India’s Potential Lose-Lose-Lose Scenario

Umair Raja
Aug 11, 2002



When the United States of America was laying down its plans to attack , a small group of people, including the author, highlighted the fact that should have exhausted all international legal options, before moving troops. The voices of this small group were drowned in the understandable feelings of patriotism and revenge that were prevalent everywhere, specifically in North America. The reasons given by the for not disclosing its evidence, supporting an all-out , were based on the risks of exposing its intelligence sources. While this may be a legitimate excuse in a situation where one criminal was being pursued, it does not hold water in a scenario where one country is about to attack another. Which Central Intelligence Agency operative is so important that he/she cannot be exposed to avoid or legitimize a between two countries?

As time has passed, and more videos have come out, it is now slowly being accepted by everyone, that Osama Bin Ladin was either directly involved with the World Center , or was definitely an accomplice in some manner or another. However, the ’s actions, of not completely involving the international legal norms, have had the cascading effect which many of us feared, i.e. it has set a precedent under which any country can now bypass international laws, unilaterally declare another country a terrorist state, and launch a full-fledged attack against it. This reduces the whole world to the of the jungle, and the survival of the militarily fittest. Under this New World Order, the only factor protecting any state is its own strength. This has made the world a more dangerous place, and will further increase every country’s desire to acquire more weaponry, both conventional and nuclear.

It is under the above-described precedent that is currently threatening . If the can unilaterally declare on , then can do the same against , seems to be the legitimizing mantra. There are however six differences between the US actions against and ’s potential actions against , which may be setting up for a, “lose-lose-lose” scenario, i.e. loses out under all three potential outcomes of the current conflict. These same factors have set up a potential, “lose-win-win” scenario for , provided it plays its cards correctly.

The US- conflict was based on the following six factors, which are not present in the current - standoff:

1. The United States was a victim of a massive terrorist attack, unprecedented in the history of the world. Tens of thousands of people were threatened, thousands were killed, and potentially over $100 billion dollars of damage was done. This was orders of magnitude different from the routine and much smaller terrorist attacks that are regularly faced by many countries, including , and .

2. The itself is not locked into any international conflicts (like ) due to which it is forced to sideline the completely. So, while the US did not honor all international legal norms of conflict, it did pursue some of them, relying on an agenda through the . The resolutions on were highlighted, and there existed an open or subtle buy-in from all nations of the Security Council.

3. The United States built an extremely large coalition of friendly nations, which were ready to support militarily and/or diplomatically, in its actions against .

4. was able to convince the nineteen NATO countries to consider the WTC an act of against NATO, and not only against .

5. ’s opponent in this battle was a country, which had absolutely no chance of defending itself against a threatening adversary, the size of . In fact, was able to destroy the Taliban regime by utilizing less than 1/500th of the total power available to the .

6. A mere three countries in the world recognized the Taliban regime. This regime was extremely unpopular amongst the people of themselves. All of ’s neighboring countries united against this regime. Added to this is the fact there was a homegrown opposition of Northern Alliance active within .

does not enjoy any of the above-described six factors in its stance against . Due to this, may actually be helping in the long run, not harming it, with its current hysteria. will need to use 80%-100% of its total force to win a conventional against . It cannot win a by just utilizing 1/500th of its force, like the did in . If does end up in a scenario, in which it conventionally defeats , the will turn nuclear, in which both countries will be destroyed. This is the first, “lose” in the, “lose-lose-lose” scenario for .

The current standoff is the first all-out deployment of Indian and Pakistani troops, after both countries became nuclear powers. The results of this standoff will define future balances of power between the two neighbors. If backs down, after threatening an all out , it will have accepted the fact it has lost its traditional advantage vis-à-vis . will have acknowledged it is in a state of Mutual Assured Destruction with , and thus cannot threaten with consequences, as it was previously able to do for five decades. This will dilute ’s strength at future negotiating tables with . This is the second, “lose” in the, “lose-lose-lose” scenario for .

The third scenario involves achieving its objective, i.e. it is able to intimidate into backing down, and accepting ’s demands, without the involvement of international organizations like the . This will result in being forced to pursue with even more intensity restrictions against the religious organizations, within , that provide support to the Kashmiri freedom fighters. It will also result in extraditing certain individuals to , without any proof or legal recourse for these individuals (this is something not even allowed by the Indian or legal system).

