What Would India Do If Pakistan Plunges Into Civil War

[longknife]

by War News Updates Editor

How Will India Respond To Civil War In Pakistan? -- Sunil Dasgupta, East Asia Forum/UMBC and Brookings Institution

In 1971, India intervened militarily on behalf of Bengalis in the civil war in East Pakistan, dividing the country in two and helping to create Bangladesh.

In 2013, prospects of another civil war in Pakistan — this time one that pits radical Islamists against the secular but authoritarian military — have led once again to questions about what India would do. What would trigger Indian intervention, and who would India support?

In the context of a civil war between Islamists and the army in Pakistan, it is hard to imagine Pakistani refugees streaming into India and triggering intervention as the Bengalis did in 1971. Muslim Pakistanis do not see India as a refuge, and Taliban fighters are likely to seek refuge in Afghanistan, especially if the United States leaves the region.

Read more ....How will India respond to civil war in Pakistan? | East Asia Forum

Editor's Comment: I agree with the author's conclusion that if Pakistan plunges into a sectarian civil war .... India would prefer to stay out. But the problem is .... and will be .... Pakistan's nuclear weapons and WMDs. If radical Jihadists are on the verge of seizing these .... staying on the sidelines may not be an option for India .... or for anyone else including the U.S..

I've been following this for some time. We get little news of this in the American media but it will have a huge impact in the Middle and Far East. Both have nuclear capability and have been at war before. India has taken extensive actions to improve and modernize its military. And, on top of this, China sits on the northern borders and is watching this closely.

 

[waltky]

Pakistan waits to vote as outcome is unpredictable...

Pakistan campaigning ends ahead of election
9 May 2013 - Campaigning in Pakistan ahead of Saturday's general election has ended, with candidates holding final rallies.

The election will mark the country's first successful transition from one civilian government to another in its 66-year history. However, the run-up to the election has been marred by violence in which more than 100 people have been killed. On Thursday, the son of former Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani was seized during an election rally. Ali Haider - a candidate for the Pakistan Peoples' Party (PPP) - was seized in the central city of Multan, Mr Gilani said. The end of campaigning was marked by emotional pleas by some candidates.

'National honour'

Nawaz Sharif, who leads the opposition Pakistan Muslim League-N (PML-N) and is tipped to be Pakistan's next prime minister, made an impassioned plea to crowds in Lahore just minutes before midnight on Thursday. "If you give us five years you will see that we can change the fate of this country," he said. He accused his opponents of selling the nation's honour and vowed that his party would be different. Former international cricketer Imran Khan, leader of the Movement for Justice party, addressed supporters in the capital Islamabad by video link from a hospital bed.

He was injured after falling from a makeshift lift at an election rally earlier this week. "God will not take me from this world until a new Pakistan is built," he said. On the outskirts of Islamabad, supporters of the the Pakistan People's Party (PPP) also held a large rally. Party chairman Bilawal Zardari Bhutto, son of assassinated Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto and current President Asif Ali Zardari, also addressed the rally by video link. "Benazir gave her life for this nation, for this country, for the people, for democracy, and for the completion of this struggle," he said. "And my father, the President of Pakistan Asif Ali Zardari, who spent ten years in jail, and always said we should put Pakistan first. Now this is our duty to complete this promise."

The PPP along with the Karachi-based Muttahida Quami Movement (MQM) and the Awami National Party have been singled out for attack by the Taliban. Correspondents say the threat of violence has forced all three to severely curtail their election events. Tens of thousands of troops will be deployed at polling stations on Saturday after the Taliban threatened to carry out suicide attacks. Another six people were reported killed in election-related violence on Thursday. Two attacks targeted a PML-N candidate and the right-wing Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam party, officials said. Opinion polls indicate there could be a record turnout, higher than the 44% in the last elections in 2008.

BBC News - Pakistan campaigning ends ahead of election

See also:

Pakistan elections: Five reasons the vote is unpredictable
9 May 2013 - The 11 May elections will be different from any that have been held in Pakistan before. And it's not only because for the first time an elected government will finish its term and hand over power to a democratically elected successor.

For decades Pakistani politics has consisted of a series of military regimes interspersed with governments run by two parties: the Bhuttos' Pakistan People's Party (PPP) and the Sharifs' Pakistan Muslim League (PML-N). And as millions of Pakistanis have repeatedly complained, the PPP and the PML-N have been little more than family businesses generating vast fortunes for a tiny and fabulously rich ruling elite. But this election contains new, unpredictable elements.

1. Imran Khan

The cricketer-turned-politician, long dismissed as a political no-hoper, has mounted a serious challenge. Before he fell off a lift and injured his back, he was storming around the country, holding as many as seven mass rallies in a single day. Privately, government officials say that their internal polling suggests that Mr Khan's PTI will win a significant number of seats. As the change candidate, Imran Khan draws significant support from disparate groups. His most vocal support comes from young people, many of them vowing to vote differently from their parents.

