Security Concerns of Pakistan

Patron Lt Gen (Retd) SARDAR FS LODI gives an exhaustive overview of the country's security concerns

Our security problems go back to 1947 when British India was partitioned into two independent and sovereign states. Pakistan inherited Britain's role and responsibilities in the Northern and Western portions of British India and across the long border with Afghanistan. But did not have the military and financial resources to maintain political balance in the area and continue to sustain the physical advantage of its geographical location. The situation was exacerbated and inflamed by the hostile and aggressive attitude of India who was set on winning over Afghanistan at any cost to our detriment. She also sent troops into our Northern areas to occupy the state of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) which would have given India a land access to Afghanistan and our province of NWFP. which was controlled by a Congress ministry, opposed to the creation of Pakistan and aligned to the Indian National Congress of Mahatama Gandhi and Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru. This move would also have outflanked our province of Punjab and prevented a land link between Pakistan and China.

Indian diplomacy succeeded in Afghanistan with the assistance of the former Soviet Union, and kept that country in some opposition to us. This prevented a Muslim consensus from developing in the region and activated to some extent the Pak-Afghan border to the West while the Eastern border with India was already hostile requiring our undivided attention and deployment of our limited military resources.

In the state of Jammu and Kashmir, India's ambitious designs were thwarted by the people of the state who rose against the Hindu ruler and saved one third of the area from being occupied by Indian troops. Aside from being a Muslim majority state which by all canons of justice and the rules formulated by the British for the partition of India, should by right have been a part of Pakistan, J&K is of considerable strategic importance and vital for the survival of Pakistan. That is one of the main reasons why India persists in her wrongful occupation of the state. This poses a grave military threat to Pakistan and has to be catered for at all times.

The Soviet Army's occupation of Afghanistan in December 1979 created an alarming situation for the security of Pakistan. There were many dimensions to the problem. First, the Soviet control and its troops extended right up to our Western border. In other words the USSR was now next door, and that prospect itself was chilling in the extreme. Secondly, Pakistan was faced for the first time in its history with the prospects of a two-front war. India from the East in collaboration with Soviet forces from the West. Thirdly, it was clear to all concerned that Afghanistan was by no means the final destination of Soviet troops. Their aim was still the warm waters of the Arabian Sea, by advancing right through southern Pakistan, with the help and collaboration of India, its ally in the region. In such a scenario, of Soviet access to the warm waters, would also place Soviet influence and military power in close proximity to the world's oil-supply sea-lanes from the Persian Gulf.

This potential threat to the World's oil supply created considerable alarm in the Western capitals who depend on their entire way of life on the uninterrupted supply of fossil fuel from the Middle East, most of which is shipped by tankers through the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz. Consequently the United States spent over 3 Billion US dollars to help the Afghan Mujahideen fight the occupation forces, which eventually forced the USSR out of Afghanistan in 1989.

After helping the Afghans for over 10 years during the Soviet occupation of their country and accepting all the disadvantages including the burden of over 3 million refugees of which about 1.4 million still remain, it was hoped with some justification that after peace returned, there would be for the first time a friendly government in Afghanistan. That was one reason for recognizing the Taliban regime which controls most of Afghanistan, and who belong to areas that have traditionally been in control of the country. But the situation is not being allowed to settle down in Afghanistan owing to Russian and Indian military assistance to the Uzbek and Tajik elements in the Northern sector of the country. The turmoil in Afghanistan is also a failure of our foreign policy to keep abreast of the situation in the area and the world perception of events. An unsettled Afghanistan is a source of concern to Pakistan and a threat to her security from the Western border.

Our security concerns with regard to the problems created by the Kashmir and Afghanistan situation was foreseen and commented upon by a British author as far back as 1948 when she wrote. 'The heart of undivided India was the province of Punjab, similarly the heart of Pakistan is the province of West Punjab (now Punjab). If Nehru (Indian Prime Minister at the time) wishes to destroy Pakistan he will have to outflank the heart. For this purpose he will take Kashmir and make friends with Afghanistan'.

Our adverse relations with Afghanistan were offset to a great extent by our close friendship with Iran and China. The latter becoming the centre piece of our policy in the region. Recently we seem to have annoyed both the countries. In case of Iran owing to our support for the Taliban government in Afghanistan and in case of China owing to the fundamentalist policies of a particular political party which they are trying to export to our neighbours and thus creating problems for the country. It must be appreciated by the policy planners that China is our true and steadfast friend in the region who has stood by us in our adversities and will continue to do so. Nothing should therefore be allowed to interfere in the present good relations which may otherwise prove detrimental to the long term interest of the nation. Friendship with both Iran and Afghanistan is essential as we share the same culture and background and all three countries are a combined bulwark against Indian expansionist designs North and Westward towards the heartland of the Muslim World. A combined front should therefore be shown to any Indian aggressive designs towards Pakistan's Eastern border.

