My interview with a German online magazine 03 Mar 19
Article Read Time
https://deutsch.rt.com/asien/85160-indischer-ex-generalmajor-sowohl-indien-pakistan-wollen-kein-atomkrieg/
English version also available under translate
My interview with a German online magazine 03 Mar 19
Does the current military development between Pakistan and India have the potential to develop into a real war with a nuclear component? What factors speak in favour and what geopolitical reasons would speak against it?
The changes of this escalation going beyond into a nuclear conflict look low. The reasons behind the same appear to be:
1. India
– India had launched its air strikes for possibly the following reasons:
-To inform the world community that enough is enough, and India will respond to such terrorist strikes on its soil. Therefore, necessary pressure must be maintained on Pak to desist. It was also to pass the message that India possess the will power and military capability to respond.
– For Pak it was a warning that India is willing to up the escalation ladder, despite Pak’s nuclear bluff. It has hit deep and is ready for any escalation.
– For the Indian public it conveyed that the government has acted against terrorists and would continue to do so.
2. Choosing the target. The target chosen was a terrorist camp, away from civil population and military installations. Thus, it was a non-military target and there were no civilian casualties. The depth was to convey that India can hit deep and at a time of own choosing.
3. Pak responded because it had to display to its public that if India crosses the Line of Control (LoC), so it could. It jettisoned its weaponry in an area un-held by the mil nor with civilian population. Though India claims it was seeking to hit military installations, the truth may not be known. Had it hit military installations, there could have been an escalation.
4. Reasons why it will not escalate.
The message has been conveyed by both sides that we can act as also respond. Pak has the added advantage of the capture of a pilot, not that this could bind India in any way. It would now release the pilot as a goodwill gesture and to indicate peace.
The actions of both countries were along the LoC, a line not yet considered the national border. Hence operations in this region can be kept confined. Finally, neither nation has mobilized its entire armed forces, keeping it localized.
You are a former high-ranking officer in the Indian army. How do you assess Pakistan’s military capabilities and what would be India’s options and operational movements in the event of a limited military conflict?
1. Pak’s military capabilities are severely restricted due to financial constraints, whether it be the quality and vintage of weapons, quantity of weapons or holding of ammunition. Further, Pak is aware that if it pulls its forces back from its western borders, the militancy and freedom struggle situation may escalate there, hence has been threatening the world that such an action could impact Afghan peace talks.
2. India despite its shortcomings is far better equipped. India can pull in vast number of troops from its forces deployed in Kashmir as also from the East.
3. Options in a limited conflict in the mountains may yield limited gains, which could imply taking posts or enclaves. However, it would be dominated by air power, in which state India has an advantage.
4. In case further escalation does take place, India could exercise its cold start doctrine, calling the Pak nuclear bluff and aiming to keep it below nuclear threshold.
What role does access to water sources play in the Kashmir conflict? The Indus River in particular has its origins in the Kashmir and the wider region.
Pak’s interest in Kashmir mainly stems from its desperation for water sources. The Indus water treaty shared the water resources between the two countries equitably. However, over the years, India did not use its share of resources to the full extent. Now the government has acted to use its resources completely as also construct dams which do not stop the flow of water into Pak. Pak is entitled to inspect these dams, which continue to be a cause of concern for them.
Since Pak’s main sources of water flows from Kashmir, it will continue to play a major role in any conflict.
India criticises Pakistan for supporting terrorists. Which organisations are meant (Jaish-e Mohammed) and how is Pakistan trying to expand its influence in Kashmir?
The two main organizations are the Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) and the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT). There are other offshoots but of lesser consequence. Over the years, these two have dominated operations in the valley based on the control of the ISI. Presently JeM has a greater role.
In Kashmir, Pak has a multitiered system working in Kashmir to alienate the youth. The first is the support it has garnered of the separatists which it had created. They claim to be the voice of the Kashmiris but toe the line of Pakistan. The same was admitted by Assad Durrani, the ex-ISI chief of Pakistan in his book The Spy Chronicles, co-authored by ex-RAW chief, AS Dulat.
The second is a strong social media campaign seeking to turn the minds of the youth by projecting an anti-India and anti-Hindu image as also perceived atrocities against Muslims, mostly fake.
The third is pushing in trained militants into the valley.
These combined with the presence of Imams belting demands for Jihad have led to a number of local youth also joining militancy.
With recent successes by Indian security forces, there are more local militants than foreign militants.
The question of the loyalty of India’s Muslim population keeps coming up. To what extent is the assumption correct that the Muslims in Kashmir do not support the Indian state and thus make political and military control over the area more difficult?