He also appeals to liberals who hope that, at heart, his days as a Westernised, high-living playboy are not really over. But equally significant is his appeal to the middle classes, many of whom have tended not to vote in recent elections. The economic growth of the Musharraf years increased the number of property-owning Pakistanis. They tend to be conservative, anti-American, pious, nationalistic and infuriated by the venal upper classes. Imran Khan's campaign speeches have reflected all their attitudes.

2. New voters

 

[Saigon]

India will do anything it can to destabilise Pakistan, and ultimately look to annex Kashmir.

I agree that India will likely stay out of any direct involvement in open warfare, but India will never be a neutral observer. It will operate behind the scenes, as it always does in Pakistan.

 

[Meathead]

India would likely only intervene if hard-core Islamist insurgents prevailing.

 

[Vikrant]

From India's perspective choosing between Pakistan army and Islamists is like determine which one is softer stone or brick. They are both detrimental to India's security. If civil war breaks out in Pakistan, India will be alert to see what is going on there. However, India will not interfere unless there is a risk of war spilling over into India. India will wait to see who emerges as victor and after that India's response would be based on the victor's attitude towards India.

As far as seizing Kashmir is concerned, the portion of Kashmir under occupation of China is more vital to India than what is under control of Pakistan. It is important for India to get back the Chinese occupied Kashmir because this will allow access to Xinjiang. However both India and China are focusing on nation building at the moment so I think both would avoid war for the time being.

 

[High_Gravity]

I think the Indians would prefer the Pakistani Military in charge instead of a bunch of foaming at the mouth Jihadis.

 

[Spoonman]

i'm guessing they would sell tickets and sit back and enjoy the show.

 

[Meathead]

I think the Indians would prefer the Pakistani Military in charge instead of a bunch of foaming at the mouth Jihadis.

An amazing grasp of the obvious.

I think Pakistan might effectively break up, with the northern tribal areas under Islamist rule and the more moderate military-controlled areas in many of the big cities, especially in the south. A drawn out multi-generational civil war may come about

 

[High_Gravity]

I think the Indians would prefer the Pakistani Military in charge instead of a bunch of foaming at the mouth Jihadis.

An amazing grasp of the obvious.

I think Pakistan might effectively break up, with the northern tribal areas under Islamist rule and the more moderate military-controlled areas in many of the big cities, especially in the south. A drawn out multi-generational civil war may come about

More than likely yes, Pakistan started for Islam and they will die for it.

 

[Vikrant]

^ Very interesting take on it.

In 1947, Jinnah said Muslims could not live in a secular India because he did not believe their rights would be respected in a India where all religions would be treated equal. Therefore he demanded the creation of Pakistan for the safety of Muslims. But tragically, Muslims still have no safety in Pakistan, a country created for them.

 

[Meathead]

^ Very interesting take on it.

In 1947, Jinnah said Muslims could not live in a secular India because he did not believe their rights would be respected in a India where all religions would be treated equal. Therefore he demanded the creation of Pakistan for the safety of Muslims. But tragically, Muslims still have no safety in Pakistan, a country created for them.

Jinnah was relatively moderate by Muslim standards, but the recent history of the subcontinent reflects the large larger problem between Islam and the non-Islamic world.
In modern times, there has been little tolerance from Muslims.

 

[Saigon]

As far as seizing Kashmir is concerned, the portion of Kashmir under occupation of China is more vital to India than what is under control of Pakistan. It is important for India to get back the Chinese occupied Kashmir because this will allow access to Xinjiang. However both India and China are focusing on nation building at the moment so I think both would avoid war for the time being.

Logically that is correct, but in terms of pride, India's potential capture of Pakistani-controlled Kashmir would be like a short-handed goal at hockey - a complete stab to the heart of the old rival.

Much of the feud between India & Pakistan dates back to 1948, and is as much a matter of machsimo and pride as religion or politics.

There is also the matter of tourism. Kashmir is a huge draw, especially Dal Lake and Manali, which at the moment get virtually no tourists at all. India will one day look to making it one of the premier highland destinations on earth. It is stunning, but at the moment not safe enough for most people.

 

[Vikrant]

Indians do not consider Pakistan as rival. They however are wary of incessant hostilities that is thrown at them from Pakistani dictatorship. Indian culture does not support machismo at all and India is a secular democracy so there is no religious angle from Indian side either.

There is a tendency among western press to attribute Pakistani issues to India which is absurd.

 

[Saigon]

Indians do not consider Pakistan as rival. They however are wary of incessant hostilities that is thrown at them from Pakistani dictatorship. Indian culture does not support machismo at all and India is a secular democracy so there is no religious angle from Indian side either.

There is a tendency among western press to attribute Pakistani issues to India which is absurd.

Firstly, India is a deeply religious society, and one in which religious violence against some minorities has a very long history. Do a google search on the destruction of mosques in India and you will see what I mean. There is also the Tamil violence in Sri Lanka, which obviously originated in the Indian Tamil Nadhu area.

