Since the British partition of India in 1947 into mostly Muslim Pakistan and mostly Hindu India, tensions on the South Asian subcontinent have remained dangerously high amid fears that the two nuclear powers will go to war because both want control of the Indian state of Kashmir and because both have nothing better to do. These tensions have increased dramatically since a terrorist attack on the Indian Parliament in December by groups that India alleges have close ties to Pakistan. Pakistan responded slowly to Indian demands to turn over individuals with suspected involvement in the attack, giving India the pretext to conduct massive troop movements in the disputed region of Kashmir for "defensive purposes." This naturally elicited a military response from Pakistan, which carried out its own share of troop movements on its side of the border.
The stupidity of the conflict is beyond words. On one side there is Pakistan, a country run by a dictator-general who seized power in a coup and whose government has been an active supporter of terrorism, termed "freedom fighting," against India. Pakistan claims that it offers only "moral and political" support to attacks against India, but this has been widely dismissed by most of the world as there is much evidence to suggest that Pakistan has had an active role in past attacks, both terrorist and Kashmiri militant-related.
At simplest, Pakistan is a terrorist harboring country, and a mature one at that, with over fifty years of "experience" in allowing terrorists to reside within its borders. In this way, Pakistan's harboring of terrorist groups is eerily similar to Afghanistan's harboring of al-Qaida, Osama bin Laden's terrorist network.
Then there is India, a country that constantly flaunts its status as the world's largest democracy, yet will not even permit the debate about a referendum that would allow the people of Kashmir to self-determine whether to stay a part of India or secede to Pakistan. India's control of Kashmir is unwanted by most Kashmiris, but India understandably refuses to give it up: Kashmir is a beautiful state with an abundance of natural resources, and could be a tourist magnet if tourists weren't killed every time they go there. But the resources, time and money spent holding on to Kashmir may well not be worth the state itself. Unfortunately, India has decided to spend most of its resources battling its one exterior enemy of Pakistan, instead of focusing on its many internal enemies -- namely poverty, starvation, corruption, and illiteracy. For India then, it is a problem of confused priorities.
Compounding the questionable actions of India and Pakistan are the actions of the United States. Hypocrisy, arguably a staple of American foreign policy, has again emerged as the guiding principle for American involvement in defusing tensions between the two countries. The first problem is the United States' decision to bring in Pakistan as an "ally" in the war against terrorism. While the move is strategically a good measure, as without Pakistan's help the destruction of the Taliban would be much more difficult, allying with Pakistan raises a host of ethical questions: How can the U.S. promote democracy when it acknowledges that its newest ally is a dictatorship? How can the U.S. make an alliance against terrorism with a country that is a terrorist harboring and sponsoring nation?
Another problem stems from the United States' urging of India to use restraint in responding to the attack on the Indian Parliament. How much restraint did the U.S. use after Sept. 11th? Granted, the attack on the Indian Parliament is hardly comparable to the attacks of Sept. 11th, but India deals with terrorism almost every day, and when compounded, it is more than enough to raise the question of how much restraint a nation can exercise without undermining its security.
Thus the whole situation is a big mess: a terrorist country is an ally against terrorism; a "democratic" country will not allow for a referendum that is reasonable given the circumstances; and the greatest country in the world is jumping into all of it with conflicting messages and actions.
The end result is a shaky face-off between two countries that seem not to care whether or not thousands of lives will be lost in a war similar to the three wars the two nations have fought previously. To be sure, both sides are indeed making efforts to prevent war, but the fact that war has to be so delicately staved off in the first place shows lack of true commitment to peace. This particular dispute will most likely end peacefully, especially given Pakistani President Musharraf's recent surprising promise to stop allowing terrorists -- even those termed "freedom fighters" by the Pakistani government -- from training and operating within Pakistan. The question then is how to prevent such dangerous disputes from ever happening again.
