Cashing in on Kashmir
Nuclear-war worries.

By James S. Robbins, a national-security analyst & NRO contributor
January 8, 2002 8:30 a.m.

ill the law of unintended consequences dictate that the September 11 attack on the United States will lead to a nuclear war between India and Pakistan?

Well, no.

The prospect of nuclear conflict in south Asia arose after Muslim terrorists attacked the Indian parliament last December 13. Pakistani-based Kashmiri separatist groups Lashkar-i-Taiyibah and Jaish-i-Mohammad were blamed for the attack, and some terrorists allegedly yelled, "Long live Pakistan" before their own lives ended. There followed several weeks of tough rhetoric, in which India threatened to use "any and every weapon" against Pakistan, should the need arise, and Pakistan responded with a similar threat. It's hard to blame India for reacting so strongly — imagine our response if a terror group hit the U.S. Congress. Yet it is unlikely that the Pakistanis were the culprits, at least not as a matter of policy.

The Kashmir crisis is one of those perennial conflicts that seldom registers on Western radar, but is deadly serious to the countries involved. Some 35,000 people have been killed since the latest round of violence began in 1989 — not coincidentally the same year the Soviet Union withdrew from Afghanistan, freeing up cadres of trained Muslim insurgents for other duties. The violence escalated when President General Pervez Musharraf took power in 1999, and with the participation of Taliban and al Qaeda forces (John Walker reportedly fought in Kashmir before his capture). India responded with a stiff counter-insurgency campaign that has been stymied by the availability of safe areas for the rebels in Northern Kashmir and Pakistan. The December assault also mirrors an October 1 suicide attack on the Indian state assembly of Srinagar, which India blamed on Pakistan.

But Musharraf has enough problems on his hands without fomenting war with India. He risked a great deal politically aiding the antiterror coalition in its war against al Qaeda and its Taliban protectors. Musharraf assisted in the destruction of an Afghan regime he helped create, and purged pro-Taliban elements of his own military and intelligence services. He has had to suffer the installation of an interim regime in Afghanistan that is dominated by ethnic Tajiks (traditionally not friendly to Pakistan) which has already made strong overtures to India. Afghan leader Hamid Karzai has referred to India as his "second home." Sure, it might make sense for Musharraf to take some action in Kashmir to placate the disaffected hard-liners, but not to the point of starting a war that his weak, outnumbered and outflanked county cannot win. The instigators were probably renegade elements in his own regime acting in concert with fugitive al Qaeda terrorists; Mohammad Afroz Abdur Razak, a member of the al Qaeda network arrested in India October 2, disclosed shortly after the attack that he along with others had planned to blow up the Parliament House in New Delhi, as well as the British House of Commons.

Musharraf has begun an unprecedented crackdown on "non-indigenous" militants operating out of Pakistan, and is making a strong diplomatic push to negotiate an end to the crisis. At the recent South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation Summit in Nepal, the Pakistani leader went out of his way to shake hands (twice) with Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee, and attempted to turn the summit into an Asian peace conference, a move that India resisted. Vajpayee has kept the rhetoric hot — not boiling, but still not accommodating. In his speech to the parliament following the attack the Indian leader echoed President Bush's words following September 11 — terrorism is terrorism, and India will respond. "Terrorism cannot be defined differently," he said. "It cannot be accepted that terrorism has one form in one country and another in another country. A global campaign is going on to eliminate terrorism. Whatever happened the other day was a blatant demonstration of terrorism." Vajpayee assumed the same mantel of legitimacy as the United States, and basically dared the international community to claim otherwise.

Clearly India senses an advantage in any future negotiation of the Kashmir issue. But there are also domestic political factors that give the crisis momentum. Crucial elections in the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh (UP) are scheduled for mid-February, pitting the Samajwadi Party of Mulayam Singh Yadav against the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in a test of the strength of the Vajpayee government. Vajpayee's constituency is in Lucknow, the capital of the state, and a defeat in UP would be viewed as a sign of low confidence in his party and his leadership. Conventional wisdom in India is that Vajpayee cannot back too far off his tough stance vis-à-vis Pakistan without imperiling the BJP's chances in the UP election.

Of course, conventional wisdom in the Indian press may be no better informed than in the American media, but the terror issue is definitely ripe in this large Indian state. Uttar Pradesh borders on Nepal and has been used as a haven by Maoist rebels fighting against the Nepalese monarchy. Three alleged members of Hamas were arrested there last week on an unknown mission. The upcoming election is also the background to the widely reported threat to the Taj Mahal, which is located in the city of Agra in western UP. The Lashkar-i-Taiyibah allegedly sent an e-mail to the office of UP Chief Minister (and BJP member) Rajnath Singh threatening various targets, including the famous mausoleum. Lashkar spokesman Abdullah Sayyaf denied that his group had threatened the most famous symbol of India, calling the report a "drama being staged by Indian agencies... We cannot even think of blowing up the Taj Mahal." Presumably their business is filling tombs, not destroying them. But by giving the threat a high profile Singh dramatized the terror issue in a manner consistent with the BJP election strategy.

India has rejected formal and informal offers of mediation from countries ranging from the United States to Libya, preferring to settle the matter through bilateral action. Indian officials have reacted strongly to any suggestion that their outrage over the attacks is misplaced. Information Technology Minister Pramod Mahajan, responding to British Prime Minister Tony Blair's peace overtures during a recent visit, declared, "We are told that you have come here to cool us down. India has been cool from 50 years and we are still cool." Okay man, you're still cool, we're hip to that, everyone says you are, just don't freak out on us.