While the above-described third scenario may seem like a win for , it will actually be a for , in the long run. It is quite obvious the current thrust of the Indian hysteria is directed more at neutralizing the freedom struggle, than at the actual, “cross-border ,” since civilian Kashmiri lives are not valued too highly in , to begin with. However, anyone who understands the Kashmiri freedom struggle in detail, outside the Indian (and in some cases international) propaganda, knows that it is , and not in the control of a few small-time religious politicians in .

The actual representatives of the Kashmiris, the All Parties Hurriyat Conference (perhaps the most sophisticated and balanced group of leaders in ), only supports attacks against occupying Indian soldiers in (these actions are recognized as freedom struggles by Amnesty International). It greatly abhors terrorist attacks against civilians. Such attacks greatly undermine the Kashmiri freedom struggle, and are immediately denounced by the APHC (and by the ). The local Kashmiris and the APHC thus consider those extremist religious leaders in that do not follow the lead of the APHC to be a liability, not an asset. So much so, that the Kashmiris are now contemplating an option of independent , rather than joining , due to the actions of Pakistani extreme right wing parties. Neutralizing the leaders of such parties is actually going to strengthen the Kashmiri struggle, not weaken it.

Pakistani intellectuals and common folk have been asking for the sidelining of religious extremists within , for a long time. This process has been initiated by the current , and will only be accelerated if achieves the third scenario. This is actually a benefit in disguise for , and thus a liability for . The Pakistani society will be ridding itself of this evil. It is in fact these extremist groups, which have allowed the Hindu Nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), until the Gujrat , to present itself as a moderate, vis-à-vis , to the rest of the world. Once these groups are sidelined, the last complain the international community has against will be removed. will thus become a stronger adversary for , not a weaker one.

For , the only, “lose” in its potential, “lose-win-win” scenario is the first one. Due to this, it needs to avoid a with , under any and all circumstances, while simultaneously keeping its guard up against a possible Indian attack. There should be no threatening statements, no tit-for-tat actions, and no escalation of any sort. should not have even banned over-flights of Indian civilian aircraft through Pakistani airspace. Only five out of the approximately two hundred and eighty organizations that have been blacklisted by the , due to , are in . The offices of these organizations have been closed down. They need to be slowly removed from the social fabric of . Nearly all Kashmiris, myself included, actively and whole-heartedly support the Kashmiri freedom struggle, yet have nothing to do with such organizations.

At the same time, under no circumstance, should hand over any Pakistani citizen to any other country, without due process of Pakistani , even if the Indian demands it. This will set a dangerous precedent of any Pakistani having the authority to bypass the legal of any Pakistani. should however be ready to present any Pakistani to the International Court of , provided initiates a case in that court. should however agree to hand over any of the Indian Sikhs and Indian Muslims on the list, to , if has them under custody. should also continue to highlight the differences between and a freedom struggle, inline with the definition provided by Amnesty International.

The Indian has not provided any evidence in the current Parliament shooting to its own , nor to the international community. It has not provided any evidence, nor agreed to a joint investigation, of the recent terrorist attacks on the Indian bus in . It does not allow human organizations or the international access to all its claims of in . It has not agreed to a Pakistani offer of jointly placing international observers on both sides of the Line of Control, to monitor cross-border movements. It has not invoked the UN Resolutions on , on any issue of in . The famous Indian writer and winner of the Sean McBride prize of the International Bureau, Mr. Praful Bidwai, points to this correctly, “Put simply, the Kaluchak incident does not on present evidence constitute a casus belli, or reason for . Responsible states do not start wars without establishing serious causal connections between real threats and action. (News, : 23 May, 2002).

Yet the cross section of the Indian society seems to be openly supporting action against . In the potential Indian, “lose-lose-lose” scenario described above, these Indian are actually shooting themselves in the foot. Pakistanis needs to ensure they do not commit the same mistake by escalating the rhetoric.

About the Author

The author has previously been published on as a co-author with Omer Rafique on the series titled: "The King's Gambit"