India-Pakistan Linkages
Fred Kaplan writes that the situation in Pakistan is inextricably linked to Pakistan’s issues with India:
Meanwhile, the Pakistani military has little desire to improve its counterinsurgency skills. Many officers are more loyal to the Taliban than to the central government. And though the army is beginning to crack down on Taliban fighters in the Swat and Buner districts, it is still the case that 80 percent or 90 percent of Pakistani troops are stationed on the border with India, which most officers still see as the country’s greatest threat. This perception is no mere idiosyncrasy; it is integral to the Pakistani worldview, dating back to the founding of the nation and the partition from India in 1947. It has been reinforced by three wars between the two nations, in ‘47, ‘65, and ‘71, as well as a war or two that nearly broke out in the past decade, and has been hammered home further by the fact that both counties have nuclear weapons. [...]
Meanwhile, is anyone trying to persuade India to take steps to ease tensions on its border with Pakistan? This is a precondition to getting the Pakistani military to take its threat from within more seriously. The fact that it’s difficult doesn’t make it any less necessary. Everything that needs to be done—and done fairly soon—is difficult, and none of it can be done by the United States alone.
I like the diagnosis, but I’m less certain about the prescription. It seems to me that Kaplan’s approach creates a situation in which the stronger the Taliban grows, the more Pakistan’s goals vis-à-vis India get advanced. But given that India is Pakistan’s top priority, and the Taliban is our top priority, that creates perverse incentives for the Pakistani military to do as little as they can possibly get away with in terms of Taliban-fighting. This is similar to the dynamic by which if the Pakistani military is effective at fighting the insurgents, the civilian government is bolstered, whereas the closer the Taliban comes to the capital, the more inclined the West becomes to support a coup.
I would put the linkage to the Pakistanis in a different way. I would say that the United States is prepared to exert pressure on India to prevent Pakistan from becoming the victim of unprovoked aggression. But I would observe that if the Taliban grows too strong, that’s a more pressing problem for India than it is for the United States. And I would follow up with the observation that if India seriously feels that the security of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is being compromised, that there’s no way we’re going to be able to restrain the Indians. Consequently, by far the most likely scenario in which the Indian threat manifests itself is a scenario in which failure to combat the Taliban effectively prompts an Indian preventive military response.
47 Responses to “India-Pakistan Linkages”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
May 8th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
Fred Kaplan writes that the situation in Pakistan is inextricably linked to Pakistan’s issues with India . . .
In other news, recent studies indicate the sky is blue and 2+2=4.
I like Fred, but “to persuade India to take steps to ease tensions on its border with Pakistan” better not be as necessary as he says, because in that case we are probably screwed.
May 8th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
Both Iran and India will be in the Taliban’s sights if they get their hands on Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal.
May 8th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
Kaplan’s prescription is typical of what has been the American approach to India for over a generation: India’s own interests be damned, why does it not do what will help us?
And in any case, can we guarantee that if India eases it’s preparedness for a potential conflict on the border with Pakistan, the Pakistani army will not take advantage of the situation and send its ‘mujaheddin’ across the border just as it did in the nineties?
May 8th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
The Indian polity is still very sensitive to charges of US pressure. Any any US attempt (and it is only an attempt, India just is not very dependent on the US for anything) to influence India will not be received very kindly (see India-US nuclear deal!). India and Pakistan were close to a major de-escalation last year before the terrorist attacks in Mumbai.
But the raison d’etre of India’s military strategy is not Pakistan, India has many other things to worry about, Pakistan’s government, on the other hand, befitting its smaller neighbour status is by definition India centric. So you have an asymmetry of importance here and that needs to be addressed before the India Pakistan dynamic changes.
Most sensible subcontinent folks (including myself) have concluded years back that the Indian and Pakistani people face the same challenges and threats from fundamentalism, and that our governments would need to work together to finalize border issues, spend less money fighting each other and more money getting electricity and education to the non-urban areas. I don’t think the governments are listening and constant meddling by American and colonial governments fighting their proxy wars hurts more than you can possibly know.
May 8th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
As I have stated on several occasions on this blog, the Government of India will not stand around idly twiddling its thumbs while the Taliban and other Muslim extremist organizations get their shithooks on Pakistans’ nuclear arsenal. Quite unlike the US and Israeli governments who are doing a lot of thumb twiddling while Iran develops nuclear weapons.
