Printer Friendly Feb 25 (Reuters) – The foreign secretaries of India and Pakistan met in New Delhi on Thursday, marking the resumption of official contacts which India broke off after militants attacked Mumbai in late 2008. [ID:nLDE61 MIJU] Follovwng are some of the highs and Iows in relations between the nuclear-armed neighbours: 1947 – Britain divides its Indian empire into secular but mainly Hindu India and Muslim Pakistan tri erin and bloodlest migrati PACE 1 orn and Pakistan go tow ove.. ordered ceasefire an esol people ofJammu an of India or Pakistan. 1 e one of the greatest 947/48 – India ends with a U.
N. – ebiscite for the ther to become part fight their secand war over Kashmir. Fighting ends after United Nations calls for ceasefire. 1971 – Pakistan and India go to war a third time, this time over East Pakistan, which becomes independent Bangladesh. 1972 – Pakistani Prime Minister Zulflkar Ali Bhutto and Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi sign agreement in Indian town of Simla to lay principles meant to govern relations. 1974 – India detonates its first nuclear device. 1989 – Separatist revolt starts in Indian Kashmir. India accuses Pakistan of arming and sending
Islamist militants into Indian Kashmir, which Pakistan denies. 1998 – India carries out nuclear tests. Swlpe to vlew next page tests. Pakistan carries out its own tests in response. Feb. 1 999 – Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee holds summit with his Pakistani counterpart Nawaz Sharif in Lahore. 1999 – India and pakistan fight a brief but intense conflict in the mountains above Kargil on the Line of Control, the ceasefire line dividing the former kingdom of Jammu and Kashmir. July 2001 – Summit between Pakistani leader General Pervez Musharraf and Vajpayee in Agra in India ends in failure.
Dec. 001 – Militants attack Indian parliament. India blames Pakistan-based Kashmiri separatist groups Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and Jaish-e-Mohammad. Close to one million troops are mobilised on either side of the border; war only averted months later in June 2002. 2003 – Pakistan and India agree a ceasefire on the Line of Control. 2004 – The two countries launch a formal peace process. July 2008 – India blames Pakistan’s ISI intelligence agency for a bomb attack on the Indian embassy in Kabul. Nov. 2008 – Ten gunmen launch multiple attacks in Mumbai, killing 166 people.
India blames Pakistan-based militants nd breaks off talks with Pakistan. Feb. 2009 – India cautiously welcomes Pakistan’s investigation into the Mumbai attack. Pakistan admit,s for the first time, that the attack was launched and partly planned from Pakistan. March 2009 – India’s home minister says pakistan is threatening to became a failed state and it was not clear who was in control of the country. May 2009 – Indiais new coalition government says it is up to Pakistan to take the first Step towards better ties by cracking down on militants on its soil. June 2009 2 OF its soil.
June 2009 – Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari meet on the sidelines of the Shangha Cooperation Organisation summit in Russia. Singh tells Zardari he wants him to ensure militants can not operate from Pakistan. July 2009 – India and Pakistan agree to work together to fight terrorism and order their top diplomats to meet as often as needed. gut Prime Minister Singh, after talks with his Pakistani counterpart Yusuf Raza Gilani in Egypt, rules out a resumption of formal peace talks, known as the «composite dialogue», that Islamabad had been seeking. Aug. 009 – India gives Pakistan a new dossier of evidence to investigate the Mumbai attacks and rosecute Hafiz Mohammad Saeed, the suspected mastermind of the three-day carnage. Jan. 2010 – Pakistani and Indian forces exchange fire across their border, the latest in a series of incidents raising tension between the two. Feb. 2010 – India offers new talks with Pakistan. The talks Will be held at top diplomatic level of the two countries. Feb. 13 – A bomb in a bakery in the western Indian City of Pune kills 13 people. An Indian government official later says the foreign secretary talks would go on as scheduled. Compiled by Zeeshan Haider; Additional writing and diting by Davld Cutler; Editing by Mlchael Roddy, London Edltorial Reference Unit) India and Pakistan – Nuclear States in Conflict Background When the British withdrew from the Indian subcontinent after the second world war, it was divided, primarily on religious grounds, into th subcontinent after the secand world war, it was divided, primarily on religious grounds, into the two states of India and Pakistan. At that time Kashmir was included in India, but the issue of which state it should belong to has been contested ever since, largely because Kashmir’s population is predominantly Muslim.
