India, Pakistan need transparency

Pakistan", said a press release of its Inter Services Public Relations (ISPR) on April 19, "has successfully conducted the first flight test of the newly developed Short Range Surface-to-Surface MultiTube Ballistic Missile Hatf IX (NASR)". It would "add deterrence value to Pakistan's Strategic Weapons Development programme at shorter ranges".

This was a terse, low key announcement that highlighted an important response to India's vast investment in military hardware and more specifically, its military doctrine called Cold Start. It may foreshadow another area of nuclear competition between the two nations. Pakistan's test flight makes it public that its armed forces possess tactical nuclear weapons and delivery vehicles to deter Indian offensives envisaged in Cold Start.

India's Cold War doctrine was probably born out of frustration from military confrontations between India and Pakistan in 1986, 1990 and 2001 that were extremely expensive to stage but that settled nothing. In each case, war was successfully averted partly because of a realisation that neither side could achieve a decisive result, that the conflict could escalate to a nuclear exchange and that the international community proactively sought to defuse the crisis. The general consensus was that the nuclear factor alone produced sufficient restraint in the two capitals to give indigenous peace lobbies and international community time for preventive diplomacy.

There was, however, a school of thought in India that if necessary, a limited war could be fought with Pakistan under a nuclear overhang. Pakistan was said to have neutralised the element of surprise in various confrontations by using its much shorter communication lines. India would, therefore, establish forward bases to drastically reduce the time taken for full mobilisation. Under the Cold Start doctrine up to eight integrated battle groups fully supported by air and naval power would carry out multiple-point invasion of Pakistan to gain relatively shallow depth inside Pakistan.

Pakistan has been completely outclassed by India in defence-related expenditure. For 2009, Pakistan's figure is $4.05 billion (Dh14.8 billion) against India's nearly $30 billion. Defence procurements by New Delhi during the next 10 years would greatly increase the existing disparity in conventional military power. Pakistan fears that its much smaller army would not be able to stop the Cold Start thrusts at the border. Its strategists have spent much time crafting counter-strategies. Notably the nuclear hawks have strongly argued that Pakistan should develop a small arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons with dedicated short-range missiles notwithstanding the problems faced about them in Europe during the Cold War.

There has been a lively debate in Pakistan about the wisdom of such a move. Its proponents maintain that it would add a dimension to nuclear deterrence that would make Cold Start plans redundant. The rival viewpoint has been that if this deterrence breaks down, Pakistan may find itself drawn into actual nuclear war fighting in densely populated areas on both sides of the India-Pakistan border with unimaginable destruction. The ISPR announcement quoted above suggests that Pakistan is now able to manufacture a missile with a range of 60 km that can carry a miniaturised nuclear warhead. Pakistan may be slightly ahead of India in medium-range missile technology; on April 29, it tested again nuclear-capable HATF VIIII ("Ra'ad"), a 350-km cruise missile that Indian defences may find difficult to detect.

Higher statesmanship

Such ominous developments might have been prevented if the two sides had remained engaged in a comprehensive dialogue part of which would have been devoted to devising measures for mutual strategic restraint. The terrorists who struck Mumbai in November 2008 succeeded in interrupting it for a long time.

Fortunately, it has now been resumed with some hope that the top leadership is prepared to inject higher statesmanship into it to a degree that India and Pakistan begin to think of a shared future. This is needed as new contentious issues such as water and an intense rivalry in Afghanistan have got added to the agenda. On the positive side, there are indications of possible progress in settling the issue of Sir Creek and the maritime boundary and reversing the futile military confrontation in the dizzy heights of Siachen Glacier. Trade talks held in Islamabad on April 27-28 between delegations led by commerce secretaries seem to have made progress towards reducing obstacles to a much enhanced bilateral trade.

Be it as it may, India and Pakistan must simultaneously address the strategic aspects of their relations. Pakistan fears that the India-US nuclear deal has enabled India to plan a large nuclear arsenal. This is an area for greater transparency and effective confidence-building measures to avert a wasteful arms race.

Similarly, doctrines of pre-emptive strikes or land-based thrusts are becoming dangerous as sophisticated armour, strategic bombers and high-precision ammunition get inducted in regional militaries. Both countries are committed to nuclear deterrence and are averse to the use of weapons of mass destruction. They have to doubly ensure that a situation in which this restraint breaks down never arises. In fact, it is time to outlaw war of any kind in settling India-Pakistan differences and disputes. 

Tanvir Ahmad Khan is a former ambassador and Foreign Secretary of Pakistan.