desiman
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2009
- Messages
- 3,957
- Reaction score
- 0
The most recent conflict over Kashmir took place ten years ago in May-July 1999 in its Kargil sector. This was also the first time that both countries fought against each other after their nuclear tests, conducted a year earlier, which caused acute concern amongst the international community.4 Nevertheless, it was precisely this nuclear dimension that largely confined the Kargil conflict to infantry and artillery operations by both sides, along with limited combat ground support air missions.
When Pakistan's clandestine military operation to occupy a series of high features along a 200 km trans-Himalayan front across the LoC was discovered in May 1999, India reacted strongly by putting its forces on alert and deploying troops and artillery guns to dislodge Pakistani troops and militants.5 Pakistan's intrusion across the LoC came as a surprise to India; India's determination and resolve to force the withdrawal of Pakistani forces back across the LoC was a surprise to Pakistan. Following several weeks of intense fighting and subsequent mediation by the US, Pakistan announced the withdrawal of its forces from across the LoC in mid-July. India exercised restraint by ensuring that its own forces did not cross the LoC at any time of the conflict. Indian casualties included 474 men killed and over a thousand wounded; on the Pakistani side an estimated 700 troops were killed, including seventy-one officers, and 243 militants.6
Clearly, the Kashmir dispute is not just about conflicting territorial claims but ideological compulsions as well. For Pakistan, created on the basis of the two nation theory that Muslims of the Indian sub-continent could not live alongside the majority Hindu population, the incorporation of Kashmir legitimises its claim as a Muslim state. This became even more important after having suffered the secession of East Pakistan in 1971. For India, the incorporation of Kashmir legitimises its own claim as a secular state for both Hindus and Muslims alike (since 1972 it has possessed the second largest Muslim population after Indonesia). Then there is the future of the Kashmiri people themselves.
With both countries now possessing nuclear weapons and delivery systems to deter each other, conventional major war seems unlikely; the risks associated with escalation are too grave. Indeed, the Kargil conflict was deliberately limited in scale and operation by both sides to prevent such an escalation. To mitigate the possibility of another Kargil-type conflict taking place in the future and to ensure peace and stability in Kashmir, however, both countries have for the first time been engaged in a comprehensive dialogue (begun in 2004) on the Kashmir dispute.
When Pakistan's clandestine military operation to occupy a series of high features along a 200 km trans-Himalayan front across the LoC was discovered in May 1999, India reacted strongly by putting its forces on alert and deploying troops and artillery guns to dislodge Pakistani troops and militants.5 Pakistan's intrusion across the LoC came as a surprise to India; India's determination and resolve to force the withdrawal of Pakistani forces back across the LoC was a surprise to Pakistan. Following several weeks of intense fighting and subsequent mediation by the US, Pakistan announced the withdrawal of its forces from across the LoC in mid-July. India exercised restraint by ensuring that its own forces did not cross the LoC at any time of the conflict. Indian casualties included 474 men killed and over a thousand wounded; on the Pakistani side an estimated 700 troops were killed, including seventy-one officers, and 243 militants.6
Clearly, the Kashmir dispute is not just about conflicting territorial claims but ideological compulsions as well. For Pakistan, created on the basis of the two nation theory that Muslims of the Indian sub-continent could not live alongside the majority Hindu population, the incorporation of Kashmir legitimises its claim as a Muslim state. This became even more important after having suffered the secession of East Pakistan in 1971. For India, the incorporation of Kashmir legitimises its own claim as a secular state for both Hindus and Muslims alike (since 1972 it has possessed the second largest Muslim population after Indonesia). Then there is the future of the Kashmiri people themselves.
With both countries now possessing nuclear weapons and delivery systems to deter each other, conventional major war seems unlikely; the risks associated with escalation are too grave. Indeed, the Kargil conflict was deliberately limited in scale and operation by both sides to prevent such an escalation. To mitigate the possibility of another Kargil-type conflict taking place in the future and to ensure peace and stability in Kashmir, however, both countries have for the first time been engaged in a comprehensive dialogue (begun in 2004) on the Kashmir dispute.