War 'unlikely' despite rhetoric between Indian, Pakistan

New Delhi: Hostility between India and Pakistan is at its worst in years, but tensions stemming from last week's terrorist attacks in Mumbai, India, are unlikely to bloom into full-blown war between the nuclear-armed rivals - at least for now, according to analysts on both sides of the border.

Indian authorities say that the gunmen who rampaged through luxury hotels and other crowded sites in Mumbai, killing more than 160 people, were trained and guided by the Pakistan-based militant group, Lashkar-e-Taiba.

India has demanded that Pakistan turn over leaders of Lashkar and has refused to rule out military action, warning that it reserved the right to protect Indian territory "with all the means at our disposal".

But a combination of new political and economic realities, US pressure and perhaps some lessons learned in the past have inhibited a rush to open conflict. Any war would be devastating financially, especially at a time of worldwide recession. India's economic juggernaut has lost some steam; and even more dire, Pakistan has had to appeal to the International Monetary Fund to keep its economy afloat.

Foreign investment in both countries, which fled during the 2001-2002 standoff, would vanish once again in the event of an armed clash.

"No one can afford it," said Abhay Matkar, a former Indian Army major in Mumbai. "Both countries are not ready for war, and it will not happen." Tammy Haq, a popular talk-show host in Pakistan, questioned whether Pakistan's armed forces were even prepared militarily for a war, conventional or otherwise.

"We've had decades of propaganda about how strong we are, but we can't win a war," Haq said. "We have an army that's fat, not a well-oiled fighting machine." Another factor leading to the relatively restrained response might be the lessons learned from a somewhat similar attack that occurred seven years ago this month - an incident that some observers say almost led both countries to do the unthinkable and press the nuclear button.

On December 13, 2001, a group of gunmen stormed the Indian parliament building in New Delhi and came close to killing the high-ranking lawmakers inside. When the siege was over, more than a dozen people lay dead, including the five assailants and several police personnel.

That attack also was blamed on Pakistani extremists, allegedly abetted by the country's powerful intelligence agency. Within days, India lashed back by deploying the first of hundreds of thousands of troops along its border with Pakistan, which promptly followed suit.

The military standoff lasted for months before intensive international diplomacy helped dissuade the archrivals from launching their fourth war in 55 years. Although the number of dead in last week's coordinated assault in Mumbai was more than 10 times that of the 2001 attack, the Indian government has shown no signs this time of moving soldiers closer to Pakistan, despite some public pressure for hard-fisted action.

Part of India's forbearance, some analysts say, is because it ultimately gained little from the 2001-2002 military faceoff. A peace process initiated in 2003 has improved the air somewhat, but real progress toward resolving the dispute over Kashmir that lies at the heart of the two countries' mutual animus.

The political actors on both sides of the divide are also different this time around. In 2001, Pakistan was ruled by a military dictator, General Pervez Musharraf, who was forced to step down earlier this year as the nation's president and replaced by an elected president, Asif Ali Zardari.