The Pakistan India rivalry has dominated the region’s conflicts ever since partition. Before the rise of the pro-US BJP, the US overtly supported the Pakistani position on Kashmir, looking for means to intervene in the conflict and so gain influence over India. However, the rise of the pro-US BJP in 1998, together with 9/11 and the launch of the US war on terror in Muslim lands, the political equation in the region has changed substantially.
Prior to the rise of the BJP, the Pakistani military position on Kashmir was very clearly predicated on the strategy to bring India to peace over Kashmir. Hence, the conventional war, as in 1965, or proxy wars, such as the Kashmir uprisings, were conceived and executed to slowly bleed India. Whilst India was aware that it was Pakistan, with the tacit support of the US, who was behind the material and moral support for the Kashmiri struggle, India was unable to initiate any strong military response. As for Kashmir itself, alliance with America meant that the rulers of Pakistan never worked sincerely to liberate it, because the Americans only wanted them to do enough to create pressure on India, as India under Congress remained outside the American sphere of influence.
As for the reason for India’s muted response one must consider that since partition, both India and Pakistan engaged in arms races in order to develop and /or procure conventional weapons to counter any offensive from the opponent. India, with a larger economy always had the conventional superiority. Pakistan had a smaller armed forces, and a smaller economy, and hence less financial freedom to purchase beyond its means. Hence, the conflict was balanced due to asymmetrical perspectives. India had a larger border to protect, with a larger number of internal insurgencies to deal with, whilst Pakistan’s rulers aligned themselves with the US in the event of any conflict.
The Kashmir Jihad was a phase in which the asymmetry was balanced through the possession of nuclear weapons. Pakistan had gone nuclear well before the 1998 explosions through cold testing confirming its capabilities. Support for the Kashmir Jihad would have warranted a conventional response from India. In the event of Pakistan’s existence being at stake, Pakistan would have no choice but to reduce its nuclear threshold and go for a nuclear attack. At this point, the Indians would have to consider how far to push the Pakistanis, and at the same time, expect that the international powers would have to intervene to prevent nuclear war. This would inevitably mean the US, which is what the Indians, under Congress rather than the BJP, were loathed to do. Hence, the Indians were far more tolerant about Pakistani interference in Kashmir. Hence, the nuclear weapons were the guarantee for Pakistan that India would not go for an all-out conventional war. This then gave Pakistan’s rulers the ability to be more innovative in their proxy activities against India with tacit US approval.
All this changed when India and the US aligned themselves together during the Clinton and Vajpayee era. The Kargil adventure was the first instance where the Indians went for an aggressive attack, with incursions into Pakistan as well. The ever increasing US alignment with India meant that America’s loyal agent Musharraf chose restraint for the nuclear threshold to make way for the rise of India as a regional power, amongst other measures.
The Pakistani strategy of using proxy groups to interfere in Kashmir, or the rest of India for that matter was now at stake. Post 9/11, all Islamic Jihadi groups were now declared as terrorists, and hence Pakistan was under pressure to reign in the groups. On the Indian border, this was clearly done, with US pressure to appease the Indians. The implications of this was very significant. Pakistan’s strategy of using proxy groups to interfere in Kashmir to pressurize India into negotiations over Kashmir with the expectation of US support, was now in tatters. However, the nuclear weapons, and the ability to use them still remained and was thus an obstacle to the American plan for India to rise as the dominant regional power.
The Indian Army, in its attempt to counter this Pakistani strategy, in 2004 unveiled the Cold Start Doctrine. In the most simplistic terms, the goal of this limited war doctrine was to establish the ability to launch a retaliatory conventional strike against Pakistan that would inflict significant harm on the Pakistan Army before the international community could intercede, and at the same time, pursue narrow enough aims to deny Pakistan a justification to escalate the clash to the nuclear level. In practical terms, it would manifest itself as a lightning fast incursion into Pakistan, capture around 50-l00 km and then hold or pull back before Pakistan would consider going nuclear.
Hence, the doctrine was an attempt to counter the use of the lower nuclear threshold to prevent India from engaging in conventional warfare. However, Pakistan went one step further and developed tactical nuclear weapons to counter the cold start doctrine. These were nuclear weapons that were designed to be used on the battlefield, and hence could easily counter the incursion based on the cold start doctrine.
