OPINION Vol.1, No.1 June 2013 - National Defence University

During the conflict, leaders/officials of both countries did not hesitate to exchange direct or indirect
nuclear threats which rang alarm bells in the international community.
Deterrent Effect on India
Due to deterrence, India did not enlarge its theatre of hostilities against the military logic, which
required extension of the conflict to other sectors to release pressure on Indian forces in the confined
Drass – Kargil Sector. Fear of uncontrollable escalation prevented India from attacking Pakistani forces
and targets across the LOC. Indian Air Force was used to support its ground forces, but under strict orders
not to cross the LOC which entailed great flying risks in mountainous terrain.
Deterrent Effect on Pakistan
Capability notwithstanding, Pakistan, for its part, did not extend its ground operations to other
sectors to draw off Indian ground forces concentrating in the Drass – Kargil area or exploit the relative
vacuum presented by Indian forces elsewhere. Pakistan also did not use its Air Force in support of the
infiltrators or to counter Indian Air Force. Was Pakistan worried that opening the other sectors or use of air
force would escalate the conventional conflict Was Pakistan inhibited by the nuclear deterrent available to
India What forced Pakistan to meet restraint with a reciprocal restraint Or it can be concluded that
nuclear deterrence did delimit, if not deter, Indo-Pak conflict for the first time but actually, unfavourable
environment, sagging economy and cleavages in the civil-military relations had a greater restraining
impact on Pakistan.
Role of US in Defusing of Kargil Conflict
Through deft exterior manoeuvre, India successfully isolated and portrayed Pakistan as a
revisionist state attempting to change the status quo which must be restrained else it could lead to
catastrophic consequences. Therefore, international community led by United States urged Pakistan to
respect the LOC and withdraw its forces from across, while at the same time, urged India to restrain itself
from crossing the LOC or open another front in the conflict. As stated earlier, this led to US President Bill
Clinton’s brokered peace deal in July 99 which necessitated Pakistani withdrawal from across and
restoration of the LOC which was done 5 . Formal ending of Kargil conflict by USA in India’s favour
surprised even Indians as it was the first time in fifty years that the United States had sided with India
against Pakistan ‘openly and firmly’. Kargil initiated a period of greater harmony between the United
States and India which developed into strategic partnership in the later years.
Outcome of the Conflict
There has been a lack of consensus among Indian and Pakistani observers about the outcome of the
conflict as well as the influence of nuclear weapons. Pakistan felt that the military victory on the battlefield
though could not be sustained on political grounds; yet the central objective of bringing Kashmir back to
international focus was largely achieved. In contrast, India was convinced that Kargil was a victory for it
as its forces had prevailed on the battlefield, its political leaders had not been intimidated by Pakistan’s
nuclear weapons, and Pakistan had been portrayed to the international community as an aggressor and
reckless state while India attained the reputation of a responsible and restrained nuclear power.
Recapitulation of the Conflict
PART 2
MILITARY STANDOFF – 2001/ 2002 (THE TWIN PEAKS CRISIS)
The military standoff between Pakistan and India in 2001/2002 spanned over a period of 10
months and was a product of 2 separate terrorist activities. Due to the severity of events, bringing both the
countries to the peaks of tension, these crises are referred to as “Twin Peaks Crisis.” The “First Peak of
Crisis” began on 13 December 2001, when the terrorists attacked Indian parliament, killing a number of
guards there 6 . The Indian leadership portrayed the attack as an assault upon the very foundations of Indian
democracy and quickly pointed an accusing finger towards Pakistan. Blaming Lashkar-e-Tayyaba (LET)
and Jaish-e-Mohammad (JEM) for the terrorists attack, India demanded that Pakistan must end the
activities of these two organizations, arrest their leadership and freeze their financial assets. India also
demanded extradition of some twenty alleged criminals who were on its wanted list and had been given
asylum in Pakistan. Pakistan demanded concrete evidence against these individuals. India cut diplomatic
links with Pakistan and geared up the war hysteria by deploying more than half a million troops along the
LOC and the international border. Pakistan also responded in kind and this became the biggest
OPINION Vol.1 No.1 107 June 2013