Indo-Pakistani conflict articles. Indo-Pakistani conflict in the past, present and future. Bangladesh Liberation War

Islamabad and Delhi are ready to start a nuclear massacre at any moment. We continue to analyze modern conflict situations in the world that can lead to large-scale wars. Today we will talk about more than 60 years of Indo-Pakistani confrontation, which in the 21st century was aggravated by the fact that both states developed (or received from their patrons) nuclear weapons and are actively building up their military power.

Threat to all

The Indo-Pakistani military conflict occupies perhaps the most ominous place on the list of modern threats to humanity. According to Alexander Shilin, an employee of the Russian Foreign Ministry, “the confrontation between these two states acquired a special explosiveness when both India and Pakistan, having carried out a series of nuclear tests have demonstrated their ability to create nuclear weapons. Thus, the South Asian military confrontation became the second hotbed of nuclear deterrence in the entire world history (after cold war between the USSR and the USA) ".

This is compounded by the fact that neither India nor Pakistan have signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and continue to refrain from joining it. They consider this treaty discriminatory, that is, securing the right to possess nuclear weapons for a small group of "privileged" countries and cutting off all other states from the right to ensure their own security by all available means. The exact data on the nuclear capabilities of the armed forces of India and Pakistan are not published in the open press.

According to some estimates, both states have set a goal (and perhaps have already achieved it) to increase the number of nuclear weapons from 80 to 200 on each side. If applied, this is enough for an environmental disaster to cast doubt on the survival of all mankind. The causes of the conflict and the bitterness with which it develops indicate that such a threat is quite real.

History of the conflict

As you know, India and Pakistan until 1947 were part of the British colony of India. In the 17th century Great Britain took the feudal principalities that existed here "under its wing" with fire and sword. They were inhabited by numerous nationalities, which could be roughly divided into actually Indians - the indigenous inhabitants of the country and Muslims - the descendants of the Persians who conquered India in the XII-XIII centuries. All these peoples got along relatively peacefully with each other.

However, Hindus were concentrated mainly in what is now India, and Muslims in what is now Pakistan. In the lands now owned by Bangladesh, the population was mixed. A large part of it consisted of Bengals - Hindus who profess Islam.

Britain caused confusion in the relatively peaceful life of the tribes. Following the old and tried-and-true divide and conquer principle, the British pursued a policy of disuniting the population along religious lines. Nevertheless, the national liberation struggle constantly going on here led after the Second World War to the formation of independent states. Northwestern Punjab, Sindh, Northwestern Province, Baluchistan were assigned to Pakistan. This was indisputable, since these lands were inhabited by Muslims.

Part of previously divided Bengal - East Bengal or East Pakistan - became a separate region. This enclave could communicate with the rest of Pakistan only through the territory of India or by sea, but this required to overcome more than three thousand miles. This division has already created a hotbed of tension between the two countries, but the main problem is the situation with the principalities of Jammu and Kashmir.

In the Kashmir Valley, 9 out of 10 people were Muslims. At the same time, historically, the entire ruling elite consisted of Hindus, who naturally wanted to incorporate the principality into India. Naturally, Muslims did not agree with this prospect. In Kashmir, spontaneous militia units began to be created, and the infiltration of groups of armed Pashtuns began from the territory of Pakistan. On October 25, they entered the capital of the principality of Srinagar. Two days later, Indian units recaptured Srinagar and drove the rebels away from the city. The Pakistani government has also deployed regular troops. At the same time, repressions against infidels took place in both countries. Thus began the first Indo-Pakistani war.

Artillery was widely used in bloody battles, armored units and aviation took part. By the summer of 1948, the Pakistani army had occupied the northern part of Kashmir. On August 13, the UN Security Council adopted a ceasefire resolution by both sides, but it was not until July 27, 1949 that Pakistan and India signed an armistice. Kashmir was divided into two parts. For this, both sides paid a terrible price - more than a million killed and 17 million refugees.

On May 17, 1965, the 1949 truce of the year was violated, as many historians believe, by India: a battalion of Indian infantry crossed the ceasefire line in Kashmir and took several Pakistani border posts in battle. On September 1, regular units of the Pakistani and Indian armies entered into combat contact in Kashmir. Pakistani Air Force began to strike at large cities and industrial centers of India. Both countries actively carried out airborne landing troops.

It is not known how all this would have ended if it had not been for the strongest diplomatic pressure that forced Delhi to end the war. Soviet Union- a longtime and traditional ally of India, was annoyed by this military adventure of Delhi. The Kremlin, not without reason, feared that China might enter the war on the side of its allied Pakistan. If something like this happened, the US would support India; then the USSR would have been wiped out into the background, and its influence in the region would have been undermined.

At the request of Alexei Kosygin, then Egyptian President Nasser personally flew to Delhi and criticized the Indian government for violating the ceasefire. On September 17, the Soviet government invited both sides to meet in Tashkent and resolve the conflict peacefully. On January 4, 1966, Indo-Pakistani negotiations began in the Uzbek capital. After lengthy disputes, on January 10, it was decided to withdraw the troops to the pre-war line and restore the status quo.

Neither India nor Pakistan was happy with the "peace": each side considered its victory stolen. Indian generals declared that if the USSR had not intervened, they would have been in Islamabad for a long time. And their Pakistani counterparts argued that if they had another week, they would have blocked the Indians in southern Kashmir and made a tank attack on Delhi. Soon, both of them again had the opportunity to measure their strength.

It began with the fact that on November 12, 1970, a typhoon swept over Bengal, claiming about three hundred thousand lives. The colossal destruction further worsened the standard of living of the Bengalis. They blamed the Pakistani authorities for their plight and demanded autonomy. Islamabad sent troops there instead of helping. It was not a war that began, but a massacre: the first Bengalis who came across were crushed by tanks, seized in the streets and taken to a lake in the vicinity of Chittagong, where tens of thousands of people were shot from machine guns, and their bodies were drowned in the lake. Now this lake is called the Lake of the Rebellious. Mass emigration to India began, where there were about 10 million people. India began to provide military assistance to rebel troops. This eventually led to a new Indian-Pakistani war.