Whether the Indians have been successful in implementing the Cold Start Doctrine and executing it is questionable, but Pakistan has successfully tested tactical nuclear weapons. Hence, the India-Pakistan asymmetrical war theater was back to its original position, with India unable to counter a potential aggressive Pakistani posture.
The Indians therefore opted for the only solution available to put pressure on Pakistan via the US. The US had already pressurized Pakistan about its use of proxy groups, and the US India joint statement on terrorism indicated this clearly. America has now mobilized to address Pakistan’s tactical nuclear weapon capabilities.
In an article published in the Express Tribune on 28th August 2015, cited an article published in the Washington Post, which states: “Pakistan could become the world’s third-largest nuclear stockpile after the United States and Russia within a decade, The Washington Post reported on Thursday. According to a new statistics conducted by two American think tanks, Pakistan may be building 20 nuclear warheads annually. The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the Stimson Center’s report concludes that Pakistan is rapidly expanding its nuclear capabilities because of fear of its archrival, India, also a nuclear power. The analysis says that Pakistan is far outpacing India in the development of nuclear warheads.” Hence, the precursor to a discussion on Pakistan’s nuclear weapons was set.
Then in an article published in the Washington Post, David Ignatius revealed the existence of plans to control Pakistan’s nuclear weapons, stating, “The White House is also exploring what could be a diplomatic blockbuster: possible new limits and controls on Pakistan’s nuclear weapons and delivery systems. Such an accord might eventually open a path toward a Pakistani version of the civil nuclear deal that was launched with India in 2005. The nuclear dialogue is especially important because it would begin to address what U.S. officials for two decades have viewed as one of the world’s most dangerous security problems. A source familiar with the talks said Pakistan has been asked to consider what are described as “brackets.” Pakistan would agree to restrict its nuclear program to weapons and delivery systems that are appropriate to its actual defense needs against India’s nuclear threat. Pakistan might agree not to deploy missiles capable of reaching beyond a certain range, for example.” The article goes on to state that, “But the issue is being discussed quietly in the run-up to Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s visit to Washington on Oct. 22.” This indicates that discussions in secret had already begun.
Whilst many articles have been subsequently published, the most telling one was published in tribune on 21st October 2015: “Pakistan has every right to develop tactical nuclear weapons to defend itself in view of the hostile attitude of its nuclear-armed neighbour, Foreign Secretary Aizaz Ahmad Chaudhry said on Tuesday. In an interview with PTV on Tuesday, he said the country’s nuclear programme was not meant for war but for the prevention of war by developing deterrent capabilities. India, Aizaz said, resorted to forward deployments under its cold start doctrine and Pakistan has every right to develop weapons to defend its sovereignty. “Our nuclear programme is not meant for war but prevention of war,” he added.” The need for the foreign secretary to mention tactical weapons, means that the US has raised the subject of Pakistan’s tactical nuclear weapons with Pakistan’s leadership to curb Pakistan’s nuclear capability.
Pakistan is a resourceful and capable country. However, its alliance with the US has handicapped its development since its creation. This is even more evident since the US has strengthened its ties with India and launched a war on Muslim Lands. Alliance with a hostile nation may appear to be a short-cut to security, but in fact it is the cause of great and continuous harm. Today, America is bent upon curbing Pakistan’s capability to prevent it from challenging the rise of India or becoming an obstacle to America’s war to secure its hegemony on Muslim Lands. The only way that the Muslims of Pakistan can escape from America’s plan is to sever the alliance with America. This will only occur through the Khilafah state, because Islam forbids alliance with the belligerent, hostile state. Allah ta’ala has ordered that they be taken as an enemy,
يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا لاَ تَتَّخِذُوا عَدُوِّي وَعَدُوَّكُمْ أَوْلِيَاءَ تُلْقُونَ إِلَيْهِمْ بِالْمَوَدَّةِ وَقَدْ كَفَرُوا بِمَا جَاءَكُمْ مِنْ الْحَقِّ
“O you who believe! Choose not My enemies who are your enemies as friends showing them affection even when they disbelieve in that truth which has come to you.”
(Surah Mumtahina 60:1)
Moreover, the Khilafah upon the method of the Prophethood will work to strengthen the capabilities of Muslim armies through several measures, including the unification of Muslim Lands and pooling of their immense resources, establishing a heavy industry to prevent technological dependence on other powers. In this way the Ummah will be established on a firm footing to influence both regional and global politics for the sake of Islam and Muslims.
Khalid Salahudeen, Pakistan