Recently, India conducted an anti-terrorist action in the North East. However, the statements given after the action appear to be missing some elements of restraint, seriousness, and maturity. India appeared to stress the aspect that its forces crossed the border with Myanmar (Burma) and destroyed a terrorist camp inside the territory of Myanmar. It is obvious that while taking such actions and in hot pursuit, sometimes it becomes necessary to cross the border. However, to stress that action does not appear to be very wise. There is a saying in Punjabi, “Ik chup, sau sukh.” This means that in some situations, to remain silent is the best option. India seems to be ignoring its traditional wisdom, or it wanted this to serve as a warning for its other neighbors.
Pakistan has taken the Indian statements directed against it. Pakistani leaders, particularly Musharraf, have reacted angrily. He said that if India takes an action like this against Pakistan, then Pakistan should react with a nuclear attack. This brings up a question: is Musharraf serious, or is he just venting his anger? Sometime ago, while Nawaz Sharif’s book was being released in London, he asserted that while he was the Prime Minister and Musharraf was the head of the army, he noticed some unusual movement in the army. He found out that Musharraf had ordered a nuclear strike against India. It was due to his intervention that this was aborted. We can at least conclude from his assertion that the possibility of a nuclear confrontation in South Asia is not an imagination, but is a real possibility. India and Pakistan both have nuclear weapons and unfortunately, relations between the two countries are very tense.
Another question is that who is likely to use them first, even though the end result will be massive destruction for both countries. I feel that Pakistan is more likely to be the first. My prediction is primarily based upon two facts. First, India is much bigger and stronger than Pakistan. In a conventional war, India’s victory is almost certain. Therefore, India is more likely to resort to a conventional war; it has no incentive or reason to start a nuclear war. On the other hand, Pakistan’s situation is completely the opposite. It cannot win a conventional war against India. In a conventional war, Pakistan cannot match India. However, in a nuclear confrontation, it becomes an equal party. Therefore, it has the incentive and the reason to do this. The other difference between the two is cultural and in the mentality of the two. Pakistan is a Muslim-majority country whereas India is a Hindu-majority country. The Muslims have the concept of Shahadat (martyrdom) while the Hindus have the concept of Balidan (sacrifice). There is a big difference in the two: Shahadat is an active concept, whereas Balidan is a passive concept. Among the Muslims, Shaheed is revered and he receives a very high status. It will be no exaggeration to state that in the Muslims, particularly among Muslim youth, Shaheed is an ideal. If there is a call to become Shaheeds, it gets a very big response from Muslim youth. There is even a bigger enthusiasm among Muslim youth to become Shaheed than in Punjabi youth for a visa to a western country, because by becoming a Shaheed, you get a visa for Jannat (Heaven). Sometime ago, the Iranian leaders gave a call to their youth to join a suicidal group of a million Iranians who would retaliate to an American attack by hurting American interests all over the world. They got such an overwhelming response and their quota was filled so soon that they had to refuse many who wanted to join the group. Pakistan can take a nuclear confrontation with India as an opportunity for the ultimate Shahadat.
A few years ago, the Los Angeles Times carried an article which was also published by the Seattle Times, which asserted that it is the opinion of many nuclear experts that a nuclear attack on America by Muslim fundamentalists was a certainty, the only question was when will that happen. Now, American policy seems to have changed. America has started saying that there is more likelihood of a nuclear confrontation in South Asia between India and Pakistan. Henry Kissinger has also come out with his prediction that there will be a nuclear war between India and Pakistan in the twenty-first century. India has to understand that America will rather see a nuclear war between Muslims and India than between Muslims and America or between Muslims and Israel. I feel that Muslims are likely to use nuclear weapons against three countries: America, Israel, and India. Now the question is which of these countries is the most likely to be their target. I feel that the Islamic fundamentalists have already answered that question. First Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, and now the IS has made it clear that if they were able to get nuclear capability, then they will first use it against America. Osama bin Laden even raised the concept of revenge from America for the attacks on Asia: atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and Napalm bombs on Vietnam. Today, they are engaged in the wars in Iraq and the Houthis are fighting in Yemen. Both these wars are against America and its allies. It is clear that both consider America as their biggest enemy.
Today, the Arabs are playing a leading role among the Islamic fundamentalists. Generally, Arabs do not have an anti-India feeling. I have personally experienced a friendly feeling among Arabs about Indians. It is obvious that they are more likely to use a nuclear weapon (if they get one) against America or Israel rather than India. However, India can incite them to turn against itself by its actions, just like the Indian saying, “Aa bael mujhe maar” (inciting a bull to attack you). America will not be too unhappy if India does that. America is inciting fundamentalists against secularists everywhere. In such a scenario, nuclear confrontation between India and Pakistan becomes more likely. India and Pakistan can be sacrificed if it comes to saving America and Israel. America can also divert the attention to South Asia from the Middle East and Europe where its policies are taking a beating. Will the Indian leaders ponder this seriously and maturely? There is too much at stake.
Dr. Sawraj Singh, MD F.I.C.S. is the Chairman of the Washington State Network for Human Rights and Chairman of the Central Washington Coalition for Social Justice. He can be reached at [email protected].