Bengal became the main theater of hostilities, where in the conduct of operations crucial role the navies of both sides played: after all, this Pakistani enclave could only be supplied by sea. Given the overwhelming power of the Indian Navy - an aircraft carrier, 2 cruisers, 17 destroyers and frigates, 4 submarines, while the Pakistani navy had a cruiser, 7 destroyers and frigates and 4 submarines - the outcome was a foregone conclusion. The most important result of the war was the loss of Pakistan's enclave: East Pakistan became an independent state of Bangladesh.

The decades since this war have been rich in new conflicts. Particularly acute occurred in late 2008 and early 2009, when the Indian city of Mumbai was attacked by terrorists. At the same time, Pakistan refused to extradite to India the persons suspected of involvement in this action.

Today, India and Pakistan continue to balance on the brink of open war, and the Indian authorities have said that the fourth Indo-Pakistani war should be the last.

The silence before the explosion?

The first vice-president of the Academy of Geopolitical Problems, Doctor of Military Sciences Konstantin Sivkov, in an interview with the SP correspondent, commented on the situation in modern relations between India and Pakistan:

In my opinion, at the moment the Indo-Pakistani military conflict is at the bottom of the conventional sinusoid. The Pakistani leadership today is tackling the difficult task of resisting pressure from Islamic fundamentalists who find support in the depths of Pakistani society. In this regard, the conflict with India faded into the background.

But the confrontation between Islam and the Pakistani authorities is very characteristic of the current world situation. Pakistani power is pro-American to the core. And the Islamists who are fighting against the Americans in Afghanistan and striking at their henchmen in Pakistan represent the other side - objectively, so to speak, anti-imperialist.

As for India, it has no time for Pakistan either. She sees where the world is heading and is seriously busy re-equipping her army. Including modern Russian military equipment, which, by the way, almost never comes to our troops.

Who is she armed against?

It is clear that the United States may sooner or later instigate a war with Pakistan. A long-standing conflict is fertile ground for this. In addition, the current NATO war in Afghanistan may influence the provocation of the next round of the Indo-Pakistani military confrontation.

The fact is that while it is underway, the United States has supplied Afghanistan (and therefore indirectly to the Pakistani Taliban) a huge amount of ground weapons, the return of which back to the United States is an economically unprofitable operation. This weapon is doomed to be used, and it will shoot. The Indian leadership understands this. And he is preparing for such a course of events. But the current rearmament of the Indian army has, in my opinion, a more global goal.

What are you speaking about?

I have repeatedly drawn attention to the fact that the world with a catastrophic acceleration rushed to the beginning of the "hot" period of the next world war. This is due to the fact that the global economic crisis has not ended, and it can only be resolved by building a new world order. And there has never been a case in history that the new world order was built bloodlessly. Events in North Africa and other countries are the prologue, the first sounds of the coming world war. The Americans are at the head of the new division of the world.

Today we see an almost fully formed military coalition of US satellites (Europe plus Canada). But the opposing coalition is still being formed. In my opinion, it has two components. The first is the BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa). The second component is the countries of the Arab world. They are just beginning to realize the need to create a unified defense space. But the processes are going fast.

The Indian leadership is perhaps the most responsive to the ominous changes in the world. It seems to me that it looks soberly into a more or less distant future, when the formed anti-American coalition will still have to face its main enemy. In India, a real reform of the army is underway, not like ours.

Disappointing calculations

Alexander Shilov, an employee of one of the departments of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, has a slightly different opinion:

It is clear that India's nuclear deterrence is directed primarily against those states that it considers to be likely adversaries. First of all, this is Pakistan, which, like India, is taking measures to form strategic nuclear forces. But also the potential threat from China has been one of the main factors influencing the military planning of India for many years.

Suffice it to recall that the Indian nuclear military program itself, the beginning of which dates back to the mid-60s, was mainly a response to the appearance of nuclear weapons from the PRC (1964), especially since China inflicted a heavy defeat on India in a border war in 1962 ... It appears that several dozen rounds will be sufficient to contain India's Pakistan. According to Indian experts, the minimum in this case would be the potential to ensure the survival of 25-30 carriers with ammunition after the first surprise nuclear strike from Pakistan.

Given the size of India's territory and the potential for a significant dispersal of nuclear weapons, it can be assumed that a strike from Pakistan, even the most massive one, will not be able to disable most Indian strategic nuclear forces. A retaliatory strike by the Indians with the use of at least 15-20 nuclear warheads will undoubtedly lead to irreparable damage up to the complete collapse of the Pakistani economy, especially since the range of Indian aviation and ballistic missiles being developed by Delhi can hit virtually any object in Pakistan.

Therefore, if we bear in mind only Pakistan, an arsenal of 70-80 ammunition may be, apparently, more than enough. For the sake of fairness, it should be noted that the Indian economy is unlikely to be able to withstand a nuclear strike using at least 20-30 charges from the same Pakistan.

However, if we proceed simultaneously from the principle of inflicting unacceptable damage and non-use of nuclear weapons first, then in the case of China it will be necessary to have an arsenal at least comparable to that of China, and Beijing now has 410 charges, of which no more than 40 are on intercontinental ballistic missiles. that if you count on the first strike from China, then Beijing is in a position to disable a very significant part of India's nuclear attack. Thus, their total number should be approximately comparable to the Chinese arsenal and reach several hundred in order to ensure the required survival rate.

As for Pakistan, the leadership of this country constantly makes it clear that the threshold for the possible use of nuclear weapons in Islamabad may be very low. At the same time (unlike India) Islamabad, apparently, intends to proceed from the possibility of using its nuclear weapons first.

Thus, according to Pakistani analyst Lieutenant General S. Lodi, “in the event of a dangerous situation when an Indian offensive using conventional means threatens to break through our defenses, or has already made a breakthrough that cannot be eliminated with the usual measures at our disposal, the government will have no choice but to use our nuclear weapons to stabilize the situation. "

In addition, according to a number of Pakistani statements, in order to countermeasures in the event of a massive offensive by Indian ground forces, nuclear bombs can be used to mine the border zone with India.

Relations between India and Pakistan - two nuclear powers in South Asia - are heating up with unrest in the predominantly Muslim Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir. Indian Interior Minister Rajnath Singh, speaking at a hearing in parliament, accused Islamabad of trying to destabilize and support terrorism in the border state. The statement by the Indian security official came after Pakistani Ambassador to the UN Maliha Lodhi called on the UN Security Council to put pressure on the Indian government to "end the repression." A renewed aggravation of "the oldest conflict on the UN agenda", as a result of which 45 people have been killed and more than 3,000 injured in the past two weeks, began after Indian security forces liquidated an activist of the Hizb-ul-Mujahideen group, which is seeking the separation of Kashmir from India.

