Conflict Unending: India-Pakistan Tensions Since 1947
Since gaining independence in 1947, India and Pakistan have fought four wars and endured several crises. The recent evolution of Indian and Pakistani nuclear capabilities has led commentators to brand the subcontinent "the most dangerous place on earth." Hence the dearth of serious scholarship on the roots of Indo-Pakistani animosity is puzzling. Analysts of South Asian security affairs have tended to put the cart before the horse by intensively studying subcontinental nuclear issues while neglecting the underlying political dynamics that produced the Indo-Pakistani nuclear arms competition.
Ganguly has now filled this hole in the literature. In his brilliant new book, he provides a sophisticated and lucid explanation of why India and Pakistan have suffered such chronically bad relations. Conflict Unending sets the industry standard for those scholars who aspire to combine rigorous social science with regional expertise, and it cements Ganguly's reputation as one of the world's leading experts on subcontinental political affairs.
Ganguly develops a three-tiered explanation of Indo-Pakistani conflict. First, he cites the "fundamentally divergent ideological commitments of the dominant nationalist elites," which create an irreconcilable dynamic whereby the success of India's secular nationalism inevitably implies the failure of Pakistan's Islamic nationalism -- and vice-versa. Second, this ideological chasm has yielded irredentist (Pakistani) and anti-irredentist (Indian) claims to the disputed territory of Kashmir. Third, these conditions have provided the backdrop for repeated "opportunistic" clashes, where "one or both parties saw significant opportunities at critical historical junctures to damage the other's fundamental claims." Ganguly applies this analysis to the entire history of Indo-Pakistani animosity and sees little hope for a breakthough. Although pessimistic, Ganguly's work provides South Asianists with an invaluable foundation from which to reinvigorate their efforts at creating a stable and just subcontinental order. Given the tortured history of Indo-Pakistani relations, that foundation is itself a glimmer of optimism.
Related
Last year's nuclear tests by both India and Pakistan brought world attention to the decades-old Kashmir conflict. Claimed by both countries, the former princely state has been ravaged by a war that shows no sign of ending. Both rivals have invested heavily in blood and treasure to make Kashmir their own. Now Afghan-trained mujahideen are leading the fight, bringing their own foreign brand of radical Islam. Neither New Delhi nor Islamabad has ever asked what Kashmiris want. They would not like the answer: more than anything else, Kashmiris hope to be left alone.
India's and Pakistan's nuclear tests last May were a double setback: for security on the subcontinent and worldwide nonproliferation efforts. U.S. attempts to forge warmer relations with both countries were also casualties of the blasts. The tests could spark a chain of withdrawals from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, undermining the international consensus against the spread of nuclear arms. Cold War brinkmanship is no model for diplomacy. For their sake as well as the world's, India and Pakistan need to stabilize their nuclear rivalry at the lowest possible level, ban further tests, and embrace frequent, high-level bilateral talks to ease tensions.
Since independence, India's nuclear policy has been to seek either global disarm ament or equal security for all. The old nonproliferation regime was discriminatory, ratifying the possession of nuclear weapons for the permanent five members of the U.N. Security Council while preaching to the nuclear have-nots about the virtues of disarmament. India was left sandwiched between two nuclear weapons powers, Pakistan and a rising China. The end of the Cold War has not ushered in an era where globalization and trade trump old-fashioned security woes. If nuclear deterrence works in the West, why won't it work in India?
