Sitting on a Vulcano in South Asia
J. Sri Raman 
The world at large was shocked to discover the development of a new, nuclear flashpoint in South Asia over the past six months or so. The peace movement in India (and in Pakistan) was not. As the movement saw it, this was the inevitable culmination of two processes that it has been striving to counter - with scarcely any success so far but with the firm of a final victory.
The first of these processes began with the nuclear-weapon tests of India (in the desert Pokharan) and Pakistan (in the Chagai hills) in May 1998. Believe it or not, the camp of nuclear militarism in both the countries claimed that the process of nuclear weaponization was the path to peace in the region. The "deterrence" theory dictated, so it was argued, that there would henceforth be not even a conventional war between India and Pakistan. Within months of the tests, however, the 'Kargil conflict' broke out between the two. Several times, in the course of the conflict that claimed about a thousand human lives, the militarists of both the countries issued dire threats of nuclear attacks on each other.
The second of the two processes began on the morrow of the infamous September 11. Both India and Pakistan are officially now 'allies' in the 'multinational coalition against global terror' under the USA of the George Bush Administration. And this strange partnership was what directly led to the India-Pakistan standoff of the past six months that came to cause worldwide apprehensions. For, each of the regional rivals has been driven over the period of the Afghan war and its aftermath by the delusion of an opportunity to inflict a decisive defeat on the other with the help of the Big Brother USA.
The government of India under a far-Right leadership greeted September 11 with a gleeful expression of hope that Washington would now respond better to its talk of Pakistan-aided terrorism, especially in the disputed Himalayan territory of Kashmir. Or, even of its idea of striking at 'cross-border terrorism' with the approval and assistance of the USA-led West. The hope appeared to be belied by the restoration of Pakistan's status as a friend of the USA and its frontline state in the region following President General Pervez Musharraf 's decision to side with the Bush hordes in the Afghan war.
India's hawks have been flattering themselves, however, that they have over the past months won the diplomatic war launched after the terrorist assault on the Indian parliament on December 13 last year. New Delhi was quick to see the hand of Pakistan behind the assault, and Islamabad to deny the allegation and argue that there was little love lost between it and the Islamic radicals after the outbreak of the Afghan war.
The fearsome standoff followed soon, despite all talk of a diplomatic offensive. India massed about 750,000 troops on the 2,000-mile-long borders and Pakistan followed suit with about 250,000 of its own. Both conducted direly demonstrative tests of their respective missiles with the longest range. Both deployed missiles with a potential nuclear dimension. Both started carrying out raids on both villages on each other's side, forcing villagers to flee for safety.
As during the Kargil conflict, but even more chillingly, frightening threats of nuclear attacks were freely traded between the two. Pakistan's leaders, from the President downwards, repeatedly reiterated a resolve to exercise the right of "first strike", if a danger arose of their country being "wiped off the world map", and Pakistan's representative in the United Nations made a hair-raising declaration about "a first strike, a second strike and a third strike".
Not to lag behind were India's leaders, from the Prime Minister downwards. Atal Behari Vajpayee, addressing the soldiers, called for a "decisive war" and a "victory", to the loud cheers of the nuclear hawks and leaving no one in doubt about what he meant. Defence Minister George Fernandes set a new record in official irresponsibility by stating that "India can take a (nuclear) hit, survive and hit back" while Pakistan could not.
As during the Kargil conflict, again, Kashmir bore the entire brunt of the hostilities. Its suffering was increased manifold by a sharp spurt in instances of alleged terrorist attacks on innocent civilians, with no known terrorist group acknowledging responsibility for any of the attacks. The assault on the families of soldiers in the Kalachuk camp in May enhanced tensions on the borders by several notches. So did an alleged terrorist attack on the state assembly building in Srinagar, capital of India's Jammu and Kashmir.
The point to note is that the final word on such attacks has not yet been forthcoming after full and impartial inquiries. New Delhi has persisted with its Pavlovian responses of blaming each of the incidents on "Pakistan-sponsored cross-terrorism". Islamabad has continued to plead innocence, pointing to the incompatibility of its present interests with those of Islamic terrorism, even while suspiciously reiterating special solidarity with the "freedom struggle" in Kashmir.
A factor contributing to the fratricidal conflict in the region, which has not received sufficient world attention, is the internal one in either country. The fascist-type anti-minority militancy of India's main ruling party and its political camp, which led to a bloody pogrom against the Muslims in the border state of Gujarat four months ago, has played a big role in sustaining the standoff. So has the Islamic-fundamentalist terrorism in Pakistan, which reasserted itself resoundingly after September 11 in the Karachi blast months ago that sent the touring Kiwi (New Zealand) cricket team packing.
Signs of a degree of defusion of the tensions became discernible in June. Pakistan was reported to have cracked down upon "cross-border terrorists". As a quid pro quo, India allowed a resumption of Pakistani civilian flights over India's airspace and withdrew some warships from their menacing position on the Arabian Sea. It also named a new ambassador to Pakistan in the place of the envoy it had recalled at the height of the standoff.
The pressure of the world opinion, and the peace movement, had played a role in this. Obviously, however, it was the pressure of the Bush Administration that prevailed finally over New Delhi and Islamabad. But, Washington has not worked for, or won, peace for the region. Nor has it acted to avert a nuclear holocaust in South Asia.
By playing a mediatory, or what it prefers to call a "facilitatory" role, Washington is not helping towards a peaceful settlement of the India-Pakistan disputes, especially Kashmir. Its tactic of supporting select parts of the stances of both on Kashmir, in particular, looks very much like a replay of the old colonial line of "divide and rule".
On the nuclear front, it must be remembered that the Bush administration was quick to reward both New Delhi and Islamabad for joining the "multinational coalition against global terror" by lifting sanctions imposed against both after the tests of 1998. This amounted to a recognition of the status of both as nuclear-weapon states and left both free to proceed further on the perilous path of nuclear militarism. An encouraging signal, especially to India, is Washington's projection of the Theater Missile Defense programme in the region as directed against China and the inclusion of China among the targets of the US plan to bring nuclear weapons into the battlefield as indicated in the infamous Nuclear Posture Review (NPR).
India's peace movement warned in June against rejoicing too soon over the relaxation of tensions. It is, unfortunately, proving right. The one million troops on the borders still stay there. India's government has declared that it was not contemplating any withdrawal before the elections in Jammu and Kashmir slated for October. Tensions are rising on the borders and political temperatures inside both the countries, meanwhile. In India, the provocation has been supplied by the massacre by alleged terrorists in Hindu-majority Jammu on July 13: New Delhi has, as usual, blamed Pakistan, and Islamabad has denied the allegation, while the identity of he culprits who committed the crime and got away under the cover of darkness is yet to be established. In Pakistan, the Islamic-fundamentalists are up in arms again after the pronouncement of a death sentence upon a terrorist in the Daniel Pearl murder case on July 16. For us, the peace activists in the region, the future holds the promise of only an uphill struggle.
