Will Kashmir Explode?

Patron Lt Gen (Retd) SARDAR F.S. LODI is apprehensive about the situation in Kashmir.

Since December last year India has been concentrating her troops along the international border with Pakistan. Bulk of her army formations including the three highly mobile armoured strike forces are at present located near the Pakistan border and are in a state of operational readiness, poised to strike at short notice. The Indian air force has been placed on high alert and forward air bases activated and occupied. India’s western naval command based at Mumbai has been reinforced by five powerful surface ships from the Visakhapatnam based Eastern naval command. The ships include a guided missile destroyer, a frigate and three missile corvettes. The coastguard has been placed under the control of the navy and all the paramilitary forces under the army. In the past New Delhi has resorted to these measures only during war.

Further deliberate military moves have been initiated in Indian-held Jammu and Kashmir state. Two infantry divisions normally located in Gurdaspur area have been moved into the state. One of these two divisions is an army reserve formation. Two mountain divisions have also been moved into Indian-held Kashmir from the Calcutta-based eastern command, along with a corps HQ. With these additional divisions and a controlling HQ India has been able to create a powerful strike force within Kashmir with its own command and control structure. This is certainly an aggressive and potentially dangerous move as the strike force is over and above the local counter-attack forces already available to the GOC-in-C northern command controlling operations in Indian-held Kashmir and his three holding corps commanders. In other words India has created a major military strike capability in Kashmir that can react rapidly to their political intentions.

The state of Jammu and Kashmir is an internationally recognized disputed territory, which India has been trying to hold by force for the last 54 years. It is estimated that she has a military force of over 750,000 troops and para-military forces in the area who are using suppressive measures on the civilian population of the Muslim areas in an effort to crush their demand for a plebiscite. The people’s right to decide which country they should join, India or Pakistan was solemnly guaranteed by the United Nations and also the Indian government itself. The peoples struggle to attain their rights has been brutally suppressed by India’s army of occupation. India seems to have succeeded in naming the people’s genuine struggle for political emancipation as “terrorism”, to gain the support of the West. How can the struggle of the Kashmiri people in their own homeland be termed “terrorism”.

India has created a tense situation in the sub-continent during the past six months by amassing her troops on the international border with Pakistan and the line of control in Kashmir. What are her intentions in the area? Her military preparations indicate war, which is also evident by the statement of her leaders. Mr Vajpayee the Indian Prime Minister during his tour of Indian-held Kashmir exhorted his troops to prepare for a decisive fight with Pakistan. There are indications that India may be planning to undertake a limited air and land offensive in Kashmir under the pretext of hitting the so-called terrorist base camps and training facilities which India believes are located in Azad Kashmir.

An official Indian Think Tank in New Delhi has also suggested that India should strike at some areas of Azad Kashmir. It is the view of this Think Tank that Pakistan is not likely to retaliate to any Indian incursion into Azad Kashmir. This is probably based on the reasoning that Pakistan may not wish to risk a general war with India over some territory in Azad Kashmir. This is faulty reasoning fraught with serious consequences as the Pakistan government has made it amply clear that any crossing of the line of control in Kashmir by Indian forces would be considered an act of war and warrant appropriate military action and prompt retaliation.

The Indian army chief General S. Padmanabhan said the country needed to respond to a deadly raid on an army camp in Jammu. “This is the time for action”, he said. After taking over his present appointment and touring Kashmir and the seven Eastern provinces of India where insurgency continues General Padmanabhan had been of the opinion that the Kashmir problem should be solved politically thereby ruling out a military option. This was also the opinion of his predecessor General V. P. Malik who had publicly said a few months before his retirement that the Kashmir dispute should be solved politically. The present army chief seems to have been carried away by the rhetoric of his political bosses against his military judgement in recommending the military option.

