Whatever its other consequences, last winter's brief war in South Asia broke the mold that since 1947 had cast India-Pakistan relations into a continuing confrontation punctuated by three military conflicts. Now, for better or worse, the subcontinent with its 700,000,000 people has been transformed into a ménage à trois, linking together three national members in new relationships.
THE SUBCONTINENT: MÉNAGE À TROIS
Whatever its other consequences, last winter's brief war in South Asia broke the mold that since 1947 had cast India-Pakistan relations into a continuing confrontation punctuated by three military conflicts. Now, for better or worse, the subcontinent with its 700,000,000 people has been transformed into a ménage à trois, linking together three national members in new relationships.
Two of these nations-defeated, truncated Pakistan and the new state of Bangladesh-entered 1972 beset by severe internal problems. Neither is likely soon to play more than a reactive role in the affairs of the region. By contrast, India, the third element, emerged as a relative giant. Before 1971 India by many measures was three or four times larger than Pakistan, though her weaknesses reduced the differential in some respects. Today she has ten times the population and resource base of Pakistan and considerably more than ten times the resources of Bangladesh. Her decisive military victory over Pakistan last December added a full measure of self-confidence to her mood. Moreover, under Mrs. Gandhi's firm management India's economy has become steadier and the country's polity more closely knit in 1972. India has attained, in short, a new primacy in the subcontinent.
In these radically changed circumstances can Bangladesh, Pakistan and India put behind them the tensions and conflicts of the past generation in favor of peaceful cohabitation in their region? This question is urgent for a great many people outside as well as within the subcontinent proper. Such immediate neighbors as Ceylon, Nepal and Afghanistan, whose anxieties over the events of 1971 were evident, have major stakes in the answer. So do some, at least, of the nations of Southeast Asia and western Asia. The Soviet Union and China see that their own confrontation has a southern flank in the subcontinent The United States has repeatedly found itself enmeshed in competing claims by the countries of the region and could not but warmly welcome any just and peaceful settlement Also, apart from national interests in the area, crises such as occurred in 1971 touch the sensibilities of the international community in general.
This is a premium article
You must be a Foreign Affairs subscriber to continue reading. If you are already a print subscriber, click here to activate your online access.
Log In
Buy PDF
Buy a premium PDF reprint of this article.Related
There is no parallel in contemporary history to the cataclysm which engulfed Pakistan in 1971. A tragic civil war, which rent asunder the people of the two parts of Pakistan, was seized by India as an opportunity for armed intervention. The country was dismembered, its economy shattered and the nation's self-confidence totally undermined. Ninety-three thousand prisoners of war were taken, including 15,000 civilian men, women and children. Considerable territory on the western front was overrun and occupied by India.
I Shall endeavor to recapitulate briefly the genesis of the dispute over the State of Jammu and Kashmir and to indicate what solutions have been considered in the past, apart from the main solution of an over-all plebiscite, that might well furnish a ground for future action in determining its disposition.
Explains how (1) neither India nor Pakistan could expect to benefit from a war over Kashmir (2) nevertheless their pre-emptive defence postures create the risk of war breaking out through inadvertence, miscalculation or misperception.
