During colonial rule, part of India was under the direct control of the British authorities, and the other was made up of native principalities that had their own rulers, semi-autonomous from the British. During the process of independence (1947), Britain's "direct" possessions in the subcontinent were divided along religious lines into two independent states - Hindu and Muslim (India and Pakistan). The native princes (whose number reached 600) received the right to independently decide whether to enter the first or second.
Indo-Pakistani War 1947-48. Movie 1
The Muslim nawab (monarch) of the great princely state of Hyderabad in central India decided to join Pakistan. Then the Indian government sent its troops into this principality in 1948, citing the fact that there were many Hindus in Hyderabad. The opposite happened in Kashmir, which is populated mainly by Muslims and borders West Pakistan. His prince, being himself a Hindu, declared his intention to annex his dominion to India or to become an independent sovereign. In October 1947, Pashtun tribes invaded Kashmir from Pakistani territory to prevent the region from passing under Indian sovereignty. The ruler of Kashmir turned to Delhi for help.
Indo-Pakistani War 1947-48. Movie 2
By 1948, the conflict in Kashmir had escalated into First Indo-Pakistani War. It turned out to be short-lived. In January 1949, an armistice agreement was signed. Thanks to the activities of the mediation commission of the UN Security Council in the summer of 1949, a ceasefire line was established, one part of which was recognized as an international border, and the other became the line of actual control (somewhat changed later as a result of second And third Indo-Pakistani wars of 1965 and 1971). Northwestern Kashmir (more than a third of the entire region) came under Pakistani control. Subsequently, the formation of “Azad Kashmir” (Free Kashmir) was created there, formally representing a free territory.
Partition of British India in 1947. Formation of independent India and Pakistan. The map shows disputed territories- Hyderabad and Kashmir, as well as areas with a mixed Hindu-Muslim population
Two-thirds of the former princely state of Kashmir came under Indian rule. These lands were combined with adjacent Hindu-inhabited areas to form the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir. The Security Council in 1949 adopted a resolution to hold a plebiscite in Kashmir after the withdrawal of Pakistani troops from its northwestern part. But Pakistan refused to comply with the UN demands, and the plebiscite was disrupted. Thanks to control of northwestern Kashmir, Pakistan gained a border with China. Here in the 1970-1980s the Karakoram Highway was built, providing Pakistan with connections with the PRC.
Indo- Pakistani conflict because of Kashmir was not settled. The Pakistani government has since seen India as its main enemy. In the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir, there were separatists who opposed joining Pakistan or India and demanded the creation of an independent Kashmiri state.
A nuclear war could break out not only because of irreconcilable differences between the leading nuclear powers of the world, but also because of the military-political confrontation between the so-called countries. third world. For example, India and Pakistan. In the latter case, the danger is posed by a dispute between the two capitals over the status of Kashmir. According to the expert community, the world is hostage to this conflict, which at any moment could escalate into a full-scale war using nuclear weapons.
Experts recognize that the model of the Indo-Pakistani confrontation over Kashmir, which is based on a “gift” from the colonial past of these two countries, is an example of an intractable political conflict with unpredictable consequences for all humanity. This conflict intricately intertwined a whole bunch of problems that can hardly be observed anywhere else in the world, even in our crazy age. First of all, it should be noted that the conflict immediately began with an armed clash between two states, which at that time had barely managed to gain independence. That is, it was originally involved in blood.
Let's multiply this by the nuclear status of the two countries, the interests of, again, nuclear China, which seeks to turn Asia into a huge market for Chinese products, and the desire of the parties to gain control over fresh water resources.
The bouquet also includes the problem of human rights violations, the problem of radicalization of society with outbreaks of mass unrest, separatism, the spread of the ideas of radical Islamism and, of course, the so-called. "Islamic" terrorism. Let's add here the extremely tense situation in the immediate environment of two warring states: this motley field of Afghanistan, China with its Tibetan problem and tension in historical East Turkestan, Iran gaining power...
Background to the conflict
As noted above, the conflict over Kashmir is a legacy of the era of British colonial rule in the lands of present-day India and Pakistan. The two states separated in 1947. Before this, what is now commonly called British India, from an administrative point of view, was divided into British India proper and dependent Indian principalities, of which there were about six hundred (!).
Actually, the division into India and Pakistan was carried out by decision of the colonial administration. The principle of religious affiliation of the population was taken as the basis for the division. Indian princes were given the right to make their own choice in favor of the future of Pakistan or India. Not all princes made up their minds right away. Some of them wanted to maintain their much-desired independence from Britain.