The hearings on the Kashmir issue, held in the Lok Sabha (lower house of the Indian parliament), were held after the Chief of Staff of the Indian Army Dalbir Singh Suhag visited Jammu and Kashmir last week due to the escalation of tensions. Following the visit, he presented a report on the situation in the region to Defense Minister Manohar Parrikar.

The last high-profile incident in Jammu and Kashmir took place in the city of Kazigund. Indian soldiers opened fire on the crowd that was throwing stones at them, killing three. In general, the number of victims of a new exacerbation in Jammu and Kashmir - the largest in the past six years, despite the curfew imposed in a number of state districts, over the past two weeks amounted to 45 people (more than 3 thousand were injured of varying degrees of severity).

Riots erupted after security forces killed 22-year-old Burkhan Wani, one of the leaders of the Hizb-ul-Mujahidin group, which is fighting to secede Jammu and Kashmir from India and is recognized as terrorist in the country, during a special operation on July 8. Burkhan Wani was killed in a shootout with Indian soldiers along with two other activists of the organization.

The Indian authorities are convinced that Islamabad is behind the aggravation of the situation in Kashmir. "Instead of solving its internal problems, Pakistan is trying to destabilize India," Indian Interior Minister Rajnath Singh warned at a parliamentary hearing, who called the neighboring state a "sponsor of terrorism." The Indian minister recalled that the Pakistani authorities called Burkhan Wani a "martyr" and declared national mourning after his death.

The Indian Interior Minister’s statement continued the war of words between the two nuclear powers in Asia and longtime antagonists, for whom the divided Kashmir remains the main bone of contention since their inception. This makes the Kashmir problem. " oldest conflict on the UN agenda ".

Of the three Indo-Pakistani wars, Kashmir was the cause of two, in 1947 and 1965. The first war broke out immediately after the two countries gained independence as a result of the division of British India into India and Pakistan. Then Pakistan managed to occupy a third of Kashmir. Another part - 38 thousand square meters. km of the mountainous region Aksai-Chin after the military invasion of 1962 occupied China. As a result, Kashmir was immediately divided between the three leading powers of Asia, and the Kashmir problem began to affect the interests of almost 3 billion people.

The Indian security official's statement at the parliamentary hearing came after Pakistani Ambassador to the UN Maliha Lodhi called on the UN Security Council to put pressure on the Indian government to "end the repression." A few days earlier, Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif added fuel to the diplomatic conflict by calling Burkhan Wani "a soldier who fought for independence." At the same time, he promised that Islamabad would continue to provide all kinds of support to the comrades-in-arms of Burkhan Vani.

In connection with the latest escalation in Kashmir, more and more bellicose statements are being heard in Islamabad: critics of Prime Minister Sharif accuse him of insufficient toughness. Recall that after the new Prime Minister Narendra Modi came to power in India in May 2014, good personal relations were established between the two leaders. Mr. Modi made an unexpected gesture by inviting the head of a neighboring state to his inauguration. After that, in both capitals they started talking about the Indo-Pakistani reset. However, recent events in Kashmir threaten to cross out developments recent years and return the two nuclear-weapon states of South Asia to the era of the previous confrontation.

"Calling the normalization of relations with Pakistan one of his priorities and placing his stake on personal contacts with Nawaz Sharif, Prime Minister Modi clearly underestimated the conflict potential of the Kashmir problem, which can aggravate from time to time against the will of the leaders of the two states. Apparently, this is what is happening today. "- Tatiana Shaumyan, director of the Center for Indian Studies, explained to Kommersant. According to the expert, the return of this problem to the list of regional conflicts threatens the Asian region with new destabilization with the participation of three states: India, Pakistan and China, which have not divided Kashmir among themselves.

Second half of the XX century. was a period of gradual awareness by the old colonial powers of the exorbitant burden of preserving overseas possessions. Ensuring an acceptable standard of living and order in them became more expensive for the budgets of the metropolises, incomes from primitive forms of colonial exploitation in absolute terms grew very slowly, and in relative terms they were clearly declining. Attlee's Labor government ventured into an innovative approach to relations with overseas possessions. It feared an uprising of the Indian population and could not ignore the demands to grant India independence. After lengthy discussions, the British cabinet agreed on the need to abolish the colonial status of British India. (¦)
To chapter content

British India Independence Act and State Delimitation in South Asia

The national liberation movement in Indian cities and rural areas expanded. Anti-British uprisings began among the Indian military personnel of the British-Indian army. The Indian part of the officer corps, not to mention the rank and file, was losing loyalty to the British crown. In an effort to get ahead of the action, on 15 August 1947, the British Parliament passed the Indian Independence Act.

The British government, in accordance with a plan developed by the last Viceroy of India, Lord Louis Mountbatten, divided the country in 1947 on a religious basis. Instead of a single state, two dominions were created - Pakistan, to which the territories inhabited mainly by Muslims, and the Indian Union (India proper), where the majority of the population were Hindus. At the same time, the territory of India proper in a wedge cut Pakistan into two parts - West Pakistan (modern Pakistan) and East Pakistan (modern Bangladesh), which were separated by 1600 km and inhabited by various peoples (Bengalis in the east, Punjabis, Sindhi, Pashtuns and Baluchis - in the West). At the same time, even an entire people - Bengalis - was divided according to the religious principle: part of it professing Islam ended up in East Pakistan, and Hindu Bengalis made up the population of the Indian state of Bengal. East Pakistan was surrounded by Indian territory on three sides, on the fourth - its border ran along the waters of the Bay of Bengal. The partition was accompanied by an exceptionally bloody resettlement of millions of Hindus and Sikhs to India, and Muslims to Pakistan. Killed, according to various estimates, from half a million to a million people.
To chapter content

First Indian-Pakistani War

Additional tension in the situation was brought about by the granting of the “native” principalities the right to independently decide on joining the Indian or Pakistani state. Using it, the nawab of the largest principality of Hyderabad in the center of India decided to join Pakistan. The Indian government, not wanting to lose this territory, brought its troops into the principality in 1948, ignoring the protests of Great Britain and the United States