In 1947 a United Nations resolution called for a referendum in Kashmir to settle the issue on the basis of What the people wanted. It was, however never carried out and it is generally assumed I E-mail this Page More on the Web I Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament: http://www. cnduk. org that the reason for this is because the Indian government feared the popular vote would support unification with Pakistan on religious grounds. Many in Kashmir campaign for independence, a position that neither India nor Pakistan supports. Around 30,000 people have died in Kashmir in the last 11 years.
What happens n Kashmir is at the heart of the continuing tension between India and Pakistan. The possibility of the world’s first direct war between two nuclear-armed states occurring is very real. The history of the conflict over Kashmir is well documented with three India/Pakistan wars taking place since 1947. But this time it would be with both sides having access to nuclear weapons. Since the attack on the Indian Parliament building in December 2001, the tension and rhetoric have grown considerably. India accused Pakistan of supporting terrorist groups.
Pakistan, in turn, pledges its support for Kashmiri freedom fighters. One state’s terrorist is another’s f in turn, pledges its support for Kashmiri freedom fighters. One state’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter. Since the attack in December, Pakistan has arrested around 1 500 ‘militants’ and banned five groups, õn,’0 said to be sectarian, one pro-Taliban and two who have been fighting Indian rule in Kashmir. However, Gen Musharraf has pledged continued support for Kashmir_ Many people living along the border close to Kashmir have fled the area due to the large military presence being built up by both sides.
From the end of 2001 there were clashes virtually every night in hat border region, with sometimes one or two people being shot. There are claims that large numbers of military silos have been destroyed. In an atmosphere of increased tension and sabre- rattling rhetoric on both sides, this led to the situation in May 2002 where upwards of a million troops were gathered near the border_ Any mistake or Small incident runs the risk of setting off something far, far worse. Nuclear numbers Estimates on actual warhead numbers Vary wildly with reports that India has anw,’here between 50-150 warheads and Pakistan 10-1 OO.
There is a bit more clarity, however, regarding the missile ystems that would deliver them. India: Agni (Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile), nuclear capable and tested. Range: 1,500 miles. Could reach Karachi in about 14 minutes. Prithvi (Surface to Surface Missile), nuclear capable and deployed. Range: 90-220 miles. Could reach Islamabad or Lahore within three minutes. Trishul (Surface to Surface Missile), nuclear capable. Range: 6 miles. pakistan: Ghauri (Intermediat s OF Range: 6 miles. Pakistan: Ghauri (Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile), nuclear capable in production.
Range: 930 miles Could reach Bombay in 10 minutes. One medium range and one hort-range missile, both nuclear capable, were tested in May 2002. The current situation All this, of course, is fuelled by the continuing rhetoric on both sides. Officials in both countries claimed that they would not use nuclear weapons first, but they seem remarkably keen to use them second. Given the proximity ofthe two states, it is clear that milllons of their own people would die along WIth millions of their nearest neighbours. India has Said that it would not use nuclear weapons first, while Pakistan has clearly stated that it would.
Whilst a ‘no first use’ policy is an important Step towards isarmament, it is all too often used as an excuse to build a large ‘second use’ capacity. Eventually, of course, the ‘second use’ becomes indistinguishable from the ‘first use’. As the tension mounts, the temptation grows to get your retaliation in first. But what are the immediate reasons for the current increasing tension and the risk of war? India appears to be escalatlng events but its argument is that it is following the lead of the US and the west by zero tolerance of terrorist attacks.
It has identified What it sees as terrorists being harboured by another state so t threatens military retaliation. goth sides have had internal problems as well. In Pakistan, Musharraf has been promising a democratic election ever since the army took control, but there has been onl 6 OF has been promising a democratic election ever since the army took control, but there has been only a referendum. Though it was boycotted by many political parties, Musharraf claimed it as a mandate for him to continue.
Meanwhile in India, the ruling BJP has lost every state election for over a year, so now uses the well- known tactic of uniting the country against an outside ithreat’ Whatever the reasons for the tensions, the crucial aim is to avoid the devastation of nuclear war. The British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, visited the region in January 2002 to try to persuade both sides that a war was not a good idea. This took place against the background of the bombing in Afghanistan, in which Britain was an enthusiastic participant.
His approach raised concerns about Western hypocrisy, as Ifwar is fine for sorne countries but not others. The sincerity of Blair’s mission was also in question after it transpired that his plea for peace preceded two British trade issions to Delhi in February, both designed to sell weapons to India. Defexpo is an arms fair whose promotional material pushes the weaponry on sale, with everything from Small arms to missile systems. India and Pakistan have long been valuable markets for British arms manufacturers.