One of these princes was the ruler of the province of Jammu and Kashmir - Maharaja Hari Singh (1895-1961). The Maharaja was a Hindu, and the bulk of his subjects were Muslims. It should also be noted that Hari Singh had a sharply negative attitude towards the anti-colonial movement and opposed it both on a pan-Indian scale and within his principality.
For example, he had a personal dislike for the main ideologist of the Hindu national liberation struggle, Jawaharlal Nehru (1889-1964), who also had Kashmiri origin. The Maharaja treated other leaders of the Indian National Congress no better. However, the post-war history of the twentieth century moved on and moved colonial India towards independence. Therefore, during the partition of British India, which began in 1947, Hari Singh found himself in a difficult situation.
Meanwhile, Pakistan's independence was declared on August 14, 1947. A day later, the same thing was done in India. Independent India was not attractive to the Maharaja. But the prospect of being absorbed by Muslim Pakistan also did not please him. As a result, Hari Singh chose the third path and declared the independence of Kashmir. However, in the summer of 1947, interreligious clashes began in the principality, and the ruler lost control of the situation.
The situation was aggravated by the rise of a wave of anti-monarchy protests calling for the expulsion of the Maharaja from Kashmir. The emergence of a “Free Kashmir” government was announced. This gave Pakistan a pretext to send troops into the territory of the princely state, under the pretext of supporting the self-proclaimed government. In response, on October 26, 1947, Hari Singh was forced to hastily sign a document on the accession of his princely state to India.
As a result of this decision, the first Indo-Pakistani massacre broke out, which ended more favorably for India. About two-thirds of the former principality went to her. These territories received the status of an Indian state with a special legal status. Pakistan was forced to be satisfied with the remaining part of the maharaja's possessions and created a province under the loud name Free Kashmir (Azad Kashmir) on the part of Kashmir that he captured.
Thus, on the one hand, previously uncoordinated and therefore unsteady borders between the two countries were established, and on the other hand, political map world, a constantly smoldering hot spot has been created that has kept the world in suspense for the past seventy years.
(to be continued)
Aidar Khairutdinov
Relations between India and Pakistan, South Asia's two nuclear powers, are strained by unrest in the Muslim-majority Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir. Indian Interior Minister Rajnath Singh, speaking at a parliamentary hearing, accused Islamabad of attempting to destabilize and supporting terrorism in the border state. The Indian security official's statement came after Pakistan's UN Ambassador Maleeha Lodhi called on the UN Security Council to put pressure on the Indian government to "stop repression." A new escalation of the “oldest conflict on the UN agenda,” which has left 45 people killed and more than three thousand injured over the past two weeks, began after Indian security forces killed an activist of the Hizb-ul-Mujahideen group, which seeks the separation of Kashmir from India.
The hearing on the Kashmir issue, held in the Lok Sabha (lower house of the Indian Parliament), was held after Chief of the Indian Army Staff Dalbir Singh Suhag visited Jammu and Kashmir last week due to escalating tensions. Following the visit, he presented a report on the situation in the region to the head of the Ministry of Defense, Manohar Parrikar.
The latest high-profile incident in Jammu and Kashmir took place in the town of Qazigund. Indian troops opened fire on a crowd pelting them with stones, killing three people. In general, the number of victims of the new aggravation in Jammu and Kashmir - the largest in the last six years, despite the curfew imposed in a number of districts of the state, over the past two weeks amounted to 45 people (more than 3 thousand were injured of varying degrees of severity).
The unrest broke out after security forces killed 22-year-old Burhan Wani, one of the leaders of the Hizb-ul-Mujahideen group, which is fighting for the separation of Jammu and Kashmir from India and is recognized as a terrorist group in the country, during a special operation on July 8. Burhan Wani was killed in a shootout with Indian troops along with two other activists of the organization.
Indian authorities are convinced that Islamabad is behind the worsening situation in Kashmir. “Instead of solving its internal problems, Pakistan is trying to destabilize India,” warned Indian Interior Minister Rajnath Singh at a parliamentary hearing, calling the neighboring state a “sponsor of terrorism.” The Indian minister recalled that the Pakistani authorities called Burhan Wani a “martyr” and declared national mourning after his death.
The Indian Home Minister's statement continued the war of words between Asia's two nuclear powers and long-time antagonists, for whom divided Kashmir has remained a major bone of contention since their founding. This makes the Kashmir issue "the oldest conflict on the UN agenda."
