The waiting game after Uri

Updated Sep 28, 2016 05:20pm


Your Name:

Recipient Email:

An Indian soldier looks out over the army brigade headquarters at Uri on the day of the attack | AFP
An Indian soldier looks out over the army brigade headquarters at Uri on the day of the attack | AFP

Before the advent of nuclear weapon capabilities on the subcontinent, unresolved grievances over Kashmir resulted in wars. With the bomb’s appearance, unresolved grievances have led to mass casualty terrorism, crises and one limited conventional war. Crises have recurred because underlying grievances in both Pakistan and India are reaffirmed from one crisis to the next.

So far, the most serious crises on the subcontinent were the 1999 Kargil War and the 2001-2 Twin Peaks crisis. These back-to-back crises came soon after India and Pakistan advertised their nuclear capabilities with underground tests. Significantly, there have been no crises on the subcontinent since the 2008 Mumbai attacks.

It is possible that the worst nuclear-tinged crises are the reflection of a more reckless past, but this sanguine prediction cannot be confidently advanced. The conditions for another major crisis – widespread disaffection in Kashmir, spoilers in Pakistan, risk-taking personalities, an accident, a breakdown in command and control, or some other form of misfortune – remain present. As the attack at Uri suggests, the next severe crisis could happen at any time because Indian leaders have been unwilling to seek sustained, dramatically improved ties and Pakistan’s leaders have given them scant reason to try.

Is the worst really over?

As much as political leaders in New Delhi and Islamabad might wish to conclude that the worst is behind them, some events are beyond their control. Others will determine when the next crisis occurs and the extent of its severity. The advent of another risk-taking army chief in Pakistan could spark a crisis or anti-India groups based in Pakistan could do so. If the Pakistan army turns against anti-India groups, these groups might retaliate against targets in India as well as Pakistan, seeking to spark a catalytic war. Disaffected Muslims in India could spark a crisis, as might extended protests in Kashmir that could draw a higher level of support from across the Kashmir divide – a familiar escalatory pattern. An Indian prime minister might authorise military plans in response to an accumulation of small provocations or just one severe provocation. Or Indian and Pakistani leaders might decide to seek reconciliation, prompting a fierce backlash from irreconcilables.

Crises have recurred because underlying grievances in both Pakistan and India are reaffirmed from one crisis to the next.

For every reason to hope that severe nuclear-tinged crises might be in the rear-view mirror, there is a reason to expect one in the future. A succession of three Indian prime ministers of different political persuasions have looked hard at the precipice of warfare under the nuclear shadow and have walked away, deciding that gains could be ephemeral and pains long-lasting. They have instead chosen the path of restraint and the acceptance of temporary embarrassment.

Pakistani leaders, too, have been embarrassed, by continuing to allow safe havens for the attackers. Former President Pervez Musharraf promised this wouldn’t happen after the 2001 attack on the Indian parliament that sparked the Twin Peaks crisis, but Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) may not have gotten this memo.

The two primary wellsprings of crisis stability on the subcontinent to date have been New Delhi’s pursuit of economic growth and its concerns over uncontrolled escalation. We do not know whether Rawalpindi has contributed to this nearly decade-long record free of crises due to private understandings that have persuaded violent extremist groups to avoid triggering actions. Alternatively, violent extremist groups that enjoy safe havens in Pakistan and with the ISI might be testing the tolerance levels of Indian forbearance. Pakistan will not receive credit for restraint until Rawalpindi publicly clamps down on anti-India groups.

As the attack at Uri suggests, the next severe crisis could happen at any time because Indian leaders have been unwilling to seek sustained.

Uri tests the hypothesis that Rawalpindi has internalised the lessons of Kargil as well as the 2001 parliament and 2008 Mumbai attacks. The Kashmir cause has not been advanced by these adventures. Whenever Rawalpindi has sought to change the status quo in Kashmir, the status quo has been reaffirmed, while Pakistan’s standing has been deeply diminished along with its economic prospects.

Rallying to the Kashmir cause has advanced neither Pakistan’s well being nor that of Kashmiris; instead, New Delhi’s position in Muslim-majority areas has been undermined by its own unforced errors. Breathing room can only be found in a relaxation of tensions between India and Pakistan as well as in a relaxation of New Delhi’s grip on the Valley. And yet, the moral imperative of associating with the Kashmir cause and the instinct to inflame India’s Achilles heel have long been staples of Pakistan’s existence.

Waiting for the next crisis

The potential for new crises exists because the pall cast by nuclear weapons has not yet encouraged sustained efforts to improve ties between India and Pakistan. Nor has it yet concretised the “ugly stability” short of warfare predicted by Ashley Tellis. Diplomatic efforts to normalise ties are easily blocked – perhaps at this point by minor acts of violence that do not rise to the level of a crisis.

