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

strikes, is the only available option to implement a policy of coercive diplomacy. Such strategists
obviously miss the point as to how a limited conflict can be controlled since the loser would naturally be
tempted to seek reversal of its losses while the victor would be encouraged to maximize its gains. Both
these possibilities would push the conflict up the escalation ladder with minimal chances of restraint.
Kashmir – Central to All Disputes
Current shift in the focus notwithstanding, Kashmir remains central to all disputes between India
and Pakistan 18 . It has either been the main theatre of Indo – Pakistan conflicts or the main cause of their
bilateral crises over the years. While portraying the indigenous freedom struggle as foreign sponsored and
supported militancy in Kashmir, India downplays the root causes of the conflict which include forcible
occupation against the wishes of its people, blatant violation of UN Resolutions, and denial of basic human
rights to its citizens. It has probably dawned upon the leadership of both countries that keeping it a zerosum
game has not and will not benefit anyone and by making compromises rather than maximalist rhetoric
which becomes counterproductive, they can hope to see a solution to this chronic problem. However, any
thought of making compromises pushes the leadership of both India and Pakistan into a paradoxical
situation. The dilemma for them is how to make concessions and still be able to claim victory. Getting both
sides to a win-win situation has proved to be an elusive objective and beyond the acumen of the
policymakers of both countries for the past two generations. This, in the absence of any third party
mediation/guidance, ultimately leads the whole process to a blind alley.
Nuclear Weapons Avert War But Do Not Make Peace
The Indo – Pakistan crises under focus reveal that nuclear weapons did deter escalation to a
general war but did not prevent Kargil Conflict as well as omnipresent sub conventional war between the
two countries. The threat of a nuclear war also brings in outside powers with their vested interests in the
region. None of the crises transcended to nuclear domain which is certainly reflective of the responsible
attitudes of both countries. Therefore, it seems unlikely, that either would use a nuclear weapon in a
conventional war except as a last resort, when vital interests are perceived to be in jeopardy. The strategic
stability driven instability, germinated at lower levels, yields a vitiated environment marked by a perpetual
state of sub conventional conflict and expression of hostilities through other non-kinetic subtle means.
Hence war certainly remains averted but achievement of peace also becomes an unrealizable dream.
The Role of Media
The unprecedented role and clout acquired by media since Gulf War - 1 had an anticipated impact
on perception management of public in South Asia during crises. The mushrooming of private television
channels and cable networks in both countries has effectively superseded the state-controlled media in
credibility and coverage. Kargil was South Asia’s first war under the glare of media. Indian media
orchestrated a brilliant campaign to highlight Pakistani culpability and shape domestic and international
opinion in India’s favour. Now a network of think tanks, independent scholars, non governmental
organizations and a much better informed political community has arisen to challenge government policy
on vital matters 19 . The practices of the yore which allowed concealing of the facts under the thick fog of
concocted stories about the outcome of military operations may not now be possible under the sharp focus
of media and embedded journalism has added even greater transparency to it. Media has played and will
continue to play a predominant role in building the public opinion in support or otherwise of future
crises/escalation control and taking the South Asian region towards dispute resolution and durable peace.
Conclusion
Overt nuclearization of South Asia, though expected to bring a period of greater stability, has not
deterred sub-conventional warfare or limited conventional war (1999 Kargil), escalation to the brink of war
in 2001-2002 and the possibility of dangerous misadventures like thoughts of surgical strikes in the
aftermath of the Mumbai terrorist attacks. Both countries applied pressure tactics, resorted to coercive
diplomacy and manifested a perpetually hostile foreign policy towards each other but nothing has worked
so far to ensure durable peace. Next time the situation may explode suddenly, much before the intervention
of any third party, resulting into the destruction of all that we so lovingly cherish. Finding a peaceful
settlement of all the contending issues, including and most importantly Kashmir, to the satisfaction of all
the parties concerned would be a litmus test of the statesmanship of leaders of both the countries – a real
test in which failure is no more an option.
OPINION Vol.1 No.1 112 June 2013