India continues to be our main concern and the major threat to our survival as an independent sovereign nation. It is no doubt a potent threat in being, which is constantly being updated, improved and enlarged. Nuclear weapons have now been added to India's already large stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. We are at present the only truly independent country on the periphery of India. We are no threat to her existence but certainly are a block to her future plans and designs in the area, which she is planning to neutralize or reduce further in size and importance.

India has her own plans and grand design for the region, her overall aims therefore remain unchanged. We have fought three wars and two border conflicts short of war with India. After Bangladesh was created by India's armed might and gross violation of International law and interference by armed intervention in another country's internal affairs, forcing the Pakistani troops to surrender at Dhaka, Mrs. Indira Gandhi, the Prime Minister of India at the time, is on record as having said at a public meeting that 'a thousand years had been avenged'. It was evident to all, that '1000 years' was a reference to 800 years of Muslim rule in India followed by 200 years of British rule. Bengali nationalism was only incidental, fostered by India to serve her purpose and larger interests in the region.

During the joint US-Indian Naval exercises a few years back, Mr. Jasjit Singh, Director of India's Institute of Defence Studies and Analysis, while referring to the US 'tilt' towards Pakistan during the Indo-Pak war of 1971 told his hosts on board a United States Navy Aircraft Carrier, 'United States had tried to dictate terms to New Delhi on an issue, the creation of Bangladesh which was of crucial strategic importance to India'. These remarks clearly show India's plans and future intentions in the region which she now desires to control completely to her economic and strategic interest.

Today India keeps a large standing army quite out of proportion to her defence needs. China which is India's largest neighbour has never shown any expansionist or hegemonic desire or designs and India's other neighbours are small and do not pose any threat to her security. In his recent book 'India's Ad Hoc Arsenal', Chris Smith, a senior research fellow at the Centre of Defence Studies, at King's College, UK, says that India's scale and rate of defence procurement seemed to be beyond what the nation required for modernization and security. There seemed to be no logic in terms of defence, in what appeared to be a continuing nuclear weapon programme which is proceeding apace. In conclusion the author suggests that India's quest for great power status rather than national security is uppermost in the minds of her politicians.

India maintains a large army today consisting of well over 1.6 million men, supported by a Territorial Army of 160,000 men. The standing army is distributed into three armoured divisions, four semi-armoured divisions, 30 infantry and mountain divisions, eleven independent infantry brigades, nine independent armoured brigades plus an additional 17 tank regiments in infantry divisions. This large military build-up is clearly Pakistan-specific. The mechanised and armoured forces, with a total of 3,500 tanks, cannot be used against the island of Sri Lanka, nor in the soggy terrain of Bangladesh. They are also not needed in the mountains of tiny Nepal and cannot cross the mighty Himalayan mountain ranges towards China.

India has also invested heavily in air power. Its large air force consists of some 1,400 aircraft in 60 squadrons of fixed-wing planes and helicopters. It has 34 squadrons of Russian built MIG-21, 23, 27, 29 fighters. There are another four squadrons of British built Jaguar and three squadrons of French built Mirage-2000 fighters. The bombers and a large transport fleet is in addition. For their protection there are 30 surface-to-air missile squadrons. Over and above this, India has recently purchased 30 modern Russian built state of the art SU-30K force-multiplier multi-role fighter aircraft at a cost of 2 billion US dollars. The Indian Air Force is obviously designed to browbeat its small neighbours and project India's strategic power and influence well beyond its frontiers in South Asia. The Air Force is far too large to justify a security roll only.

India has a large navy as well, which continues to grow. At present, it has two aircraft carriers, 12 Russian and four German designed submarines, five Russian missile destroyers, 18 frigates, 60 missile boats and corvettes, supported by fighter and long range reconnaissance aircraft and 80 armed helicopters. It has over a dozen landing craft with an amphibious list capability of 1,000 strong marine force with their arms and equipment. This large force poses a potent threat to Pakistan and the other littoral states of the Indian Ocean.