Likewise, the ruler of Kashmir, which is predominantly Muslim and bordering West Pakistan, being a Hindu by faith, announced his intention to annex his dominion to India or to become an independent sovereign. Then, in October 1947, Pashtun tribes invaded Kashmir from Pakistani territory, who wanted to prevent the transfer of this predominantly Muslim territory to the sovereignty of India. The ruler of Kashmir asked for military assistance in Delhi and hastened to officially proclaim the annexation of the principality to the Indian Union. (¦)

By 1948, the conflict in Kashmir escalated into the first Indian-Pakistani war. It was short-lived, and in January 1949 a ceasefire agreement was signed between the parties. Thanks to the activities of the UN Security Council mediation commission, in the summer of 1949, a ceasefire line was established, one part of which was recognized as an international border, and the other became a line of de facto control (slightly changed later as a result of the second and third Indian-Pakistani wars of 1965 and 1971. .). Northwestern Kashmir came under the control of Pakistan (later the formation of "Azad Kashmir" (Free Kashmir) was created there), which is formally a free territory.

Two-thirds of the former principality of Kashmir came under the rule of India. These Kashmir lands were combined with adjacent areas inhabited by Hindus to form the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir. The Security Council passed a resolution in 1949 to hold a plebiscite in Kashmir after the withdrawal of Pakistani troops from its northwestern part. But Pakistan refused to comply with UN demands, and the plebiscite was thwarted. Pakistan gained access to the border with China thanks to control over northwestern Kashmir, through which the strategic Karakoram Highway was laid in the 70s and 80s, which provided Pakistan with a reliable connection with the PRC.

The Indian-Pakistani conflict over Kashmir has not been resolved. The events of the late 1940s determined the basic anti-Indian orientation of Pakistan's foreign policy. Since then, the Pakistani leadership began to view India as a source of threat to Pakistan's independence.

At the same time, in the state of Jammu and Kashmir as part of India, there were separatist sentiments, the carriers of which opposed the entry into Pakistan or India and demanded the creation of an independent Kashmir state. In addition to everything, the eastern part of the state historically up to the XI century. was part of Tibet, and its population still gravitates towards ties with the Tibetans. In this regard, the leadership of the PRC began to show interest in the Kashmir problem, which extended its control to Tibet after the victory of the Chinese revolution in 1949, especially since there was no clarity about the line of the border between the Tibetan lands of the PRC and Indian possessions in Jammu and Kashmir. - in particular, in the area of ​​the Aksaychin plateau, along which a strategically important road for China passed from Western Tibet to Xinjiang. A hotbed of chronic tension has emerged in South Asia.
Diplomatic relations with the USA and the USSR
India's diplomatic relations with the United States and the USSR were established even before the proclamation of its independence, since the status of the dominion made it possible to do so. But India did not develop close relations with either Moscow or Washington. The superpowers were absorbed in affairs in more important regions for them - in Europe, East Asia, in the Middle East. This in its own way unusual and short-lived "vacuum of interest" in India partly contributed to the formation of a specific foreign policy line of Delhi, the authorship of which belongs to the head of the first government of independent India, Jawaharlal Nehru.
The deterioration of Soviet-Chinese relations in the early 1960s led to an increase in Moscow's interest in military-political cooperation with India, whose relations with the PRC remained tense after two conflicts over the previous ten years. The USSR provided India with significant economic assistance and began to develop military ties with it. In the first half of the 1960s, the scale of military supplies from the Soviet Union exceeded the amount of aid received to India from the United States. This began to worry Washington. The Kennedy administration set the goal of strengthening relations with India, despite Delhi's adherence to non-alignment and neutralism. The American president called India the key to Asia, believing that with American help it could become a "showcase" of the West, win economic competition with China and become a powerful counterweight to it. After the Sino-Indian conflict, India became the largest recipient of US economic aid, although Washington was annoyed about India's reluctance to cooperate more actively with the US against China.

Fearing of being deceived in the expectation of turning India into a reliable partner, the American administration began to pay more attention to cooperation with Pakistan. After the "July Revolution" of 1958 in Iraq and its withdrawal from the Baghdad Pact in 1959, Pakistan's value to the American strategy in the Middle East increased so much that in March 1959 the United States entered into an agreement with Pakistan that provided for the use of US armed forces in case of aggression against Pakistan. Since 1965, Pakistan has been receiving modern weapons from the United States.

But the development of American-Pakistani ties was not without problems. The United States understood that the confrontation with India determines the interest of the Pakistani government in cooperation with the PRC on an anti-Indian basis. The prospect of a Sino-Pakistani bloc did not suit Washington.

But such a bloc was undesirable for Moscow as well. That is why, focusing on rapprochement with India, the Soviet Union sought to maintain good relations with Pakistan. The task of Soviet diplomacy was to limit the Pakistani-Chinese and US-Pakistani rapprochement. The Soviet-Pakistani dialogue developed successfully.

Indian-Pakistani relations in the first half of the 1960s were tense. Indian Prime Minister J. Nehru's visit to Karachi in 1960 and six-month bilateral talks on the Kashmir issue in 1962-1963. and in the first half of 1964 did not lead to a healthier situation. From the end of 1964, armed clashes began on the Indo-Pakistani border. In the summer of 1965, they escalated into a full-scale war.

The development of events aroused the concern of the USSR and the United States, who feared that China's positions in South Asia would strengthen. The United States, navigating between India and Pakistan, suspended military aid to the latter since the outbreak of hostilities, while warning China against interfering in the Indo-Pakistani conflict.

Moscow found itself in a position convenient for fulfilling a mediating mission: it had friendly relations with both India and Pakistan. The governments of both countries agreed to accept Soviet mediation. The United States did not object to him either. Indian Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri and Pakistani President Mohammed Ayub Khan arrived in the USSR. In January 1966, in Tashkent, with the participation of the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR A. N. Kosygin, the Indo-Pakistani negotiations took place, which culminated in the signing of a joint Declaration of India and Pakistan on ending the war and restoring the status quo. Formally, it was believed that during the negotiations the Soviet Union rendered "good offices" to the conflicting parties, but in fact the mission of the USSR rather resembled "mediation", since the Soviet delegate directly participated in the negotiations, which, in principle, is not provided for by the procedure for rendering "good offices".

