but either won't or can't fully deliver. Worse, his own security forces seem to be deeply implicated. The result has been steadily escalating tensions, major military mobilization across the border, and a serious impediment to overall U.S. war fighting plans in the region.
Meanwhile, a nuclear Sword of Damocles hangs over the whole confrontation if weapons of mass destruction are introduced or defeat seems certain for one of the parties in a conventional war. The Americans are widely seen as having a pivotal role in averting that disaster, as the only power in the region capable of playing honest broker and able to back up diplomatic influence with money and force of arms.
Of course I'm talking about Kashmir. What else could I be referring to? What follows is a briefing that will help you understand this conflict.
In fairness, Pakistan's General Musharraf seems to be making real efforts to close down madrassas, bring his ISI security/intelligence service under some kind of control, and otherwise begin to roll back the Islamist tide. He's no Arafat... if we're really lucky, he'll be closer to Kemal Attaturk. That said, India's distrust of him has some justification.
The Washington Post recently put out a pretty good briefing on this conflict and why it matters.
It's a good start, but it misses three important dimensions.
Kashmir: The Hidden Wheel
One dimension is the extent to which Kashmir has shaped other events in the region. Pakistan, engaged in playing up ethnic tensions in Kashmir, is acutely aware that their western "lawless frontier" [here's an additional link] could be used to similar effect by India. There have already been calls for an independent Baluchistan, and also "Pashtunistan". To truly secure themselves against that scenario, they need control of Afghanistan under a secure, unitary government. A few years ago, the best odds for that were a bunch of guys who called themselves "The Taliban." Remember them?
Say what you will about Pakistan's support for the Taliban, but hostility to the West had zero to do with it. Still, actions have consequences. The Tajiks of the Northern Alliance, who now control Afghanistan's foreign affairs ministry, have a lot of time for India these days. India will work diligently to keep that ministry in Tajik hands.
Among other projects, of course. India, Pakistan, and Iran continue to jockey for position within Afghanistan. This is one of the factors making it hard for Karzai and the USA to create stability there.
India: The Impressionist Giant
The second missed item is the perceived importance of Kashmir to India. They see it as an issue approximating the pre-Civil War view of the American union. With some cause. India may look monolithic from a distance, but get up close and it's more like an impressionist painting whose "dots" include regions more diverse than Alaska and Texas. Local politics dominates, political arrangements are strongly , and the traditions and outlook of Indian statecraft (vid. Kautilya's Arthasastra) keep things "lively" to say the least.
Robert Hardgrave's article is a good, if clinical, introduction to this dimension of Indian politics.
All clear? OK. Here's why this matters: The Indians fear that allowing Kashmir to secede would raise similar demands for secession throughout the country, pulling India to pieces.
That may be so, or they may be wrong. Still, this is what they believe, and they are not eager to test the proposition.
One may like that attitude, or one may hate it. Regardless, its bottom line remains. Timing will play a big role in progress on Kashmir, and that timing will be dictated by India's internal stability rather than the concerns of outsiders. In order to allow an independence referendum for Kashmir, India will also have to be offered something really big. So big they're willing to risk India itself to get it.
The same goes for Pakistan, which has made Kashmiri independence/incorporation an integral part of its own nationalist culture. Because the foundations of their polity are less stable than India's, it may not be possible for them to give that up - whatever the offer.
This is a game of chicken in which neither party can afford to swerve... and neither can afford to crash. Don't expect miracles any time soon.
In Praise of Cold War Thinking
Having said that, don't expect nuclear war either.
Both Pakistan and India understand the situation. Indeed, there are a number of signs that they understand it more or less as I've presented it. They know the stakes, and the motives at play, and also the consequences of miscalculation. At the moment, both are stable regimes with good control of their military establishments.
My major quibble with the Washington Post piece, therefore, is the extent to which it underestimates the ability of Pakistan and India to keep the situation under control themselves.
Events after the bombing of India Parliament showed that both sides are evolving toward a "Cold War" style model that couples awareness of what's at stake with a good combination of checks and communication channels. Admittedly, no model is perfect. So yes, there is cause for concern. And yes, improvements to those checks and channels are possible. Still, comparisons with Sarajevo pre-WW1 are misleading.
A more detailed and sober risk assessment (PDF format) can be found via my old alma mater. Or if you prefer, have a look at the webbified Power Point presentation. If you'd rather have a complete archive of Kashmir-related materials at your fingertips, historyteacher.net has a very good one
Still, this is a conflict worth keeping an eye on. Not least because of the dampening effect India's mobilization has on Pakistani prosecution of military efforts against Al-Qaeda along Pakistan's Northwestern border.
JU:Y 5/05 UPDATE: In the comments section of a post about India's big new naval base, Vaneet offers a quick summary of Kashmir from an Indian perspective.
Leave a comment
Here are some quick tips for adding simple Textile formatting to your comments, though you can also use proper HTML tags:
*This* puts text in bold.
_This_ puts text in italics.
bq. This "bq." at the beginning of a paragraph, flush with the left hand side and with a space after it, is the code to indent one paragraph of text as a block quote.
To add a live URL, "Text to display":http://windsofchange.net/ (no spaces between) will show up as Text to display. Always use this for links - otherwise you will screw up the columns on our main blog page.