So this arms fair, combined with the resumption of arms sales to Pakistan, as a result of its support for the war in Afghanistan, means that Britain Will be arming both sides in any future war. This is, of course, not unique. A similar thing happened during the Iraq-lran war. So, what’s the answer? The situation in South Asia shows the importance of nuclear disarma war. So, what’s the answer? The situation in south Asia shows the importance of nuclear disarmament. A war even with conventional weapons would be an appalling waste of life.
But this would be turned into a complete disaster on an unimaginable scale if nuclear weapons were used. In the short term there must be more diplomatic language and there must be proper international negotiations at the UN to resolve the problem of Kashmir. Our own politicians could do more to help. How can the British Government’s attempts to calm the situation be taken eriously when the Defence Minister, Geoff Hoon, appears on television saying that he would use nuclear weapons against any state if necessary? In the long term, the declared nuclear weapon states (NWS) – US, IJK.
France, Russia and China – must carry out their obligations under the nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) and get rid of their nuclear weapons. The NPT was drawn up in 1968, giving the definition of a NWS as one that tested nuclear weapons before then. gecause India was preparing its nuclear programme at that time, it would not sign. Because India would not sign, neither would Pakistan. Therefore, they cannot sign the NPT as NWS and, since the nuclear testing by both sides in 1998, they cannot sign as non-nuclear weapon states. The NWS made statements at the time of the tests saying how appalled they were at this development.
But after 1 1 September, the US lifted sanctions imposed on both sides, in arder to boost its coalition in the ‘War on Terrorism’. If the NWS put the words of the NPT into action, they would be in a position to push India and Pak the NWS put the words of the NPT into action, they would be in a position to push India and Pakistan to Sign the NPT themselves. After all, part of the excuse given by India and Pakistan for the 1998 nuclear tests was that those nuclear weapon states had done nothing about their NPT commitments, so if nuclear weapons were good enough for them…
Bath sides need to be persuaded that nuclear weapons make the world a more dangerous, not a safer, place and to take a Step back and realise that peaceful resolutions to conflict are the best way forward. This should happen through the UN. But the UN also needs to look at the continuing nuclear policies of the NWS. There are peace activists in both India and Pakistan working hard to get their views cross. Their work has been partlcularly dificult since the nuclear tests carried out by both countries in 1998.
They have the entire might of the government and military propaganda machine ranged against them. We should do all we can to support them. 2002- Kashmir Crisis Indian troops were placed on alert after a terrorist attack on the Indian Parliament in December 2001. By early Jaunuary 2002 India had reportedly mobilised over 500,000 troops and its three armored diwsions along the 3,000 km frontier with Pakistan. India also placed its navy and air force on «high alerti’ and deployed its nuclear-capable missiles. Pakistan reacted in kind, concentrating forces along the line of control that divides Kashmir.
The deployment, which included troops in the states of Rajasthan, Punjab and Gujarat, was the largest since the 1971 conflict between the two rivals. Rajasthan, Punjab and Gujarat, was the largest since the 1971 conflict between the two rivals. Over 300,000 Pakistani troops are also mobilized. E-mail this Pagel printer Friendly According to some reports, by late May 2002 as many as 700,000 Indian Army and paramilitary forces have deployed along the Indo-Pakistani border and the Line of Control in Jammu and Kashmir.
Pakistan has reportedly deployed as many as 300,000 troops, and perhaps as much as three-fourths of the army [which would be nearly 400,000 troops], at or near the Indian border. Bath Pakistan and India have placed their forces in the disputed border area on alert. India’s paramilitary contingent comprises several hundred of thousand combat-ready troops, a major portion of whom were already deployed on the Line of Control. India has made a troop pull-back conditional on Islamabad halting the flow of militants into Kashmir, but this may not be evident until the summer when the snows melt and infiltration o mally starts.
When Inda did not act by the end ofJune, when the monsoons began, military action became more complicated through the summer. Indiais primary security objective is to curtail the cross-border intervention by Pakistan and Kashmiri militants. India’s expected option, to avoid a wider warr consisted of limited strikes against militant camps in Kashmir. The four major militant centers which have been identified in PoK are in Zaffarw’al, Samani, Kotli and Kahuta areas and are within 0010 kilometres of the LOC. The center in Zaffarwal is run by the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT) ultras and the Samani center 22