The United States was neutral during the conflict. This was frowned upon in Pakistan, believing that Washington should have supported him more vigorously. Partly in opposition to the United States, in October 1967, Pakistani President M. Ayub Khan paid a visit to Moscow, during which he hinted at Pakistan's desire to weaken its dependence on the United States in the military-political field. In early 1968, the Pakistani authorities announced that they were not interested in extending the agreement that allowed the United States to use radar installations in Peshawar to collect information on Soviet military installations. During A. N. Kosygin's visit to Pakistan in April 1968, the USSR agreed to supply arms to Pakistan. This caused indignation in India. While trying to maintain good relations with both India and Pakistan, Moscow has generally tended to side with Delhi.

Formation of Bangladesh and the Indo-Pakistani War

On the periphery of international relations, elements of confrontation were more noticeable than in Europe. This was confirmed by developments in South Asia. By the early 70s, the Soviet Union had finally established itself in the opinion that India was a reliable partner of the USSR in the East, since Soviet-Chinese relations were extremely strained, and relations between the PRC and India were also very cold. True, India did not want to be drawn into the Soviet-Chinese confrontation. But she did not trust China, especially since she saw the desire of the new US administration to move closer to it. India was losing its position as a priority partner of the United States in the region, as it had been in the 1960s. (¦) Delhi knew that India's "historical adversary" Pakistan was trying to help improve US-China relations in order to devalue Washington's cooperation with India. Finally, Indian politicians believed that there was such a negative factor as “R. Nixon’s personal dislike for India” and the “anti-Indian fervor” of his national security adviser G. Kissinger. In the early 1970s, the previously existing American-Indian understanding disappeared.

True, the situation in the region developed rapidly regardless of the mood in Delhi. After the partition of British India, the state of Pakistan turned out to consist of two parts - western and eastern - which did not touch each other and were divided by a wedge of Indian territory. The capital of Pakistan was located in the west, while the eastern part felt abandoned and provincial. Its residents believed that the central government did not pay attention to the problems of East Pakistan and discriminated against it in matters of financing, although half of the population lived in the eastern part of the country.

In the 1970 parliamentary elections in Pakistan, the East Bengal party, the Awami League, won the majority of the votes. Thus, in theory, its leader, Mujibur Rahman, who advocated granting autonomy to East Pakistan, received the right to head the central government. But by order of the head of the Pakistani military administration (dictator), General A.M. Yahya Khan, who came to power in 1969, M. Rahman was arrested in March 1971. Army units loyal to A.M. Yahya Khan were sent to East Pakistan from West Pakistan.
etc.................

As the world focuses on ballistic missile testing in North Korea, another potential conflict is raising concerns. In July, exchanges of fire between Indian and Pakistani troops in Jammu and Kashmir state killed 11 and injured 18, and displaced 4,000.

On Sunday, former Indian Information and Broadcasting Minister Venkaya Naidu, who is nominated by the National Democratic Alliance for the country's vice-president, said Pakistan should remember how the clash ended in 1971, when Pakistan was defeated in the third Indo-Pakistani war. and Bangladesh gained independence.

Former Indian Defense Minister and opposition leader Mulayam Singh Yadav said last week that China is using Pakistan to attack the country and is preparing Pakistani nuclear warheads to attack India.

Warheads and doctrines

This spring, The New York Times reported that India is considering changes in the interpretation of its nuclear doctrine, which prohibits the first use of nuclear weapons. Previously, India had prescribed only a massive retaliatory strike, which implied strikes on enemy cities.

According to the newspaper, the new approach may involve the delivery of preventive limited nuclear strikes against Pakistan's nuclear arsenal in self-defense. So far, all this is more likely speculation, since conclusions are made based on an analysis of the statements of Indian high-ranking officials without any documentary evidence.

But even such assumptions, firstly, can push Pakistan to increase its nuclear capabilities and start a chain reaction of the nuclear arms race between the two countries, and secondly, can force Pakistan to take any escalation of the conflict as a reason for India to strike first.

Just days after the publication of The New York Times, Pakistan accused India of accelerating its military nuclear program and preparing to produce 2,600 warheads. In its June report, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) noted that over the year India has added about 10 warheads to its arsenal and is gradually expanding the infrastructure to develop its nuclear weapons.

Former Pakistani Brigadier General Feroz Khan, an expert on Pakistan's nuclear program, previously stated that Pakistan has up to 120 nuclear warheads.

© AP Photo / Anjum Naveed

© AP Photo / Anjum Naveed

Last week in Washington, the Pakistani expert also said that Islamabad's plans to use nuclear weapons are based on NATO doctrine during the Cold War, when tactical nuclear strikes were supposed to be used against advancing enemy forces. To this, however, critics of Pakistan objected that Islamabad is using its nuclear status as a cover for a terrorist war in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir.

For India, the availability of Pakistani tactical nuclear weapons has become a problem. If Pakistan uses only tactical nuclear weapons and only on the battlefield, then India, bombing Pakistani cities in response, will look in a black light. Hence the talk about a change in the interpretation of the doctrine, when it is necessary to have time to eliminate the Pakistani arsenals before they are put into operation.

Another reason is Trump's rise to power in the United States. India believes that under the new American president, it has much more freedom in making decisions about its nuclear program. US relations with Pakistan under Trump are also downward: Americans have ceased to view Islamabad as a reliable ally in the fight against radicals in Afghanistan. India is, of course, encouraged by this.

The scenario everyone fears

Growing tensions in the Indian subcontinent could lead to disastrous consequences. An escalation in Jammu and Kashmir or a major terrorist attack in India like the 2008 Mumbai attack could trigger a chain of events leading to a preemptive nuclear strike from one side or the other.

The main problem, according to many analysts, is that no one knows what are the criteria for the use of nuclear weapons by Pakistan and what exactly he may perceive as the beginning of the war from India. The second problem is that the attacks in India may not be related to Pakistan at all, but it will be difficult to convince the Indian side of this.

In 2008, an American study was published on the aftermath of a nuclear war between India and Pakistan. The authors concluded that although the combined charges of the two countries are not so great, their use will lead to a climate catastrophe that will cause major agricultural problems and widespread famine. As a result, according to the report, about one billion people will die within ten years. So the seemingly distant problem of India and Pakistan actually affects the whole world.

