India, Pakistan, Kashmir, and Hope for the Future

This past summer, the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science published a piece by Bruce Riedel, which explained why resolution of India and Pakistan's dispute over Kashmir is essential if the region hopes to reduce terrorism, and attain a modicum of stability.  In the wake of the Mumbai attacks, this excerpt seemed especially relevant and prophetic:

"In a worst-case scenario, a terrorist incident like the July 2006 metro bombings in Mumbai or the hijacking of IA 814 could spark an Indian military response against targets in Pakistan allegedly involved in the planning and orchestration of terrorism. And that could lead to nuclear war."

So the question is, now that the 'attack' has taken place, what next?  It's true that if an investigation uncovers evidence of high-level Pakistani involvement in the Mumbai attacks, we can safely say that productive negotiations between the two countries over Kashmir, leading to warmer relations, are no longer possible.  Even before the attack, I would say that short-term prospects for a settlement were almost non-existent.  But still, are matters so far beyond salvaging?  Afterall, the initial responses to the crisis from both countries have been commendable.  India has shown remarkable restraint given the circumstances, with foreign minister Pranab Mukherjee firmly stating that "[n]obody is talking of military action."  Pakistan too has taken some important steps. While they have not issued a reply to the initial set of demands put forth by the Indian Government, national security briefings will begin today, involving Pakistan's parliament, and notably, the ISI - a sign that at least the ISI's leadership is treating this matter seriously.

I don't want to suggest that the worst is over, that this is no longer a highly delicate situation.  There could easily be missteps, and if it turns out that Pakistan's government played any role in the attacks whatsoever, Pakistan and India might be headed for all-out war.  But the initial responses give me reason to hope that tensions might ease. If that's the case (and there's no question that is a huge if), I don't see a reason why efforts at rapprochement - over Kashmir, or any other issue - couldn't resume.

Comments

[InjunTrouble]

India should let Pakistan and the US take care of the problem of eliminating terrorist camps and bringing the planners (including the ex-army trainers) to justice. India should give the two nations 3 to 4 months to do something about it.

If no adequate action is taken in that time, it will be time to move Indian troops to the border and take some Pakistani territory. (don't even bother to go after the terrorists). After India captures some land, then they can negotiate with Pakistan about the terrorists.

As for the possibility of nuclear war - India should never use them first and let the US worry about Pakistan using that option.

[SaulZ]

There can't be any Government level or ISI involvement in Mumbai attacks. Reason: this was the most coordinated attack at one level, but a very disorganized and uncoordinated attack on a different level. Sending so many suicide attackers by ISI would have been self-damaging. Even 1 attacker caught would be able to spill the beans. Why would the Pakistani Government or ISI want that? If at all ISI wanted to inflict a damage a coordinated bomb explosion here and there would have been better. No one would be caught.

It will be best for Indian leadership to defuse the tension rather than encourage emotionalization of the issue without any evidence and to continue to work on the peace process with Pakistan, which seems to be stalled for now.

[hindy]

Kashmir is not the only issue. If it were, why were Israelis, Brits and Americans targeted? My fear is that the world will relegate this atrocity to Indo-Pakistan politics. IT'S NOT!!!! Its about the "hunters" and the "hunted". The big difference is that the "hunted" aren't armies. The "hunted" in their fundamentalist view are civilians. In their demented minds - any infidel is guilty - even children. At the top of their hit list are Jews, Americans and Brits. Although most of these God-fearing imbeciles have never met a Jew an American or Brit, they consider themselves "racial experts".

Lets also not kid ourselves about where these seeds are sown. Terrorism is the tip of the iceberg. The foundation is subterraneously buried in the racist ideologies and government sanctioned propaganda of countries such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria and others who spew this "bull" from their governmental bull(y) pulpits. Imagine living in a country whose supreme leaders believe that the Holocaust is simply "Zionist" fiction and that America is nothing but a partner of the Jews. To them all Christians are still engaged in a religious Crusade against Islam. These nefarious regimes need to be isolated from the world community. Instead they are given representation at the United Nations - even having them "human rights" commissions. If it weren't so dangerously tragic it would be a joke.

The world, including moderate Moslem individuals and their countries need to join in the irradication of these "misfits".

[SaulZ]

Biased comments like these are common when people don't read newspapers a lot or are too narrowly focused on what their biased mind forces them into reading.

I have said it elsewhere and I am going to repeat that terrorists have killed more innocent / moderate Muslims on the street of Pakistan than anywhere else. They murdered their former prime minister Benazir Bhutto earlier this year.

Besides, there is no evidence to-date that Mumbai attacks were made by elements from Pakistan. Of course, media would have everyone believe that, but then they made us believe that Iraq had WMDs too.