Nuclear conflict may not break out where people expect: Why did India and Pakistan come into conflict?
"This could cut off the relevant countries' access to the Arabian Sea. For those who do not wish for the development of these countries, this war would be very attractive."
Author: Mikhail Zubov
Photo: An image generated by artificial intelligence
Article Commentator:
Boris Volkhonsky
On Sunday, April 27, tensions between two nuclear-armed countries — India and Pakistan — had persisted for nearly a week and escalated into fierce fighting between their troops near the de facto border in the disputed territory of Kashmir.
Political figures began seriously discussing the possibility of a nuclear war.
Pakistani Defense Minister Khawaja Asif stated that his country does not intend to initiate a war, but "if any action is taken by the other side, our response will match it."
"If India attempts to invade Pakistan or attacks Pakistan, it will face a response far beyond parity," Asif said.
The escalation of this long-standing conflict was triggered by a terrorist attack on April 22 in Pahalgam, a city in the Jammu and Kashmir region. At least 26 people were killed, 25 of whom were Indian citizens. The "Resistance Front" organization in Afghanistan claimed responsibility for the attack. This organization is not banned in Russia but is considered a terrorist group in both India and Pakistan.
Afghans did not disclose the purpose of their operation.
Nevertheless, the Indian authorities accused Pakistan of providing assistance for the terrorist attack and closed all four water gates on the Indus River, which control the flow of water through dams and canals to Pakistan. In response, Islamabad closed its airspace, banned flights from Indian airlines, and halted all trade.
New Delhi and Islamabad demanded that citizens of the other country leave their respective territories within 48 hours.
Who orchestrated the provocation that escalated the conflict between India and Pakistan, who might benefit from the new confrontation between the two countries, and whether it could lead to a nuclear conflict? "Free Media" interviewed Orientalist and associate professor at Moscow University's Institute of Asian and African Studies, Boris Volkhonsky, on this issue.
"Free Media": Boris Mikhailovich, why does India believe that the terrorist attack in Pahalgam was carried out by Pakistan, even though an Afghan organization claimed responsibility?
"As the saying goes, there is nothing more fearsome than a beast, so in any terrorist incident, India always sees the shadow of Pakistan. This is a common practice.
In addition, armed fighters from the 'Resistance Front' and some other radicals are hiding in Pakistan. Pakistan as a nation has no connection with these organizations, although it may have had contact with some of them before September 11, 2001. However, after the New York incident, things changed.
Pakistani authorities have been striving to combat these organizations, but they have not always succeeded. The terrain in Kashmir is extremely complex: mountains, valleys, forests in the mid-mountain areas. Armed militants are familiar with their routes and can move relatively freely along these routes, while security forces cannot track them down. They cannot be discovered from the air by drones or satellites, and on the ground, armed militants can ambush anyone at will. It is impossible to locate them in the vast forests and complicated terrain."
"Free Media": Could a full-scale war break out between these two nuclear-armed countries?
"I don't think so, precisely because they are nuclear-armed countries. At present, nuclear weapons remain a deterrent weapon.
In India's theory, the first use of nuclear weapons is excluded, and Pakistan will only consider using nuclear weapons when its national survival is threatened."
"Free Media": What is the balance of nuclear power between these two countries?
"Of course, we don't know the exact numbers, but from the perspective of the number of nuclear warheads, the two sides are roughly equal. However, in terms of delivery systems, India undoubtedly surpasses its potential rival, and India's retaliatory strike against Pakistan would be devastating. Pakistan might cease to exist.
In today's world, of course, nothing can be ruled out, but in this case, I think the possibility of a nuclear conflict can be ruled out."
"Free Media": Who might benefit from escalating the conflict between India and Pakistan?
"At least three almost conspiratorial theories can be proposed.
The first is that due to the terrorist attack, India abolished the treaty on water resource allocation (the Indus).
This decision has been brewing for a long time. India plans to use part of the upstream waters of the Indus River for its own needs — hydraulic engineering, irrigation, and power generation. But doing so requires violating the treaty, and now there is a good opportunity to abolish it.
The second theory is related to the logic of the terrorists themselves. Understanding their intentions is always difficult, but it is possible that their goal is to provoke dissatisfaction with India's actions in Kashmir and incite uprisings. Especially, many in Kashmir are indeed dissatisfied with the decision in 2019 to divide the state into two regions.
There is also a third theory unrelated to these two countries but involving others.
For certain forces, it would be very advantageous for India to get involved in a full-scale conflict with Pakistan because the shortest route connecting the Arabian Sea to the country runs through Pakistan. Relevant countries establish connections with oil-producing countries in the Middle East via this corridor. If India and Pakistan engage in full-scale combat, the passage of both countries' economic corridors will become impossible.
"Free Media": What about alternative routes?
"If the Pakistani route is blocked, oil will have to be transported by sea through the Malacca Strait. First, this takes a long time; second, it passes near Singapore, where there are U.S. warships. For the United States, blocking the Malacca Strait to stop ships from relevant countries is not difficult. Therefore, relevant countries have developed a keen interest in alternative energy transport routes through Russia, such as 'Power of Siberia,' etc.
So, for those forces that do not wish for relevant countries to remain independent and strong, the India-Pakistan war would be very attractive. I won't name names, but such interests are obvious."
"Free Media": Can the relationship between India and Pakistan be mediated on the SCO platform (both India and Pakistan are members of the SCO)?
"The Kashmir issue has existed for 78 years, and the two countries have different assessments of it from the perspective of negotiating solutions. Pakistan hopes to resolve this issue on an international platform based on UN resolutions and invites foreign third parties as mediators.
However, the Indian government believes that this is entirely a bilateral issue and should not involve any other countries in the resolution process.
Therefore, when both countries joined the SCO, an agreement was reached that the members of the organization would not expose contradictions between India and Pakistan on the common discussion platform.
Of course, Russia and relevant countries can act as mediators, and the SCO is also the most reasonable mediation mechanism, but this requires India's consent, and there are currently no signs of this happening."
Original source: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7498242399366316598/
Disclaimer: This article solely represents the author's views, and you can express your attitude by clicking the [Upvote/Downvote] button below.