Indo-Pakistani conflict: origins and consequences (23.00.06)

Kharina Olga Alexandrovna,

student of Voronezh State University.

Academic Supervisor - Doctor of Political Sciences, Professor

A. A. Slinko

The history of relations between India and Pakistan is unique: the conflict that exists between these countries is one of the most durable in all of modern history and officially goes back as many years as the very independent existence of India and Pakistan. The question of the ownership of the disputed territories - Jammu and Kashmir - is a cornerstone on which all the political aspirations of Delhi and Islamabad in the region converged, but at the same time, the roots of the problem go back to ancient times, resting in essence on inter-religious and, in part, ethnic strife.

Islam began to penetrate the territory of India in the 8th century, and the close interaction of Hindu and Muslim cultures began at the turn of the 12th - 13th centuries, when the first states, headed by Muslim sultans and military leaders, arose in North India.

Islam and Hinduism are not only different religions, but also alien ways of life. The contradictions between them seem insurmountable, and history shows that they were not overcome, and the confessional principle was one of the most effective tools of British colonial rule, carried out in accordance with the well-known rule of "divide and rule". For example, legislative elections in India were held for curiae, formed depending on denominational affiliation, which undoubtedly fueled controversy.

The presentation of the independence of British India on the night of 14-15 August 1947 and the partition of the country were accompanied by monstrous clashes on religious and ethnic grounds. The death toll in a few weeks reached several hundred thousand people, and the number of refugees amounted to 15 million.

The problem of relations between the two main communities in India during the period of independence has two aspects: relations within the country and international relations with neighboring Pakistan, which is expressed in the Kashmir issue, which so seriously affects the atmosphere within the states that even the Indian population in Pakistan and the Muslim population in India turns out to be, as it were, agents of hostile powers.

Even during the conquest of India by the Muslims, Under the rule of the Muslim rulers of Kashmir were only its northern and central parts, as for the south (Jammu province), here the dominance of the Hindu princes from the Dogra people was preserved ... The eastern, inaccessible part of modern Kashmir - the province of Ladakh - only nominally recognized the domination of the sultans of Kashmir. Local princes preserved Buddhism and maintained active trade relations with Tibet. It was during this period that ethnic, cultural and religious differences were formed between the provinces of Kashmir, which still serve as the main source of tension in the region.

The British put Hindu rulers over the Muslim population at the beginning of the 20th century. in Kashmir, a number of discriminatory laws were passed against Muslims, relegating them to the position of "second class" people .

In 1932, Sheikh Abdullah founds the first political party Kashmir - Muslim Conference, which since 1939 became known as the National Conference of Jammu and Kashmir.

At the time of the partition of British India Muslims in Kashmir made up about 80% of the population and it seemed that his fate was predetermined: he was supposed to become a province of Pakistan, but, according to the provisions of the law, the annexation of this or that principality to India and Pakistan depended solely on the will of its ruler. Ruler of Jammu and Kashmir - Hari Singhawas a Hindu.

Already in October 1947, the dispute over the future of Kashmir developed into a direct armed conflict between India and Pakistan.

The situation became more complicated when, on October 20-21, 1947, the Pakistani government provoked an uprising against the principality of Kashmir by the border Pashtun tribes, which were later supported by regular Pakistani troops.

On October 24, on the territory occupied by the Pashtuns, the creation of the sovereign entity Azad Kashmir was proclaimed and its incorporation into Pakistan. Hari Singha announced that Kashmir was adjacent to India and turned to Delhi for help. Military aid was hastily dispatched to Kashmir, and Indian troops quickly managed to stop the aggressor.

From October 28 to December 22, negotiations were held between the warring parties. However, hostilities were never suspended, and regular military units of Pakistan were soon involved in them, which made the war a protracted one for one year.

Indian troops tried to occupy Azad Kashmir, but in May 1948 the Pakistani army crossed the border and by August occupied the entire northern part of Kashmir. Greater pressure from Indian troops on the Pashtun detachments led to the fact that, with the mediation of the UN, on January 1, 1949, hostilities were stopped. On July 27, 1949, India and Pakistan signed a ceasefire line and Kashmir was split in two. Several UN resolutions urged the parties to hold a plebiscite, however, neither India nor Pakistan was willing to do so.Soon Azad Kashmir actually became part of Pakistan and a government was formed there, although, of course, India does not recognize this and on all Indian maps this territory is depicted as Indian. The events of that time went down in history as the First Kashmir War of 1947-1949.

In 1956, after the adoption of the law on the new administrative division of the country, India granted its Kashmir possessions a new status: the state of Jammu and Kashmir. The ceasefire line became the border. There have also been changes in Pakistan. Most of the northern Kashmir lands received the name of the Northern Territories Agency, and Azad Kashmir formally became independent.

In August-September 1965, there was a second armed conflict between India and Pakistan. Formally, the 1965 conflict began because of the uncertainty of the border line in the Kach Rann area on the southern section of the joint border between India and Pakistan, but soon the flames of the war spread north to Kashmir.

The war actually ended in nothing - as soon as the monsoon rains began, Katsky Rann became unsuitable for the movement of armored vehicles, the fighting subsided by itself, and with the mediation of Great Britain on September 23, 1965, a ceasefire was reached.

The Second Indo-Pakistani War resulted in more than $ 200 million in damage, over 700 deaths and no territorial changes.

From 4 to 11 January 1966, talks were held in Tashkent between the President of Pakistan Ayub Khan and the Prime Minister of India Shastri with the participation of the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR Alexei Kosygin. On January 10, 1966, representatives of the parties signed the Tashkent Declaration ... The leaders of the two countries declared their firm determination to restore normal and peaceful relations between India and Pakistan and to promote mutual understanding and friendly relations between their peoples.

The 1971 war included civil mutiny, mutual terrorism, and large-scale hostilities. While West Pakistan viewed this war as a betrayal of East Pakistan, Bengalis saw it as a liberation from an oppressive and brutal political system.

In December 1970, the Awami League party, which advocated equality for both parts of the country, won elections in East Pakistan. But the Pakistani government refused to transfer power to the Awami League and grant the region internal autonomy. The punitive operations of the Pakistani army have led to the fact that more than 7 million people fled to neighboring India.