May 8th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
Wow.
That’s all I can say.
Great Power meddling is one thing. Ignorant great power meddling is another.
An entire post on India-Pakistan-Afghanistan without once using the word “pashtun” is quite amazing. Given that the Taliban is mostly a Pashtun problem it demonstrates some real ignorance.
US efforts would be more helpful is they got the Indians to stop visibly supporting the Karzai government, and if they Indians were a little less delighted to see the Pakis is such distress.
May 8th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
Meanwhile, is anyone trying to persuade India to take steps to ease tensions on its border with Pakistan? This is a precondition to getting the Pakistani military to take its threat from within more seriously.
Jesus, this is shit for brains.
Has he forgotten that there was a huge terror attack less than a year ago?
What he should be surprised about is how much fucking restraint the Indians use. In 2002, probably any other country would have gone to war.
If the Pakis bombed the US Capitol when Congress was in session, we would have turned every city, town, and pathetic hamlet into glass.
May 8th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
What exactly could India do that would make Pakistan happy? Leave Kashmir? I can’t think of anything else, and India won’t do it.
Meanwhile, where is the great power China in all this? We are the ones who look like chumps when we go into Pakistan on Zardari’s behalf. China is Pakistan’s other big friend. Furthermore, they have a sizable Uighur population, so if the Taliban get nukes, they’re as likely to target Beijing as New York.
I think China is actually enjoying the sight of us risking our troops there, and hoping that India lauches a pre-emptive strike so that they don’t have to.
May 8th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
What the hell is India supposed to do at this point? It’s been trying to cool relations and simply focus on internal economic development for what, 15 years now? Even the frigging Hindu nationalist BJP government rejected the hardcore anti-Pakistan elements of its base in favor of more open borders and freer trade.
In return, India has experienced nearly a decade of increasingly brutal terrorist attacks.
What does Kaplan see as a reasonable step to reduce Pakistani tensions? Hand over Kashmir to the almost-failed state Pakistan has become? Re-conquer Bangladesh for them? Or maybe just fire all of Mumbai’s cops to make the Lashkar-e-Taiba attacks that much more efficient…
May 8th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
Also, I think it’s worth pointing out that one MAJOR danger here is the one SLC probably unintentionally points out above. American DOES NOT WANT this situation to take on Israeli-Palestinian style contours.
India obviously has had problems with communalism and ethnic division before. If this becomes about “protecting the Hindu homeland” against “the Pakistani-Muslim” threat, there will suddenly be millions of very vulnerable Indian Muslims.
May 8th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
“Has he forgotten that there was a huge terror attack less than a year ago?”
India has terrorists attacks on a regular basis. And it never rattles them. In fact, nothing ever seems to rattle the Indians. If there is one thing we should learn from India, it’s how not to be terrorized by terrorism. Terrorism in India is usually intended to provoke an over-reaction on India’s part, but India won’t play that game. And we are all better off for that.
May 8th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
Uh, what are those two guys in the picture doing? I mean, it looks kinda gay. Not that there’s anything wrong . . .
May 8th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
So India should ease up on the country sending over terrorists to attack their parliment and hold their cities hostage. Pakistan wastes there time on India who never will attack without provocation… they should be focusing on building up their own country. If the Taliban succeed…. which I expect they will.. big troubles in South Asia
May 8th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
Considered in both long and short historical contexts, one must consider that for Pakistan to put 80 to 90% of its troop force, being of a relatively exceptionally large and powerful national army, on and near its border with India, must have at least something to do with trying to prevent border crossings into India.
May 8th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
It’s difficult to repair India-Pakistan relations as long as India controls Kashmir. Hold the plebiscite and perhaps 1000 flowers could bloom.
May 8th, 2009 at 5:17 pm
Here comes Mr. Esper
Do you, Mr. Esper, have anything new to say apart from spouting your anti-India tripe that you have been doing on the nets over the last six years?
May 8th, 2009 at 6:08 pm
gregor:
Do you have anything new to say other than ignorantly claiming that anyone who calls for Kashmiri self-determination is “anti-India”?
May 8th, 2009 at 6:43 pm
No, India, Pakistan, and China control Kashmir. Each disputes the other’s claims on the land. If you want a plebiscite, first get all three nations to de-militarize the area and agree to the vote. It’s unfair to put the responsibility solely on India.
May 8th, 2009 at 6:49 pm
Having a little fun.