This question is debateable. Statistically it is a different picture. The total population of the valley is 61 Lakhs, of which 40% is below the age of 30. With a few thousands indulging in stone pelting and a few hundred militants, the figures are not alarming.
However, on ground, in few areas where the militancy thrives, large numbers of youth indicate an anti-India and pro-Militancy attitude. It is basically in South Kashmir and small parts of north Kashmir. The rest of the region is neutral and desire just peace.
The opposite view is that the large success of security forces in recent times is due to human intelligence which flows from the locals, who have realized the futility of the battle.
Thus, the truth is somewhere in between. In some areas, alienation is strong, in most other regions, it is fairly limited.
What impact could the conflict in Kashmir have on the war in Afghanistan, where Pakistan supports the Taliban and India is on the side of the Kabul government?
The main impact would be the use of Taliban fighters, rendered free post the formation of the new government in Afghanistan with the Taliban, to be pushed into Kashmir. It was being done earlier, during the Taliban rule and may be attempted again. This would enhance the level of militancy in the region.
India has helped Iran expand the Chabahar port and now has an alternative route to Afghanistan. Is India’s goal to isolate Pakistan from all sides in the long term?
There is no doubt that it is India’s intention to isolate Pak. Whether it can do so, considering the geo-political importance of Pak and the need of major powers on the country is another issue.
The opening of the Chabahar port has many more reasons, other than to impact Pakistan. It reduces Afghanistan’s dependency on Karachi and thus their ability to strangle it. It is also a means to open doors to Central Asia through Afghanistan.
China is interested in supporting its ally Pakistan in Kashmir, as the region can also influence the CPEC project Beijing is pursuing. On the other hand, the US has given India a free hand in Kashmir. Are we facing a kind of proxy conflict between Russia and China in the region?
China has two main reasons for supporting Pak. The first is to counterbalance India. With a militarily capable Pak, India must always consider a two-front war, which implies additional defence expenditure, which it can ill afford. Thus, Pak is certain of diplomatic and military support from China.
The second is its huge investments in the country which it cannot draw back from. There cannot be any retrograde step by Pak which can damage its investments. CPEC has anyway almost made Pak a province of China, which it must support.
The US is an Indian ally and has diplomatically supported India. It has made the right sounds and the right statements. However, it also knows that it can push thus far and no further. This is because it desperately needs Pak support for pushing the Taliban for talks and to find a solution.
This will get more critical for Trump, with the failure of US-North Korea talks.
What role does Russia play in the conflict and how are Russia’s regional interests shaping up in the face of growing US cooperation with India, while relations with Pakistan remain tense despite the fact that Moscow is also negotiating peace in Afghanistan with the Taliban on Pakistan?
Russia is a close friend of India, while also being an emerging friend of Pak. At the same time, it also needs Pak as it seeks to interact with the Taliban as the ISIS presence grows in Afghanistan. To some extent, India-Russian relations appeared to be on a thaw, as India grew closer to the US. However, the signing of defence deals and discussions on a logistics pact, similar to the Indo-US pact is moving the relationship back on level track.
Russia has supported the Indian stance of nominating JeM head, Masood Azar as a global terrorist, leaving only China to join in. It has been Russia which has assured India of cooling down Indo-China tensions.
Russia needs ideal relations with both India and Pak for different reasons. India because of it being a traditional ally, its status as a regional power and location on the Indian Ocean, which provides it domination of the region.
It needs Pak because of the ongoing crises in Afghanistan and its geo-political location bordering CAR.
The joint statement at the end of the Russia-India-China foreign ministers meeting was indicative of Russian support. China may have attempted to block part of the same, however would have been pushed by Russia.
How great is the British colonial heritage, which as a rule pursued the philosophy of divide and conquer in foreign policy, in the emergence of today’s Kashmir conflict?
The Kashmir crises is a flow from history. The division of the country on religious grounds has been the root cause of the problem. The ruler of Muslim majority Kashmir seeking to join India, the influx of Pak raiders into the state, the war of 1948-49, leading to India approaching the UN, declaring a ceasefire and creating an LoC has remained a major issue between the two countries. It worsened after the 1971 war.
A solution to the same is not easy nor forthcoming. It could have been resolved post 1971 when India held 93000 prisoners, however the opportunity was missed. That is history. A futuristic solution is neither easy nor forthcoming for the moment.
Talks are the solution, but the question remains with whom. The elected government of Pak or its army, which controls the country. India prefers government to government and its army does not desire peace, as its only enemy and route to power and control is India.
About the Author
Maj Gen Harsha Kakkar
Retired Major General Indian Army