In parallel, in 1970, the Indian government raised the issue of liberating the territory of the state of Jammu and Kashmir, "illegally occupied" by Pakistan. Pakistan was also categorically disposed and ready for military methods of solving the Kashmir issue.

The current situation in East Pakistan provided an excellent opportunity for India to weaken Pakistan's position and begin preparations for another war. At the same time, India turned to the UN for assistance in the case of refugees from Pakistan, since their influx was too large.

Then, in order to secure its rear, on August 9, 1971, the Indian government signed the Treaty of Peace, Friendship and Cooperation with the USSR, which also stipulated strategic partnership. After establishing international contacts, India lacked only the slightest moments to start a war, and she took up the education and training of "mukti bahini", which later played an important role in the war.

Formally, the Third Indo-Pakistani War can be divided into 2 stages. The first is pre-war, when hostilities between states were conducted, but there was no official declaration of war (autumn 1971). And the second - directly military, when the war was officially declared by Pakistan (December 13 - 17, 1971).

By the fall of 1971, the Pakistani army managed to take control of the main strategic points in the eastern part of the country, but the East Pakistani troops, operating from Indian territory together with the "mukti bahini", inflicted significant damage on government forces.

On November 21, 1971, the Indian army switched from supporting the guerrillas to direct hostilities. In early December, units of the Indian army approached the capital of East Bengal - the city of Dhaka, which fell on December 6.

When the crisis on the subcontinent entered the phase of an armed conflict both in the east and in the west, UN Secretary General K. Waldheim presented to the Security Council reports on the situation on the ceasefire line in Kashmir, based on the information of the chief military observer. On December 7, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution , which called on India and Pakistan "to take measures for an immediate ceasefire and the withdrawal of troops to their own side of the border."

On December 3, 1971, Pakistan officially declared war on India, which was accompanied by a simultaneous strike by the Pakistani Air Force, and the Pakistani ground forces also went on the offensive. However, after four days Pakistan realized that the war in the east was lost. In addition, the Indian Air Force dealt a tangible blow to the eastern provinces of West Pakistan. Further resistance in East Bengal lost its meaning: East Pakistan almost completely got out of the control of Islamabad, and military actions completely weakened the state.

On December 16, 1971, Pakistani general Niyazi signed an act of unconditional surrender to the Indian army and the mukti bahini. The next day, Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and Pakistani President Zulfikar Ali Bhutto signed a ceasefire agreement in Kashmir. The third Indo-Pakistani war ended with the complete defeat of Karachi and the victory of India and East Bengal.

The results of the war showed Pakistan's serious weakness, since it was completely deprived of its eastern half: the main and global change in the post-war situation was the formation on the world map of a new state - the People's Republic of Bangladesh.

At the end of hostilities, Pakistan occupied approximately 50 square miles in the Chamba sector, controlling communications in the state of Jammu and Kashmir, as well as portions of Indian territory in the Punjab. India has seized about 50 Pakistani posts north and west of the ceasefire line and a number of sections of Pakistani territory in Punjab and Sindh. On December 21, 1971, the Security Council adopted resolution 307 , in which he demanded "that a lasting ceasefire and the cessation of all hostilities in all regions of the conflict be strictly observed and remain in force until the withdrawal."

June 28 - July 3, 1972 in the city of Simla, negotiations were held between Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and President Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. The agreement signed by the parties determined the prospects for relations between Pakistan and India. The "determination" of the governments of the two countries to put an end to the conflicts was recorded.

The process of demarcation of the line of control in Jammu and Kashmir and the mutual withdrawal of troops was completed in December 1972. Diplomatic relations between India and Pakistan were restored in May 1976.

However, the terrorist attack in Delhi led to another aggravation of relations, expressed in the resumption of shootings on the line of control. Tensions also increased in connection with the approval by Pakistan in August 1974 of the new Constitution of Azad Kashmir and the transfer of the Gilgit, Baltistan and Hunza districts to the administrative subordination of the Pakistani federal authorities in September.

The Indian government in early 1975 entered into an agreement with Sheikh Abdullah, according to which he recognized the final annexation of Kashmir to India with Delhi guaranteed autonomous state rights.

But as practice has shown, despite the steps towards each other, each side was confident that it was right, and the Simla Agreement was and is being interpreted by India and Pakistan in their own way. Further, the already familiar scenario developed: a round of recovery and replenishment, equipping with more high-tech weapons and a new outbreak of conflict.

Since the mid-1980s, for several years, the armies of the sides were almost daily involved in aviation or artillery duels on the northern end of the border with China - the ownership of the high-mountainous glacier Siachen in the foothills of the Karakorum was disputed.

The reason for the outbreak of hostilities on Siachen was information about the imminent arrival of a Japanese group in Pakistan, planning in 1984 to climb Peak Remo, which is located in the most important area in terms of control over the entire glacier. The Japanese were supposed to be accompanied by a group of Pakistani military, which greatly disliked Delhi, and he accused Pakistan of trying to establish control over Siachen. Both India and Pakistan were planning an operation to capture the glacier by that time.

However, the Indian military launched the offensive first. On April 13, 1983, the implementation of Operation Meghdut began. The Pakistani units, which arrived only after a month and a half, found themselves in a series of clashes unable to dislodge the Indians from the positions they had captured. However, they did not allow the Indian units to advance further.

Tensions remained high in the Siachen area until the mid-1990s, with 1987-1988 being the time of the most violent clashes.

Military clashes near the glacier still occur today. The last major battles involving artillery took place on September 4, 1999 and December 3, 2001.

Since 1990, a new exacerbation of the "Muslim question" began, which was associated with the struggle of the Indian People's Party (BDP) for power. The target for inciting a general protest was the mosque, built in 1528 on the site of a destroyed Hindu temple in honor of the god Rama. OK. Advani, the leader of the BJP, organized mass marches to the "birthplace of Rama", and he himself rode in a chariot, uttering slogans that later spread throughout India: "When the Hindus are understood, the mullahs flee the country", "There are two ways for Muslims - to Pakistan or at the cemetery". This provoked unrest throughout India.

On December 6, 1992, the mosque was destroyed, and in response to this, clashes and pogroms of Muslims began in many cities. In total, at the end of 1992 - beginning of 1993, 2000 people died. And in March 1993, a series of explosions organized by Muslim terrorists thundered in Bombay. In 1996-1997, Muslims staged about a hundred bombings throughout India.