May 8th, 2009 at 7:14 pm
No, India, Pakistan, and China control Kashmir. Each disputes the other’s claims on the land. If you want a plebiscite, first get all three nations to de-militarize the area and agree to the vote. It’s unfair to put the responsibility solely on India.
It isn’t because India really shouldn’t have controlled any part of Kashmir to begin with. They made a stupid argument based on the identity of a prince in order to get it.
In any event, the reason to do this is because it would improve Pakistani-Indian relations, at little real cost to India (other than the psychic costs of having to admit the legitimacy of partition). Preventing another war is a little more important than worrying about what is supposedly “unfair” to India.
May 8th, 2009 at 7:49 pm
For exactly the same reason, Pakistan should give up its claims on Kashmir.
May 8th, 2009 at 8:11 pm
Kashmir is majority-Muslim. Pakistan has a better claim.
In any event, India’s much wealthier than Pakistan. Violence is the only leverage Pakistan has. As a matter of reality, it’s going to be India who is going to have to give.
May 8th, 2009 at 8:27 pm
Re: It isn’t because India really shouldn’t have controlled any part of Kashmir to begin with. They made a stupid argument based on the identity of a prince in order to get it.
Ho hum, do we have to go through this nonsense again?
Pakistan lacks a legal claim to Kashmir because Kashmir (like the other princely states) was technically a monarchy under British suzerainty, not a Direct Rule region of British India. Once the British left, sovereignty again reverted (in a legal sense) to the monarch, not the people, and it was his choice about who to join, not the choice of the people.
In a moral sense, that argument may or may not hold weight. However, there is certainly no reason for Kashmir to join Pakistan. Less than 5% of Kashmiris favor joining Pakistan (the majority, over two thirds, favor independence). And joining Pakistan would be monstrously, horrbly unfair to the Buddhists, Hindus, and minority Muslim sects who would be abandoned to Jihadist depravity.
May 8th, 2009 at 8:59 pm
It hasn’t worked so far, and not for lack of Pakistani effort. The Line of Control is where it always has been, even after Kargil. Pakistan can keep launching terrorist attacks, but they’ll likely have no real effect.
You seem to be implying that for the sake of peace between two nuclear nations, India should bend over backward for Pakistan, while Pakistan has no such obligation. In fact, for Pakistan, violence is encouraged. That’s a neat little double-standard you have there.
Yes, I know, the people of Pakistan feel aggrieved over Kashmir. But you fail to acknowledge that Indians feel just as passionately that Kashmir is part of India. And the Palestinians believe Jerusalem should be their capital, and the Israelis believe God gave them their land, and so forth and so on. That line of argument goes nowhere.
If you want to speak of reality, this is a cold war. The winner is not about to give up, just because its adversary is hemorrhaging from self-inflicted wounds. The U.S. never gave in to the Soviets over Berlin. The South Koreans don’t give in to the North.
Pakistan could of course up the ante and threaten to bomb India unless it hands over Kashmir, but extortion of a nuclear-armed nation is not wise. On the other hand, it could let go of its anger, and put out the fire in its own house.
May 8th, 2009 at 9:30 pm
Kashmir being a majority Muslim country is no argument. Pakistan may be Muslim, but India is not not-Muslim.
Esper’s arguments are nonsensical. There are lots of pockets within India that are majority Muslim. That does not imply that India should cede control of those areas to a muslim nation.
Even if India gives up Kashmir, the result will not be better Indo-Pak relations, but worse, for then Pakistan will want Punjab and then Haryan aand Hyderabad, and what not.
Mr. Esper seems to be an American, but his sympathies seems to be entirely with the terrorists of Pakistan, and with violence by Muslims to get what they want, legitimate or not.
May 8th, 2009 at 10:45 pm
“Kashmir is majority-Muslim. Pakistan has a better claim.”
By that argument I guess India had a claim on entire Pakistan during partition. India was majority-Hindu then and majority Hindu now.
Pakistan need not worry about India if they can control their terrorists not crossing into India.
May 9th, 2009 at 1:32 am
Yes, I know, the people of Pakistan feel aggrieved over Kashmir. But you fail to acknowledge that Indians feel just as passionately that Kashmir is part of India.
The difference is that it is legitimate for Muslims to want a Muslim province. It is illegitimate for Hindus to insist on ruling Muslims. That’s the entire logic of the Partition. Unless you believe that Hindus should have gotten the whole continent, there’s no reason for Hindus to have Kashmir.
