A mixture of national pride and historic enmity lies behind the posturing between nuclear powers, India and Pakistan. But, suggests Tom Clonan, India would likely win any eruption of hostilities
The history of bitter rivalry between Pakistan and India is a legacy of the partition of the Indian sub-continent by the British in August 1947.
Within two months of independence from Britain, in October 1947, war broke out between Pakistan and India over the disputed Himalayan province of Kashmir. A UN-brokered ceasefire was achieved in 1949, but full-scale war erupted once more over Kashmir in September 1965.
The crisis was resolved in January 1966 with the Indian prime minister, Lal Bahadur Shastri, and the Pakistani president, Ayub Khan, signing a Soviet-backed peace deal. This was a short-lived truce, however, with a renewed India-Pakistan war, this time over East Pakistan (later Bangladesh), in 1971.
This war resulted in the surrender of 90,000 Pakistani troops in Bangladesh. The Indian prime minister, Indira Gandhi, subsequently signed a peace accord with President Zulfikar Ali Bhutto in July 1972. The uneasy peace that has characterised relations between India and Pakistan was shored up by a mutual non-aggression pact in 1988.
The current crisis in Kashmir has its roots in this history of rivalry and aggression between India and Pakistan.
The suicide attack on the Indian parliament on December 13th has brought matters to a head once more. The Indian Prime Minister, Vajpayee, has alleged that Pakistani-backed militant groups mounted the attack.
The Indian authorities claim that these groups, Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed, carried out this attack at the behest of the Pakistani Inter Service Intelligence Agency (ISI). India also accuses Pakistan of the "Talibanisation" of Kashmir, charging the ISI in particular with fomenting civil unrest in Kashmir. This unrest, waged by Muslim militants for an independent homeland, has so far claimed 35,000 lives in the last 12 years.
In response to this latest crisis, India is strengthening its garrison of 400,000 troops in the Kashmir area and plans to conduct major so-called military exercises in the region.
Pakistan in turn has deployed around four divisions (roughly 80,000 troops) supported by armoured units to reinforce their side of the Line of Control, the border with India.
This sabre-rattling coincides with the Anti-Terrorism Convention of the South Asian Association for Regional Co-operation (SAARC) whose summit opened in Nepal this week. It also coincides with a diplomatic effort by Tony Blair to resolve outstanding issues through dialogue.
Commentators are hopeful of a peaceful resolution to the crisis and an avoidance of escalation. There is a particular urgency to these concerns given that Pakistan and India possess nuclear weapons.
In terms of sheer numbers and military equipment, India would most likely have the upper hand in a conventional military confrontation, with a total military strength of approximately 1.3 million troops.
These are well trained and armed with a potent mixture of former Warsaw Pact and NATO standard equipment and munitions. In terms of air superiority, the Indians would probably achieve this through critical mass with an array of fast-jet combat aircraft including MIG-25R Foxbat and Dassault Mirage fighters.
The Pakistani military by comparison consists of a smaller standing army of approximately 520,000 troops. This is supplemented by a National Guard of around 180,000. The Pakistani Air Force has in the region of 430 combat aircraft with approximately 40 US-manufactured F-16 jets. However, since the US suspension of military transfers in 1990 and the consequent lack of parts and supplies, the operational status of many of these aircraft is unclear.
In terms of non-conventional warfare, both sides claim to possess an arsenal of short range and medium range ballistic missiles (SRBMs and MRBMs) with a nuclear capability.
India detonated its first atomic device in 1974 and has been developing nuclear weapons for nearly 30 years. Assisted by countries such as Israel, it has consistently refused to adhere to the international Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).
From a strategic point of view (and in light of the China-India war of 1962), India has traditionally identified China as its most formidable military threat. The growth of China's economic power and its ongoing conventional and nuclear military modernisation have been cited by successive Indian governments as a rationale for the development of a nuclear strike capability.
As a deterrent therefore, the Indian military has developed two main ballistic missiles. The Prithvi short range ballistic missile (SS-250) has a range of approximately 250 kilometres.
Its propulsion mechanism is based on the Soviet SA-2 surface-to-air missile system. It could in theory be used to deliver short-range tactical nuclear devices.
The Indian military test-fired the Agni II medium range ballistic missile on January 17th, 2001. A solid-fuel missile, the Indians claim it has a range of over 3,000 kilometres, capable of delivering a one-tonne nuclear device. This would place many Pakistani cities within range of India's nuclear armoury.
The rationale for Pakistan's nuclear weapons programme is perhaps revealed in the name assigned its missiles. Known as Hatf, or Deadly Revenge, these were developed in direct response to India's missile programme.
After the Indian Agni missile tests in the Thar desert in 1998, Benazir Bhutto famously goaded the prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, to respond in kind.
She reputedly threw her bracelets to the floor declaring that if Pakistan did not match India's actions, then "Sharif would be the woman who should be wearing bangles".
National pride therefore, the smarting memory of defeat in Bangladesh and a perceived threat from India seem to have provided the impetus for Pakistan's missile programme. The Pakistani stable of missiles includes the Hatf-5 or Ghauri medium range ballistic missile. Believed to be based on the North Korean No Dong 1 missile system, the Pakistani authorities claim it can carry a payload of up to 1000 kilograms including nuclear devices. The Pakistanis also possess the Shaheen (Eagle) short range ballistic missile with a range of approximately 750 kilometres.
As Prime Minister Vajpayee and President Musharraf engage in brinkmanship over the coming days and weeks, the international community will make every effort to defuse the situation and avoid a nuclear confrontation.
Such an eventuality would create a humanitarian and environmental crisis of unprecedented proportions. In order to avoid this and further destabilisation in the region, it is important that Pakistan and India be persuaded to talk.
In the words of Winston Churchill and especially in this instance, "Jaw-jaw is better than war-war".
Dr Tom Clonan is a retired army captain. He now lectures on the Political Economy of Communication in the Institute of Technology, Tallaght