Of the three Indo-Pakistani wars, Kashmir was the cause of two - in 1947 and 1965. The first war broke out immediately after the two countries gained independence as a result of the partition of British India into India and Pakistan. Then Pakistan managed to occupy a third of Kashmir. Another part - 38 thousand sq. m. km of the Aksai Chin mountainous region was occupied by China after the military invasion of 1962. As a result, Kashmir found itself divided between the three leading powers of Asia, and the Kashmir problem began to affect the interests of almost 3 billion people.
The Indian security official's statement at a parliamentary hearing came after Pakistan's UN Ambassador Maleeha Lodhi called on the UN Security Council to put pressure on the Indian government to "stop repression." And a few days earlier, Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif added fuel to the diplomatic conflict by calling Burhan Wani "a soldier who fought for independence." At the same time, he promised that Islamabad will continue to provide all possible support to the associates of Burhan Wani.
In connection with the latest escalation in Kashmir, increasingly militant statements are being heard in Islamabad: Prime Minister Sharif's critics accuse him of not being tough enough. Let us recall that after the new Prime Minister Narendra Modi came to power in India in May 2014, good personal relations were established between the two leaders. Mr Modi made an unexpected gesture by inviting the head of a neighboring state to his inauguration. After this, both capitals started talking about an Indo-Pakistani reset. However latest events in Kashmir they threaten to undo the work recent years and return the two nuclear-armed states of South Asia to the era of the previous confrontation.
“Having called the normalization of relations with Pakistan one of his priorities and relied on personal contacts with Nawaz Sharif, Prime Minister Modi clearly underestimated the conflict potential of the Kashmir problem, which can escalate from time to time against the will of the leaders of the two states. Apparently, this is what is happening today “,” Tatyana Shaumyan, director of the Center for Indian Studies, explained to Kommersant. According to the expert, the return of this problem to the list of regional conflicts threatens the Asian region with new destabilization with the participation of three states: India, Pakistan and China, which have not divided Kashmir among themselves.
Islamabad and Delhi are ready to carry out a nuclear massacre at any moment. We continue to analyze modern conflict situations in the world, capable of leading to large-scale wars. Today we will talk about more than 60 years of Indo-Pakistani confrontation, which in the 21st century was aggravated by the fact that both states have developed (or received from their patrons) nuclear weapons and are actively increasing their military power.
A threat to everyone
The Indo-Pakistani military conflict occupies, perhaps, the most ominous place in the list of modern threats to humanity. According to Russian Foreign Ministry official Alexander Shilin, “the confrontation between these two states became particularly explosive when both India and Pakistan, having conducted a series of nuclear tests, demonstrated their ability to create nuclear weapons. Thus, the South Asian military confrontation became the second hotbed of nuclear deterrence in world history (after cold war between the USSR and the USA).
This is compounded by the fact that neither India nor Pakistan have signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and continue to refrain from joining it. They consider this treaty discriminatory, that is, it secures the right to possess nuclear weapons to a small group of “privileged” countries and cuts off all other states from the right to ensure their own security by all available means. Accurate data on the nuclear capabilities of the armed forces of India and Pakistan are not published in the open press.
According to some estimates, both states have set a goal (and perhaps have already achieved it) to increase the number nuclear weapons from 80 to 200 on each side. If they are used, this is enough for an environmental disaster to cast doubt on the survival of all humanity. The causes of the conflict and the ferocity with which it is developing indicate that such a threat is very real.
History of the conflict
As you know, India and Pakistan were part of the British colony of India until 1947. In the 17th century, Great Britain took the feudal principalities that existed here “under its wing” with fire and sword. They were inhabited by numerous nationalities, which could be roughly divided into Hindus themselves - the indigenous inhabitants of the country and Muslims - the descendants of the Persians who conquered India in the 12th-13th centuries. All these peoples lived relatively peacefully with each other.
However, Hindus were concentrated mainly in what is now India, and Muslims were concentrated in what is now Pakistan. In the lands that now belong to Bangladesh, the population was mixed. A significant part of it consisted of Bengals - Hindus professing Islam.
Britain brought turmoil into the relatively peaceful life of the tribes. Following the old and proven principle of “divide and rule,” the British pursued a policy of dividing the population along religious lines. Nevertheless, the constantly ongoing national liberation struggle here led to the formation of independent states after the Second World War. Northwestern Punjab, Sindh, North-Western Province, and Baluchistan were ceded to Pakistan. This was indisputable, since these lands were inhabited by Muslims.
