Since last August, India and Pakistan have indulged in exchanges of rhetoric that have stirred fears of another conflict.
It would be easy to dismiss the war of words as political noise typical of the mutual animosity that has so often characterised their relationship.
Commentators usually limit their references to the two wars fought in 1965 and 1971, but there have been four other regionalised conflicts of significance. That’s six campaigns of varying intensity in the 68 years since they attained independence from British colonial rule, or one per decade on average.
Cynical as it might seem, the unschooled observer could quip that another conflict was due. Indeed, that average would have been maintained, had the international community not intervened in 2002 and 2008 to keep the peace.
That may well have been at the back of the minds of the senior UN and US government dignitaries who placed calls to the Indian and Pakistani prime ministers this month to ask them to tone down the rhetoric.
There may not have been any troop movements to indicate brewing trouble, but the behaviour of the two countries since they demonstrated their nuclear weapons capabilities in May 1998 certainly supports a better-safe-than-sorry diplomatic approach.
That’s also why this commentary will not participate in a blame game. There are no good or bad guys in geopolitics, just interest-driven agendas that usually have little to do with the interests of the 1.5 billion people in both countries. The means deployed by one might seem more despicable than the other, but it’s the end being pursued that’s relevant.
What’s certain is that the people in charge of both countries have shown little regard for the mutually assured destruction that has accompanied the building of their respective strategic military capabilities.
Chest-thumping nationalism has become the defining characteristic of the region’s politics.
It is accompanied by paranoia, which politicians on either side of the border use to distract domestic audiences from the social issues that are their direct concern.
They do so because it’s easier to harness resentment about their poor quality of life by redirecting it against an enemy people know little about, than it is for a government to do its job.
The Cold War is a comparable example and an appropriate reference in this case, because India and Pakistan are engaged in an aggressive expansion of nuclear weapons arsenals.
Both countries reportedly possess about 100 nuclear warheads and that stockpile is growing. They have mastered plutonium enrichment. They are rushing to complete the triumvirate of air-, land- and sea-based launch platforms, a capability achieved in the 1960s by the five permanent members of the UN Security Council.
In India’s case, the build-up is driven as much by its rivalry with China, Pakistan’s closest ally. Fortunately, that relationship isn’t blighted by the same vitriol, and border disputes are usually demonstrated by flag-waving troops rather than by the exchange of ordnance. Asia breathes easier because of that.
It’s worth noting that the current administrations in Beijing and New Delhi have displayed much maturity in discussing their differences. They haven’t allowed them to stand in the way of partnership between their economies.
That working relationship has also been a major contributor to reducing the likelihood of conflict in the Subcontinent.
The lesson contained therein is that the disputes between India and Pakistan are resolvable. Hawks make peace better than doves, because they dominate the political narrative.
That was demonstrated during negotiations held between 2003 and 2006, when a Pakistani military junta and an Indian Hindu nationalist government found innovative, common-sense solutions to territorial disputes.
Unrelated domestic development prevented the signature of a final agreement that would have been a defining moment in Asian history.
Until circumstances and political will bring the South Asian adversaries back to the table, they would be well- advised to think long and hard about their actions and words.
A good starting point would be to build public awareness about the dangers of a future conflict.
Evil forces beyond the control of either India or Pakistan are cutting a bloody course across the Middle East, and have begun setting up shop in the subcontinent.
They would like nothing better than the two countries to take their enmity beyond the point of no return, because it would create space for the kind of insanity that is now prevalent in Iraq and Syria.
However distant it might seem, to ignore that prospect for the sake of self-glorification would be irresponsible in the extreme.
Tom Hussain is an independent journalist and political analyst in Islamabad
On Twitter: @tomthehack
