The attack by terrorists on the Indian Parliament building a few days ago raised fears of war in South Asia. These events should be taken as a strong cautionary signal to both sides. A nuclear conflagration can happen as the inevitable consequence of events, even though neither side set out with that disaster in mind.
For Pakistan, it again highlights the weakness of the Jihadi strategy that has been followed for the last several years in both Afghanistan and Kashmir. The use of religious extremists in pursuit of Pakistan’s political goals is a double-edged sword. Because of their religious fervor, they are capable of suffering great hardship and willing to battle against unfavorable odds. But on the other hand, they have their own agendas, and can embark on actions that endanger Pakistan. Like Frankenstein’s monster, they do not stay under the control of their creator.
In Afghanistan, the Taliban served Pakistan’s interest by overrunning the Northern Alliance government, creating a Pashtun dominated state, and being allied nominally with Pakistan. This was more true in 1996 and 1997. In the last few years, the Taliban have been essentially independent, and did not listen to Pakistan when asked to hand over Bin Laden. Pakistan had no choice but to support the American war on the Taliban, and although events have turned out for the best in several ways, it is still seen as a failure of the ISI policy on Afghanistan.
In Kashmir, a similar strategy of supporting Jihadi elements in a guerrilla war against India has been carried out for the last several years. Over 30,000 people have died in this conflict, the eight million Muslims of Kashmir are living under a dictatorial system that suppresses their rights, and the small Hindu minority has fled several years ago in the face of violence and instability. Widespread human rights abuses by the Indians keep the Kashmiris angry and inflamed.
India accuses Pakistan of controlling the Jihadis and providing them arms and training. Pakistan denies this, but admits to “moral” support of Kashmiri freedom fighters. Several Kashmiri Jihadi groups have a presence in Pakistan, which India wants shut down. India accuses them of being “terrorists” and denies that they are combatants in a war. India has often threatened to cross the Kashmiri border (Line of Control) and attack Jihadi bases in Pakistan under the doctrine of “hot pursuit”.
For Pakistan, as long as plausible deniability could be maintained that the ISI was not directly involved in these groups, it was not risking much. But the attack on the Indian Parliament changes the equation. If the attack had succeeded, there would have been tremendous pressure on the Indian government for a military response. Probably this would have been confined to an operation across the Line of Control, but an assault along the Punjab border and full-scale war would also have been possible. Pakistan would then be placed in a very difficult situation. It could try to defend itself with conventional means, it could launch a counterassault elsewhere, or it could consider a nuclear response. As India is far stronger in conventional terms, the possibility of threatening a nuclear attack would have to be considered.
As a result, Pakistan would be faced with considering the unthinkable due to actions that were not of Pakistan’s choosing. Pakistan did not order the assault on the Parliament, but if Indian allegations that the terrorist were either Pakistani citizens or trained in Pakistan are true (and no proof has been provided), then the Pakistani government must consider the danger that they have put Pakistan in. The uncontrollable nature of the Jihadis makes them very dangerous in the nuclear age.
Last summer, Musharraf and Vajpayee had come to an understanding on Kashmir at the Agra summit meeting. A signing ceremony for a joint statement had been arranged when Vajpayee backed out under pressure from extremists in his own party. This shows that Indian inflexibility on Kashmir is a very large part of the problem. The eight million Muslims of Kashmir deserve our complete support, and a resolution of the issue in accordance with the wishes of the people there has to be the basis of a solution. But the struggle in Kashmir is not worth risking a nuclear war. Be careful.