A separate region became part of the previously divided Bengal - East Bengal or East Pakistan. This enclave could communicate with the rest of Pakistan only through Indian territory or by sea, but this required traveling more than three thousand miles. This division has already created a source of tension between the two countries, but the main problem is the situation with the princely states of Jammu and Kashmir.
In the Kashmir Valley, 9 out of ten people professed Islam. At the same time, historically it turned out that the entire ruling elite consisted of Hindus, who naturally wanted to incorporate the principality into India. Naturally, Muslims did not agree with this prospect. Spontaneous militia groups began to be created in Kashmir, and groups of armed Pashtuns began to infiltrate from the territory of Pakistan. On October 25, they entered the capital of the princely state, Srinagar. Two days later, Indian troops retook Srinagar and drove the rebels away from the city. The Pakistani government also sent regular troops into the battle. At the same time, repressions against people of other faiths took place in both countries. Thus began the first Indo-Pakistani war.
Artillery was widely used in the bloody battles, and armored units and aviation took part. By the summer of 1948, the Pakistani army occupied the northern part of Kashmir. On August 13, the UN Security Council adopted a resolution calling for a ceasefire by both sides, but it was not until July 27, 1949 that Pakistan and India signed an armistice. Kashmir was divided into two parts. For this, both sides paid a terrible price - more than a million killed and 17 million refugees.
On May 17, 1965, the 1949 truce was violated, as many historians believe, by India: a battalion of Indian infantry crossed the ceasefire line in Kashmir and fought to take several Pakistani border posts. On September 1, regular units of the Pakistani and Indian armies in Kashmir entered into combat contact. The Pakistani Air Force began to carry out strikes on major cities and industrial centers of India. Both countries actively carried out airborne troops.
It is unknown how all this would have ended if not for the strong diplomatic pressure that forced Delhi to end the war. Soviet Union- a long-time and traditional ally of India, was irritated by this military adventure by Delhi. The Kremlin, not without reason, feared that China might enter the war on the side of its ally Pakistan. If this happened, the US would support India; then the USSR would have been relegated to the background, and its influence in the region would have been undermined.
At the request of Alexei Kosygin, then Egyptian President Nasser personally flew to Delhi and criticized the Indian government for violating the ceasefire agreement. On September 17, the Soviet government invited both sides to meet in Tashkent and resolve the conflict peacefully. On January 4, 1966, Indo-Pakistani negotiations began in the Uzbek capital. After much debate, on January 10 it was decided to withdraw troops to the pre-war line and restore the status quo.
Neither India nor Pakistan were happy with the “pacification”: each side considered its victory stolen. Indian generals stated that if the USSR had not intervened, they would have been sitting in Islamabad for a long time. And their Pakistani colleagues argued that if they had another week, they would have blocked the Indians in southern Kashmir and made a tank attack on Delhi. Soon both of them again had the opportunity to measure their strength.
It began with the fact that on November 12, 1970, a typhoon swept over Bengal, claiming about three hundred thousand lives. The colossal destruction further worsened standard of living Bengalis. They blamed the Pakistani authorities for their plight and demanded autonomy. Islamabad sent troops there instead of helping. It was not a war that began, but a massacre: the first Bengalis who came across were crushed by tanks, grabbed in the streets and taken to a lake in the vicinity of Chittagong, where tens of thousands of people were shot with machine guns, and their bodies were drowned in the lake. Now this lake is called the Lake of the Risen. Mass emigration to India began, where about 10 million people ended up. India began to provide military assistance to rebel groups. This eventually led to a new India-Pakistan war.
Bengal became the main theater of hostilities, where operations vital role The navies of both sides played a role: after all, this Pakistani enclave could only be supplied by sea. Considering the overwhelming power of the Indian Navy - an aircraft carrier, 2 cruisers, 17 destroyers and frigates, 4 submarines, while the Pakistani fleet included a cruiser, 7 destroyers and frigates and 4 submarines - the outcome of events was a foregone conclusion. The most important result of the war was the loss of Pakistan's enclave: East Pakistan became the independent state of Bangladesh.
The decades following this war were rich in new conflicts. Particularly acute occurred at the end of 2008-beginning of 2009, when it was attacked by terrorists Indian city Mumbai. At the same time, Pakistan refused to extradite to India those suspected of involvement in this action.
Today, India and Pakistan continue to teeter on the brink of open war, and Indian authorities have declared that the fourth Indo-Pakistani war should be the last.
Silence before the explosion?