Kashmir being a majority Muslim country is no argument. Pakistan may be Muslim, but India is not not-Muslim.
The partition decided that question. The Hindus don’t get to rule over Muslim areas. That was the whole point. Kashmir was a mistake that needs to be corrected for the partition to work.
May 9th, 2009 at 2:17 am
Kashmir was a mistake that needs to be corrected for the partition to work.
Well, good luck with that. Perhaps next you’ll enlighten us on how to carve out the Kurdish state from parts of Turkey, Iran and Iraq.
May 9th, 2009 at 8:39 am
Dear Mr Dilan Esper,
India is disinclined to acquiesce to your request to hand over Kashmir to Pakistan. Means “no”.
Warm Regards,
130 Million Muslims in India
May 9th, 2009 at 8:51 am
Now you are repeating yourself.
1) India is not a Hindu state. I asked you in a previous thread to find me one law that says it is, and you still haven’t done it.
2) Hector has already disabused you of what the rules of partition were. You may disagree with the rules, but that’s your problem.
Also, it’s silly to say that the Kashmir dispute means that India does not recognize partition at all. India has never tried to annex Balochistan or Bangladesh, for example. There is no “deeper meaning” to Kashmir.
3) The Kashmiris may want Muslim rule, but that’s not the same as Pakistani rule. They would probably vote for independence if both sides would leave them alone. You have been eliding the difference. And ignoring that difference while asking India to leave is, again, a double-standard.
May 9th, 2009 at 9:11 am
Dilan Esper,
Give me a break. You do realize that one third of all Kashmiris are not Muslim? (They make less noise but they do exist). What do you propose to do with them? Abandon them to the charming people who just took over Swat? Partitioning Kashmir will not work, because while the Hindu areas are adjacent to India, the Buddhist areas are not. Ladakh would be an isolated Buddhist enclave of 250,000 people sandwiched between the tender mercies of Pakistan and of Chinese-occupied Tibet.
No, if you want Kashmir to be free of Indian rule (which can be argued, at least on moral grounds), the only answer is independence, and an independence with strong guarantees of inviolate borders and minority protection. But turning Kashmir over to Pakistan is right out.
Parenthetically, since you don’t appear to believe in religious states in general, why do you even support the existence of Pakistan? I do support the formation of Pakistan, but then that’s because I’m more of a religious essentialist than you. Isn’t the existence of confessional states contrary to everything you believe in?
May 9th, 2009 at 11:16 am
Here he goes again with his ignorance. The purpose of the partition was not ‘Hindus don’t get to rule over Muslim areas’. There are a lot of Muslim areas in India where the Hindus rule.
Dilan Esper is an idiot. USC should demand that he gives back his law degree.
May 9th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
“it is still the case that 80 percent or 90 percent of Pakistani troops are stationed on the border with India, which most officers still see as the country’s greatest threat. This perception is no mere idiosyncrasy; ”
The implication is that this view is justified: India really poses a military threat to Pakistan. But this is really nonsense as anyone who knows anything at all about the subcontinent knows. For example, this paper reminds us that
“Pakistani policy on India under all governments since, at least, 1994 has remained
conditional on the resolution of the Kashmir issue. The Pakistani position is that there
can be no improvement of relations unless there is movement on this “core” issue. In this
sense, and in its clandestine military support of the separatist insurgency, Pakistan
remains an actively revisionist power. India, while formally claiming Pakistan’s portion
of Kashmir, has never actively sought to press its claim and is de facto in favor of the
status quo.” (page 63)
This was written before the horrific attack on Mumbai, whose planners have been assiduously protected by the Pakistani government.
The most plausible reason for the Pakistani military playing up India as “the threat” is that it makes it that much easier to sell the legitimacy of a bloated and parasitical army to the Pakistani people.
May 9th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
Pakistan lacks a legal claim to Kashmir because Kashmir (like the other princely states) was technically a monarchy under British suzerainty, not a Direct Rule region of British India. Once the British left, sovereignty again reverted (in a legal sense) to the monarch, not the people, and it was his choice about who to join, not the choice of the people.
Actually, the monarch acceded to India because he wanted help with an invasion from Pakistan and Lord Mountbatten (who anyway headed the Defense Council) advised the Indian government not to send help unless the monarch acceded.