Simultaneously with these events, the situation in the state of Jammu and Kashmir escalated. in connection with the sharp escalation of the subversive activities of separatist gangs. As a result of almost continuous battles with terrorists and sabotage, India has lost more than 30 thousand troops and civilians.

After both states demonstrated their possession of nuclear weapons in May 1998, many analysts on both sides of the border started talking about a possible nuclear war between them. Nevertheless, in late 1998 - early 1999, there was a noticeable "relaxation" of tension in India's relations with Pakistan. An exchange of visits took place, and several top-level meetings took place. The culmination of the "thaw" was a trip to the Pakistani city of Lahore by Indian Prime Minister A.B. Vajpayee by bus in connection with the opening of the Delhi-Lahore bus route in February 1999 and the achievement of a package of agreements at the highest level on mutual relaxation of tensions.

The early 2000s were characterized by heavy terrorist attacks by Pakistani militants in the state of Jammu and Kashmir, as well as in individual cities of India and Delhi.

All efforts to "defuse" the situation in early 1999 failed when tensions in Kashmir began to rise, unprecedented since 1971, in May. About a thousand militants infiltrated from Pakistan crossed the Line of Control in five sectors. They were covered by Pakistani artillery, which fired through the Line of Control. The fire from Pakistani batteries greatly impeded the advance of the convoys of Indian vehicles bringing in reinforcements and ammunition.

India, gradually throwing more and more units into battle, by the end of May brought the number of troops to ten brigades of ground forces. The main battles took place in the Kargil, Dras, Batalik and Turtok sectors and the Mushkokh valley. These events were named "Kargil conflict". And the operation to recapture the captured heights was called "Vijay".

India was ready to expand military action to the adjacent territories to defuse tensions in the Kargil area, but then refrained from crossing the internationally recognized border in Punjab, where Pakistani troops were concentrated. In general, the actions of Indian armed forces did not go beyond the Line of Control.

Islamabad denied any involvement in the Kargil clashes, claiming that this was only moral support for the "freedom fighters." Soon, direct evidence of the participation of Pakistanis in military clashes was obtained - several militants who had the relevant documents were captured by the Indians.

By mid-June, the Indians managed to recapture most of the heights, but the bandit formations finally left Indian territory only after N. Sharif admitted on July 12 that they were controlled from Pakistan and authorized their withdrawal.

After the Kargil clash, periods of tensions began to decrease. But, as subsequent events showed, the potential for enmity accumulated in relations between India and Pakistan did not allow even such a small success to take root: firefights between regular units of both countries resumed on the Line of Control, which subsided after the end of the Kargil crisis.

Currently, the border between the Indian and Pakistani parts of Kashmir runs along the Line of Control fixed by the parties in the Simla Agreement. However, clashes on religious grounds and in territorial terms still occur. The conflict cannot be called settled. Moreover, it can be argued that the threat a new war is not excluded. The situation is aggravated by the fact that new players, in particular, the United States, Afghanistan and China, are entering the conflict under the pretext of maintaining peace.

The current state of the conflict is also distinguished by the fact that India and Pakistan also pursue economic interests associated with the significant water and recreational resources of Kashmir.

As long as the Kashmir problem remains unresolved, mutual distrust persists between India and Pakistan, and this stimulates both sides to strengthen their defense capabilities and develop nuclear programs. A peaceful solution to the Kashmir problem on a bilateral basis can prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons throughout the South Asian region.

The analysis of this problem at the present time indicates that specific proposals, taking into account the interests of all three parties, have not yet been developed. Both India and Pakistan actually recognize the existing realities - two Kashmir, state structure, the presence of a third force, unwillingness to recognize each other's solutions, a peaceful solution to the problem, the futility of military methods for finding a consensus.

Literature

1.Belokrenitsky V.Ya. South Asia in world politics: textbook. manual / V.Ya. Belokrenitsky, V.N. Moskalenko, T. L. Shaumyan. - M .: International relations, 2003. - 367 p.

2.Belokrenitsky V.Ya. Interstate conflicts and regional security in South Asia: textbook. manual for universities / V. Ya. Belokrenitsky; East / West: Regional Subsystems and Regional Problems of International Relations: MGIMO (U) MFA of Russia. - M .: ROSSPEN, 2002 .-- 428 p.

3. Vasiliev L.S. History of the East: in 2 volumes: study guide / L.S. Vasiliev. - M .: Higher. shk. , 1998 .-- 495 p. - 2 t.

4.Voskresensky A.D. Conflicts in the East: Ethnic and confessional: Tutorial for university students / Ed. A. D. Voskresensky. - M .: Aspect Press, 2008 .-- 512 p.

5.Gordienko A.N. Wars of the second half of the XX century. / A.N. Gordienko - Minsk: Literature, 1998 .-- 544 p. (Encyclopedia of Military Art).

6.Resolution of the UN General Assembly A / RES / 2793 (XXVI) of 7 December 1971

8.Ultziferov O. G. India. Linguistic and Cultural Dictionary / O.G. Ultsiferov: ref. ed. - M .: Rus. lang. - Media, 2003 .-- 584 p .: ill.

9. Nuclear Confrontation in South Asia / Ed. A.G. Arbatova, G.I. Chufrina. - M .: Carnegie Moscow Center, 2005 .-- 29 p.

10. Major General Hakeem Arshad, The 1971 Indo-Pak War, A Soldiers Narrative, Oxford University Press, 2002 .-- 325 p.

The people inhabiting the territory of Jammu and Kashmir, close to the Punjabis and professing Hinduism.

For example, their admission to government service was limited, especially to command posts in the administration and the army. The conversion to Islam of representatives of other religions was punished with confiscation of property. Especially humiliating to Muslims was the law that they were imprisoned for ten years for slaughtering their own cow. Gorokhov S. A. Kashmir / S. A. Gorokhov // Georgia: regional geographic newspaper. - 2003. - No. 13. - P. 13 - 18 ).

"Meghdut" is the modern pronunciation of the Sanskrit "Meghadut" - "Cloud-messenger", the name of the poem by the ancient Indian author Kalidasa.

The party of nationalist orientation, which is a subdivision of the oldest Indian organization " Union of Volunteer Servants of the Nation ”.