First Vice-President of the Academy geopolitical problems Doctor of Military Sciences Konstantin Sivkov, in a conversation with a SP correspondent, commented on the situation in modern relations between India and Pakistan:
In my opinion, in this moment The Indo-Pakistani military conflict is at the lowest point of the conditional sine wave. The leadership of Pakistan today is solving the difficult task of resisting pressure from Islamic fundamentalists, who find support in the depths of Pakistani society. In this regard, the conflict with India faded into the background.
But the confrontation between Islam and the Pakistani authorities is very typical of the current world situation. The Pakistani government is pro-American to the core. And the Islamists who are fighting against the Americans in Afghanistan and striking their proxies in Pakistan represent the other side - objectively, so to speak, anti-imperialist.
As for India, it has no time for Pakistan now either. She sees where the world is heading and is seriously busy rearming her army. Including modern Russian military equipment, which, by the way, almost never reaches our troops.
Who is she arming herself against?
It is clear that the United States may sooner or later instigate a war with Pakistan. The long-standing conflict is fertile ground for this. In addition, the current NATO war in Afghanistan may provoke the next round of Indo-Pakistani military confrontation.
The fact is that while it is going on, the United States has supplied Afghanistan (and therefore, indirectly, the Pakistani Taliban) with a huge amount of ground weapons, the return of which back to the United States is an economically unprofitable operation. This weapon is destined to be used, and it will fire. The Indian leadership understands this. And he is preparing for such a course of events. But the current rearmament of the Indian army, in my opinion, also has a more global goal.
What are you speaking about?
I have already drawn attention more than once to the fact that the world with catastrophic acceleration is rushing towards the beginning of the “hot” period of the next world war. This is due to the fact that global economic crisis has not ended, and it can only be resolved by building a new world order. And there has never been a case in history where a new world order was built without bloodshed. Events in North Africa and other countries - this is a prologue, the first sounds of the coming world war. The Americans are at the head of the new redivision of the world.
Today we see an almost fully formed military coalition US satellites (Europe plus Canada). But the coalition opposing it is still just being formed. In my opinion, it has two components. The first is the BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa). The second component is countries Arab world. They are just beginning to realize the need to create a unified defense space. But the processes are moving quickly.
The Indian leadership is perhaps responding most adequately to ominous changes in the world. It seems to me that it soberly looks into the more or less distant future, when the formed anti-American coalition will still have to face the main enemy. In India, there is a real reform of the army, not like ours.
Disappointing estimates
Alexander Shilov, an employee of one of the departments of the Russian Foreign Ministry, has a slightly different opinion:
It is clear that India's nuclear deterrence is directed primarily against those states that it considers likely adversaries. First of all, this is Pakistan, which, like India, is taking measures to form strategic nuclear forces. But the potential threat from China has been a major factor influencing India's military planning for many years.
Suffice it to recall that the Indian nuclear military program itself, the beginning of which dates back to the mid-60s, was mainly a response to the emergence of nuclear weapons in the PRC (1964), especially since China inflicted a heavy defeat on India in the border war in 1962 . To contain Pakistan, India will likely only need a few dozen warheads. According to Indian experts, the minimum in this case would be a potential that would ensure the survival of 25-30 ammunition carriers after the first surprise nuclear strike from Pakistan.
Considering the size of India's territory and the ability to significantly disperse nuclear attack weapons, it can be assumed that a strike from Pakistan, even the most massive one, will not be able to disable the majority of Indian strategic nuclear forces. An Indian retaliatory strike using at least 15-20 nuclear warheads will undoubtedly lead to irreparable damage up to and including the complete collapse of the Pakistani economy, especially since the range of Indian aviation and the ballistic missiles being developed by Delhi allows them to hit virtually any object in Pakistan.
Therefore, if we keep in mind only Pakistan, an arsenal of 70-80 ammunition may apparently be more than enough. To be fair, it should be noted that the Indian economy will hardly be able to withstand a nuclear strike using at least 20-30 charges from the same Pakistan.
However, if we proceed simultaneously from the principle of causing unacceptable damage and not using nuclear weapons first, then in the case of China it will be necessary to have an arsenal at least comparable to the Chinese one, and Beijing currently has 410 charges, of which no more than 40 are on intercontinental ballistic missiles. It is clear. that if we count on a first strike from China, then Beijing is able to disable a very significant part of India’s nuclear attack weapons. Thus, their total number should be approximately comparable to the Chinese arsenal and reach several hundred in order to ensure the required survival rate.