Secondly, I don't know where you got the idea that Indians do not consider Pakistan as a rival, but is not at all correct. At some times cricket games have had to be cancelled because the rivalry has been so intense that violence seemed not only likely, but certain, whoever won.

I'm baffled by your points here - how much time have you spent in India?

 

[Vikrant]

There are countries where state supports a particular religion. Example: Pakistan and Denmark, just to name a couple. India on the other hand is a secular democracy. The state does not support any religion.

There were incidents where Cricket matches had to be stopped. All those incidents took place in Pakistan. That brings me to the point I initially made, there is a tendency among European media to attribute Pakistan's issue onto India. I find that tendency bizarre.

 

[Saigon]

Vikrant -

India is officially secular, but as I am sure you have noticed, daily life is dictated by the Hindu calendar. India is every bit as devoted to its religion as any other country in the region is.

Here is a single example of religious extremism in India:

A screaming mob of thousands of Hindu militants stormed a 16th-century mosque here today and demolished it with sledgehammers and their bare hands, plunging India into a political and religious crisis.

The destruction of the mosque, which has been a focus of tensions between Hindus and Muslims for several years, raised the danger of a renewal of the conflicts between the groups that have claimed tens of thousands of lives in the last four decades.

Hindu Militants Destroy Mosque, Setting Off a New Crisis in India - New York Times

As for the cricket -

Between 1962–77, no cricket was played between the two countries owing to two major wars in 1965 and 1971. The 1999 Kargil War and 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks have led to as yet shorter breaks in cricketing ties.

India?Pakistan cricket rivalry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If there is no rivalry, why does the Wiki page use the term "rivalry"?

Are you sure that all of these games were scheduled to be played in Pakistan?

 

[Vikrant]

Indians are free to practice a religion of their choice. It includes Hindu faith, Buddhist faith, Jewish faith, Christian faith and Muslim faith, just to name a few. Attack on a mosque does not necessarily indicate the complicity of the state. It happens in every continent. Below is an example of a mosque getting attacked in The Netherlands:

Mosque set on fire in Netherlands
BBC NEWS | Europe | Mosque set on fire in Netherlands

Cricketers from various countries not just India have been attacked in Pakistan. Cricketing teams from Australia and Sri Lanka had to pull out in the middle of the series due to security concern in Pakistan. Does this mean these countries too have rivalry with Pakistan?

I think you need to study the meaning of the word rivalry more thoroughly.

 

[editec]

by War News Updates Editor

How Will India Respond To Civil War In Pakistan? -- Sunil Dasgupta, East Asia Forum/UMBC and Brookings Institution

In 1971, India intervened militarily on behalf of Bengalis in the civil war in East Pakistan, dividing the country in two and helping to create Bangladesh.

In 2013, prospects of another civil war in Pakistan — this time one that pits radical Islamists against the secular but authoritarian military — have led once again to questions about what India would do. What would trigger Indian intervention, and who would India support?

In the context of a civil war between Islamists and the army in Pakistan, it is hard to imagine Pakistani refugees streaming into India and triggering intervention as the Bengalis did in 1971. Muslim Pakistanis do not see India as a refuge, and Taliban fighters are likely to seek refuge in Afghanistan, especially if the United States leaves the region.

Read more ....How will India respond to civil war in Pakistan? | East Asia Forum

Editor's Comment: I agree with the author's conclusion that if Pakistan plunges into a sectarian civil war .... India would prefer to stay out. But the problem is .... and will be .... Pakistan's nuclear weapons and WMDs. If radical Jihadists are on the verge of seizing these .... staying on the sidelines may not be an option for India .... or for anyone else including the U.S..

I've been following this for some time. We get little news of this in the American media but it will have a huge impact in the Middle and Far East. Both have nuclear capability and have been at war before. India has taken extensive actions to improve and modernize its military. And, on top of this, China sits on the northern borders and is watching this closely.

I do not know what will happen.

But I suspect that sooner or later we're going to find out.

 

[Saigon]

Vikrant -

Attack on a mosque does not necessarily indicate the complicity of the state. It happens in every continent

And in how many countries do politicians take part?

A 2009 report, authored by Justice Manmohan Singh Liberhan, claimed that 68 people were responsible for the demolition of the mosque in Ayodhya - mostly leaders from the BJP and a few bureaucrats. Among those named in the reports were A.B. Vajpayee, the former BJP prime minister and L.K. Advani, the party's then (2009) leader in parliament. Kalyan Singh, who was the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh during the mosque’s demolition, has also come in for harsh criticism in the report.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bharatiya_Janata_Party

The nature of Hindu violence against minority religious groups is hardly someting that "happens on every continent". It is part of an ongoing pattern of religious bigotry, as exemplified by the BJP. It's strange that you seem keen to present India as pluralistic and tolerant - and yet the political scene is dominated by Hindu Nationalists.

Yes, there are other religions in India, not all of which are routinely bullied. However, as you must be aware, more than 80% of Indians are Hindu.

btw - How much time have you spent in India?

 

[rdean]

What Would India Do If Pakistan Plunges Into Civil War