Stephen P. Cohen whom I have known for over 20 years is at present a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institute in the United States. He was interviewed on the current India-Pakistan standoff by Sonia Trikha and asked: “Do you think it is possible for India to launch a limited strike against Pakistan without sparking off a nuclear conflagration”? He said: “Anything is possible. The issue is what is the probability that such an attack will not lead to a Pakistani counter-attack, then a further Indian strike, and another Pakistani response, and so forth. Each time this happens the opportunity for misjudgment increases greatly. Given the past behaviour of Indian and Pakistani governments in a crises, I would not want to be living in either Islamabad or Delhi, or any other city that would be a likely target for a nuclear strike.” In other words an unprovoked Indian attack is likely to lead to a larger escalation than India may be planning on.

India’s chief of army staff General Padmanabhan had himself propounded the theory some time back that there was space for manoeuvre below the nuclear threshold. In other words a limited offensive where the other side does not feel it is worthwhile resorting to nuclear strikes as the stakes would not be too high. This type of argument has military flaws, which should not be overlooked. It is true that the Indian army chief certainly has the option to start a limited offensive, but having done so the option to keep it limited does not remain his but passes to the other side. In the present high state of tension between India and Pakistan it may not be prudent to resort to any form of armed conflict and at any scale.

India has been blaming Pakistan for all her ills although these are of her own creation. After the latest incident near Jammu, Pakistan had suggested a joint inquiry to ascertain the facts and apportion blame. India refuses any such suggestions and is adamant in blaming Pakistan and using the words “cross-border terrorism” to gain the support of the West. She seems to be succeeding in her designs as pressure is being exerted on Pakistan to stop any crossing of the line of control in Kashmir. As some countries are not convinced about Pakistan’s efforts in this direction, it would be worth sending impartial observers to monitor the line of control using modern sophisticated instruments designed for this purpose. The question is will India agree if her real intentions point in another direction.

Militarily I find it hard to believe that India is unable to monitor and prevent any entry through the line of control into Indian-held Kashmir. She has a large number of troops and para-military forces deployed in the Indian-controlled portion of Kashmir, by some accounts over 750,000 armed soldiers who are accustomed to use their weapons at the slightest hint, true or false of a suspected “terrorist”. Their wanton killings have the protection of law passed by the Indian Parliament. The line of control in Kashmir is also heavily mined on the Indian-controlled side making it impossible for any so-called “infiltrators” to get through. Yet India insists in front of the world community that Pakistan is sending terrorists into Indian-held Kashmir.  

India’s planned military action in Kashmir may well have started as is evident by the heavy shelling across the line of control into Azad Kashmir. There was some satisfaction exhibited by the Indian army spokesman in claiming the number of Pakistani soldiers killed and the number of bunkers and other fortified positions destroyed by their shelling. In fact their shelling across the working boundary near Sialkot is causing civilian deaths and damage to houses located in Pakistan territory and not Azad Kashmir. This is serious as it signifies India’s desire at escalation of the shelling pattern, which was avoided previously.

India’s political and military intentions are not honourable in the least, it is doubtful if she is interested in peace in the region.  Now that India is a strategic partner of the United States and Russia and also a close ally of Israel her brutal regional ambitions are coming to the fore. She is trying to take full advantage of the world situation to settle her scores with Pakistan while the latter is fully stretched in helping the United States and the other members of the world coalition in fighting terrorism. Kashmir is still the main issue of dispute between the two countries, and if India pushes any further it is likely to explode with grave consequences for both countries. Will saner councils prevail in the corridors of power in Delhi.

The path to peace in South Asia is surely through the settlement of all disputes by pacific means without resort to war. This has been Pakistan’s stand all along. India has closed its doors to any further dialogue, which is not a correct attitude and approach to problem solving. Kashmir is an old dispute spanning over half a century, it will require a long process of dialogue spread over at least a year or so. It is only through mutual dialogue that eventually some compromise solution is possible. In the case of Kashmir it must be appreciated that the final solution must be acceptable to the people of Kashmir who have suffered for many years and now deserve peace and happiness.