As for Pakistan, the leadership of this country constantly makes it clear that the threshold for the possible use of nuclear weapons by Islamabad may be very low. At the same time (unlike India), Islamabad apparently intends to proceed from the possibility of using its nuclear weapons first.
Thus, according to the Pakistani analyst Lieutenant General S. Lodi, “if a dangerous situation arises when an Indian offensive using conventional means threatens to break through our defenses, or has already made a breakthrough that cannot be eliminated by conventional measures at our disposal, the government will have no choice but to use our nuclear weapons to stabilize the situation.”
In addition, according to a number of statements by the Pakistanis, as a countermeasure in the event of a massive offensive by Indian ground forces, nuclear landmines could be used to mine the border zone with India.
While the world is focused on testing ballistic missiles in North Korea, another potential conflict is causing increasing concern. In July, 11 people were killed and 18 were wounded in gun battles between Indian and Pakistani troops in Jammu and Kashmir, and four thousand people were forced to flee their homes.
On Sunday former minister Information and Broadcasting of India Venkaiah Naidu, nominated by the National Democratic Alliance for the post of vice-president of the country, said that Pakistan must remember how the clash ended in 1971, when Pakistan was defeated during the third Indo-Pakistani war and Bangladesh gained independence .
Former Indian Defense Minister and opposition leader Mulayam Singh Yadav said last week that China is using Pakistan to attack the country and is preparing Pakistani nuclear warheads to attack India.
Warheads and doctrines
This spring, The New York Times reported that India was considering changes to the interpretation of its nuclear doctrine, which prohibits the first use of nuclear weapons. Previously, India only prescribed a massive retaliatory strike, which involved attacks on enemy cities.
According to the newspaper, the new approach could involve preemptive, limited nuclear strikes against Pakistan's nuclear arsenal in self-defense. For now, all this is rather speculation, since conclusions are drawn based on an analysis of statements by Indian high-ranking officials without any documentary evidence.
But even such assumptions, firstly, could push Pakistan to increase its nuclear capabilities and launch chain reaction nuclear arms race between the two countries, and secondly, could force Pakistan to take any escalation of the conflict as a reason for India to strike first.
Just a few days after the publication of The New York Times, Pakistan accused India of accelerating its military nuclear program and preparing to produce 2,600 warheads. In a June report, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) noted that India has added about 10 warheads to its arsenal over the year and is gradually expanding the infrastructure to develop its nuclear weapons.
Former Pakistani Brigadier General Feroz Khan, an expert on Pakistan's nuclear program, had previously said that Pakistan has up to 120 nuclear warheads.
© AP Photo/Anjum Naveed
© AP Photo/Anjum Naveed
Last week in Washington, the Pakistani expert also said that Islamabad's plans to use nuclear weapons are based on Cold War-era NATO doctrine, which envisioned the use of tactical nuclear strikes against advancing enemy forces. To this, however, critics of Pakistan objected that Islamabad is using its nuclear status as a cover for waging a terrorist war in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir.
For India, the presence of Pakistani tactical nuclear weapons has become a problem. If Pakistan uses only tactical nuclear weapons and only on the battlefield, then India bombing Pakistani cities in response will be looked at in a black light. Hence the talk about changing interpretations of the doctrine, when it is necessary to have time to eliminate the Pakistani arsenals before they are put into operation.
Another reason is Trump’s rise to power in the United States. India believes that under the new American president it has much more freedom to make decisions on its nuclear program. US relations with Pakistan under Trump are also going downhill: Americans have ceased to consider Islamabad as a reliable ally in the fight against radicals in Afghanistan. This is, of course, encouraging for India.
The scenario everyone is afraid of
Rising tensions in Hindustan could lead to catastrophic consequences. A trigger that will set off a chain of events leading to preventive nuclear strike on one side or the other, an escalation in the state of Jammu and Kashmir or a major terrorist attack in India like the attack in Mumbai in 2008 could serve.
The main problem, according to many analysts, is that no one knows what the criteria for the use of nuclear weapons by Pakistan are and what exactly it might perceive as a start of war on the part of India. The second problem is that the terrorist attacks in India may not be related to Pakistan at all, but it will be difficult to convince the Indian side of this.
In 2008, an American study was published on the consequences nuclear war between India and Pakistan. The authors concluded that although the total charges of the two countries are not so great, their use will lead to a climate catastrophe, which will cause major agricultural problems and mass starvation. As a result, according to the report, about one billion people will die within ten years. So the seemingly distant problem of India and Pakistan actually concerns the whole world.