If Uri doesn’t qualify, the next major crisis on the subcontinent – if there is one – may well be sparked by another attack against an iconic structure in or near a metropolitan area in India. Those who hate India enough to carry out such an attack hate its promise and rise, so the target of their attack might again symbolise India’s rising power and connectivity to the world.

Pakistan will not receive credit for restraint until Rawalpindi publicly clamps down on anti-India groups.

There are no shortage of soft targets in India, no shortage of means to inflict damage and no shortage of recruits to carry out attacks. Would another dramatic attack against a symbol of India’s rising power or an equivalent outrage prompt a strong military response? I still hold to a conclusion reached five years ago – that “the reasons for India’s prior restraint despite severe provocations remain in play and in some cases have become more pronounced.”

One factor pointing in the direction of continued restraint is the absence of significant military targets for India across the Kashmir divide. Targets associated with violent extremist groups in southern Punjab remain obvious, but continue to pose serious risks of escalation – the other key factor pointing toward restraint. Rawalpindi does not need a single additional “tactical” nuclear weapon to underscore this message. Fighting Pakistan remains a detour to India’s rise. And yet continued forbearance by New Delhi cannot be taken for granted, as is now being tested by the carnage at Uri.

This article was originally published in The Wire, India

The writer is co-founder of the Stimson Center, a Washington, D.C based policy research centre.

LARGE_RECTANGLE_BOTTOM - /1029551/Dawn_ASA_Unit_670x280

Comments (16) Closed

tamil Sep 21, 2016 03:46pm

I am constantly living in fear for my safety and that of my family, our end may come anytime , war may start anytime , we have no clue, so it is a waiting game for us.

Zak Sep 21, 2016 03:48pm

India may have unlimited restraint, but our restraint is over , we cannot allow kashmiris to suffer anymore , we will take a decision soon and it will not be good for India.

Indian Sep 21, 2016 05:07pm

beautifully written

Mullah Bob Sep 21, 2016 05:19pm

Very good article.

Harsh Sep 21, 2016 06:03pm

Very well thought and mature article.. encircling all the constraints and parameters.

anil Sep 21, 2016 06:42pm

good article...... 10/10

Samir,India Sep 21, 2016 06:53pm

Very well written from a neutral prospective. pakistan should mend its ways.

Vinod Narang Sep 21, 2016 07:26pm

Excellent analysis of the situation between India and Pakistan. Pakistan needs to stop sponsoring terror period. World powers are even recognizing that .

Your Name Sep 21, 2016 07:39pm

For Dawn to publish an article like this shows not just the maturity of their editorial team but also freedom of press in Pakistan. Bravo!

Vinod Sep 21, 2016 10:13pm

Michael Krepon great Article!!

Thanks for Dawn as it is always require willpower in showing all colors of rainbow! you rocks Dawn!

Anir Sep 21, 2016 10:26pm

The article is correct or not may be debatable. But hats off to Dawn for publishing it. The article has portions which criticizes very powerful people and institutions in Pakistan, but Dawn still published it. Dawn is really becoming a world class site. Please carry on your courage, and I believe irrespective of nationalities, you will get great support and great success.

Kul Sep 22, 2016 12:34am

@Zak Like you did few times since 1947 and got a reply... very intelligent...

Umair Ahmad Sep 22, 2016 02:07am

This is very sad situation. India and Pakistan were created under a notion that there will be a free movement of people on each side. If some wants to hop on a bus from Srinagar to Rawalpindi, there should be no problems. If one wishes to travel from Karachi to Jodhpur, there will not be any roadblocks. Matter of fact both countries offered visa on arrival facilities to each other before 1965. Why can Indian and Pakistan not agree and perhaps share or co-govern these territories? Why make it hell for people and give right winged opportunist on both sides to live large. Why does a Pakistani need a visa to go to Ajmer Sharif? Why does an Indian need a visa to visit Katas Raj Temple? Why does a Sikh need a visa to come to Nankana Sahib? Yet we are so proud of our political point scoring in the international arena.

kashmiri Sep 22, 2016 07:15pm

unfortunately the author has no concern for we Kashmiri's ; who are being hunted down everyday by indian forces. for me it is better to die once by a nuclear bomb than to die everday at the hands of ruthless occupiers.

SHAHID MAHMOOD Sep 23, 2016 04:34pm

@kashmiri very well said Sir. He has paid no attention to the wishes of Kashmirie people to what they want. So many have been blinded. Moreover the author is biased towards India any way. He is not impartial.

jovialamit Sep 26, 2016 10:52am

The whole issue is political . Civilian government in Pakistan doesn't have any control on the issues of foreign policy particularly wrt India. It is the army and the fundamentalists who dictate the terms. India on its part must take into confidence the people of Jammu and kashmir.