The motives for building this large military establishment, which is far beyond its legitimate defence and security requirements, can be found in India's aggressive national aims and long term objectives. Indian perceptions of threat to her sovereignty from her small neighbours, emerge from its own past and present policies of attempting to subdue the whole of South Asia to her will. India views itself as a potential global power which has used military force against all its neighbours including China and has in the process inherited the mantle of a local bully.

India's defence build-up over the years and her advanced military capabilities that have multiplied in recent years have initiated a chain reaction in the region. The latest manifestation of its hegemonic designs is amply reflected in the three nuclear devices exploded on May 11 and another two on May 13, 1998 at Pokhran in utter disregard of world opinion and a general opposition to testing. There was of course no military compulsion to do so as there was no threat posed to the security of India. In any case nothing had changed across her borders to justify the sudden emergence of nuclear weapons in South Asia, which was bound to elicit a similar response from Pakistan. India's nuclear path was a political requirement of her new government based on their election manifesto. The second major item based on the Indian election promises was the forceful occupation of Azad Kashmir by Indian forces. India had made the necessary preparations for doing so under the pretext of hot pursuit, but for the timely intervention reaction by Pakistan's nuclear explosions which brought a sense of military parity to the region and blunted India's aggressive intentions across the Line of Control in Kashmir.

Last month in October 1998 India carried out a combined military exercise involving army, navy and airforce units. The exercise conducted was to land a large body of troops from Naval vessels on an 'enemy' held coast along with their guns and tanks. The Navy and Army units were supported by aircraft and armed helicopters. This show of strength and her troops landing capability on a hostile shore was certainly an unprovoked act of belligerency to be condemned by all peace loving nations.

Similarly India's large scale military exercises being held this month in December, is against the spirit of mutual confidence building measures to be adopted this year consequent to the acquisition of nuclear weapons by both sides. There was no need whatsoever for this provocative measure. The Indian military exercises could have been held at a certain distance away from the border as had been decided some years ago. This is an Indian attempt at her 'show of force'. Such actions are bound to elicit similar reactions from the other side and should certainly be avoided, for peace of the region.

A threat to our sovereignty also emanates from the fact of our geographic location which has some strategic significance. We sit beside the crucial sea lanes of the West's oil supply from the Persian Gulf. We are located astride the two land routes to Central Asia. Our Northern Area is in close proximity to China, Tajikistan (which still has Russian troops on its soil) and the Afghan Wakhan corridor. Our all-weather land route to China via the Karakoram highway is the modern version of the old Silk Route, which is of considerable economic and strategic significance to the two countries and also the Central Asian States to the north.

It is therefore worth giving a thought to the fact that our Western sea coast is akin to our soft underbelly. It is important to us, yet it is vulnerable and coveted by others. India's recent tri-service largescale exercise where troops and tanks were moved ashore by a sea-borne landing was significant. Similarly our Northern Areas are of special significance to our defence, and efforts are being made by external forces interested in its location to penetrate the area to the detriment of our security and strategic interests. India's push into the Siachin Glacier area is in pursuit of those goals.

With all these external dangers facing us and some lurking round the corners, our conventional defence capability has somewhat been eroded over the past some years inspite of the governments best efforts to improve it. This is certainly posing some problems for our defence planners as the quantum of military threat from India remains and in fact is being enhanced every year as is evident from the increased defence allocations in every annual national budget.

Our external threat is enhanced by our internal problems which are gradually assuming alarming proportions threatening our very survival as a nation. Our greatest problem is our political immaturity, corruption and greed, ethnic and sectarian conflict, poor law and order conditions, economic mismanagement etc. These conditions are leading to political instability which casts a long and often destructive shadow on every nation building activity in the country, hampering our economic prosperity and progress. Which in turn has an important bearing on our defence capability.

In May 1998 with underground nuclear explosions on either side of the Indo-Pak divide the situation in South Asia has undergone a radical change. With nuclear weapons and their delivery means available to the armies of India and Pakistan, a form of defence equilibrium has been re-established in the region. Along with this parity, the destructive potential has increased beyond human imagination. An armed conflict between India and Pakistan under the shadow of nuclear weapons would be extremely self-destructive and would not produce any winners or losers.

The situation therefore calls for statesmanship of the highest order on the part of leaders in both India and Pakistan. They have first to educate their public and start moving back from the brink of disaster and show some movement towards the negotiating table. In the meantime some confidence building measures initiated at the official level would be essential to de-escalate tension that has been built up over the years. India being a large country has to take the initiative to gain the trust and confidence of her small neighbours which they rightly lack at present. This is essential for the future peace in South Asia.