And no matter how much anyone tries to obscure the issue, the realm we are talking about is Jammu & Kashmir.
May 9th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
Why? They have his money. Mission accomplished.
May 9th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
Actually, the monarch acceded to India because he wanted help with an invasion from Pakistan …
Does not matter how. India got Kashmir fair and square according to the existing arrangements to which all the three parties, India, Pakistan and Britain, agreed at the time. India has all the rights to defend its right to Kashmir.
May 9th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
Does not matter how. India got Kashmir fair and square according to the existing arrangements to which all the three parties, India, Pakistan and Britain, agreed at the time. India has all the rights to defend its right to Kashmir.
Pakistan never agreed that Kashmir was part of India.
In any event, I actually agree with Hector that independence and a security guarantee is probably the solution. But as long as Kashmir remains in Indian hands, Pakistan is completely within its rights in being as belligerent as it wishes to be with India. Indeed, the threat of force is the only thing that will ever get India to give up Kashmir.
May 9th, 2009 at 6:39 pm
And I never agreed to be mortal.
…and Pakistani hands. You forgot Pakistani.
Go forth, young man! Show ‘em how it’s done.
May 9th, 2009 at 7:45 pm
Go forth, young man! Show ‘em how it’s done.
I don’t have to. It’s a reality of territorial conflict. Violence works. It’s just about the only thing that does.
And as long as India is intransigent, I see nothing wrong with Pakistan from doing anything it deems necessary.
It’s up to India to decide whether it would rather play martyr and whine about it or whether it would rather correct the historical injustice to the Kashmiri Muslims.
May 9th, 2009 at 9:02 pm
Yes, that’s how Pakistan won all those wars against India. Intelligent violence works. Stupid violence doesn’t. It isn’t India that’s been on the losing end of 62 years of rope-a-dope.
India could not have dreamed up a dumber enemy.
Which makes the Pakistanis smarter than you. I think they understand that a missile lobbed at Mumbai means another one coming back on Islamabad. Sure, they have that pathetic little proxy war and terrorist attacks, but they do absolutely nothing.
May 9th, 2009 at 10:15 pm
Which makes the Pakistanis smarter than you. I think they understand that a missile lobbed at Mumbai means another one coming back on Islamabad.
Remember, it was India who acquired nukes first. Pakistan is the one playing defense on that issue, India is the one that harbored the dreams of obliterating Pakistan.
May 10th, 2009 at 12:21 am
The failed state of Pakistan – the land of the terrorists – should have at least one supporter. Why not Esper?
May 10th, 2009 at 1:42 am
gregor:
Pakistan’s terrorism was caused by India’s intransigence on Kashmir. It’s the chickens coming home to roost, and India’s supporters will apparently never learn that when you insist on ruling people who don’t want to be ruled by you, you create a terrorism problem.
India blew it at the time of the partition because it never bought into the idea of a Pakistan in the first place. When the Kashmir problem is solved to Pakistan’s satisfaction, I suspect the terrorism will stop.
May 10th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
That’s a very good line of argument Dilan.
Good argument, but purposefully ignorant of basic facts and of the history of the subcontinent.
May 11th, 2009 at 10:11 am
Because it lost control of Aksai Chin to the Chinese in 1962. India has not needed nuclear weapons to defeat Pakistan in the past.
Pakistan’s response is understandable, of course. However, having reached mutually-assured destruction capability, the Pakistanis (or Indians) would be suicidally stupid to go to the next step.
May 11th, 2009 at 11:56 am
Pakistan’s response is understandable, of course. However, having reached mutually-assured destruction capability, the Pakistanis (or Indians) would be suicidally stupid to go to the next step.
I quite agree with this. Pakistan’s nukes are defensive, and I actually don’t blame India for acquiring nukes because, even though I do think there were folks there who dreamed about solving the Pakistan problem once and for all, the Chinese threat made their acquisition imperative. Neither side now is going to use them against the other.
But that doesn’t mean that the Pakistani terrorism problem is ever going to be solved without a solution to the Kashmir problem.
May 11th, 2009 at 7:34 pm
Dilan Esper, your arguments are interesting, but it shows zero understanding of the problems of the subcontinent. to start with, if you really believe that India is a Hindu nation, I would recommend you to find some other hobby rather than wasting your time talking about things you do not understand well.
Thanks.