International conflict between India and Pakistan. India vs Pakistan - the roots of the conflict and the prospect of ignition

British Indian Independence Act and state demarcation in South Asia

The national liberation movement in Indian cities and rural areas expanded. Anti-British protests began among Indian soldiers 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 events, on August 15, 1947, the British Parliament passed the Indian Independence Act.

The British government, in accordance with a plan devised by the last Viceroy of India, Lord Louis Mountbatten, divided the country along religious lines in 1947. Instead of a single state, two dominions were created - Pakistan, which received territories populated predominantly 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 cut Pakistan into two parts like a wedge - 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, Sindhis, Pashtuns and Baluchis - in the west). At the same time, even an entire nation, the Bengalis, was divided according to religious principles: the part professing Islam became part of East Pakistan, and the 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 through the waters of the Bay of Bengal. Partition was accompanied by the extremely bloody migration of millions of Hindus and Sikhs to India, and Muslims to Pakistan. According to various estimates, from half a million to a million people died.
To the contents of the chapter

First India-Pakistan War

Additional tension was added to the situation by granting the “native” principalities the right to independently decide whether to become part of 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, sent its troops into the principality in 1948, ignoring the protests of Great Britain and the USA

Similarly, the ruler of Kashmir, a predominantly Muslim region bordering West Pakistan, who was a Hindu by religion, declared his intention to annex his kingdom to India or become an independent sovereign. Then, in October 1947, Pashtun tribes invaded Kashmir from Pakistani territory, who wanted to prevent the transition of this predominantly Muslim territory to Indian sovereignty. The ruler of Kashmir turned to Delhi for military assistance and hastened to officially proclaim the accession of the principality to the Indian Union. (¦)

By 1948, the conflict in Kashmir had escalated into the first India-Pakistan War. It was short-lived, and in January 1949 a ceasefire agreement was signed between the parties. Thanks to the activities of the mediation commission of the UN Security Council in the summer of 1949, a ceasefire line was established, one part of which was recognized as an international border, and the other became the line of actual control (somewhat 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 (subsequently the formation of “Azad Kashmir” (Free Kashmir) was created there), formally representing a free territory.

Two-thirds of the former princely state of Kashmir came under Indian rule. These Kashmiri lands were merged with the adjacent Hindu-inhabited areas to form the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir. The Security Council in 1949 adopted a resolution to hold a plebiscite in Kashmir after the withdrawal of Pakistani troops from its northwestern part. But Pakistan refused to comply with the UN demands, and the plebiscite was disrupted. Pakistan gained access to the border with China thanks to control over northwestern Kashmir, through which the strategic Karakoram Highway was built in the 70s and 80s, which provided Pakistan with reliable communications with the PRC.

The Indian-Pakistani conflict over Kashmir has not been resolved. The events of the late 40s determined the basic anti-Indian direction of Pakistan's foreign policy. The Pakistani leadership since then began to view India as a source of threat to the independence of Pakistan.

At the same time, in the state of Jammu and Kashmir itself, within India, there were separatist sentiments, the bearers of which opposed joining Pakistan or India and demanded the creation of an independent Kashmiri state. On top of that, the eastern part of the state was historically until the 11th century. was part of Tibet, and its population still gravitates towards connections with the Tibetans. In this regard, the leadership of the PRC, which extended its control to Tibet after the victory of the Chinese revolution in 1949, began to show interest in the Kashmir problem, especially since there was no clarity on the issue of the border line between the Tibetan lands of the PRC and the Indian possessions in Jammu and Kashmir - in particular, in the area of ​​​​the Aksai Chin 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 USSR
India's diplomatic relations with the USA and the USSR were established even before the declaration of its independence, since its dominion status made it possible to do so. But India did not have close relations with either Moscow or Washington. The superpowers were preoccupied with matters in regions that were more important to them - Europe, East Asia, the Middle East. This unusual and short-lived “vacuum of interest” in India partly contributed to the formation of Delhi’s specific foreign policy line, 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 60s 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 60s, the scale of military supplies from the Soviet Union exceeded the amount of aid coming 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 commitment to non-alignment and neutralism. The American president called India the key to Asia, believing that with American help it could become a “showcase” for 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 American economic assistance, although Washington was irritated by India's reluctance to cooperate more actively with the United States against China.

Fearing that it would be deceived in its hopes 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 for 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 possibility of using US armed forces in case of aggression against Pakistan. Since 1965, Pakistan began to receive modern weapons from the United States.

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

But such a bloc was also undesirable for Moscow. 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 Pakistani-Chinese and American-Pakistan rapprochement. The Soviet-Pakistani dialogue developed successfully.

In the first half of the 1960s, Indian-Pakistani relations were tense. Indian Prime Minister J. Nehru's visit to Karachi in 1960 and six-month bilateral negotiations on the Kashmir issue in 1962-1963. and in the first half of 1964 did not lead to an improvement in the situation. Since 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 caused concern in the USSR and the USA, who feared the strengthening of China’s position in South Asia. The United States, floating between India and Pakistan, suspended military assistance to the latter from the moment hostilities began, while simultaneously warning China against interfering in the Indo-Pakistani conflict.

Moscow found itself in a position convenient for carrying out a mediation mission: it had friendly relations with both India and Pakistan. The governments of both countries agreed to accept Soviet mediation. The United States also did not object to it. Indian Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri and Pakistani President Mohammed Ayub Khan arrived in the USSR. In January 1966, Indo-Pakistan negotiations took place in Tashkent with the participation of Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR A.N. Kosygin, which ended with 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 provided “good offices” to the conflicting parties, but in fact the USSR mission rather resembled “mediation”, since the Soviet delegate directly participated in the negotiations, which, in principle, is not provided for by the procedure for providing “good offices.”

The United States took a neutral position during the conflict. This was frowned upon in Pakistan, believing that Washington should have supported it more vigorously. Partly to spite the United States, in October 1967, Pakistani President M. Ayub Khan visited 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, Pakistani authorities announced their disinterest in extending the agreement that allowed the United States to use radar installations in Peshawar to collect information about 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. Trying to maintain good relations with both India and Pakistan, Moscow was generally inclined to remain on Delhi's side.

Formation of Bangladesh and the Indo-Pakistan War

On the periphery of international relations, elements of confrontation were more noticeable than in Europe. This has been confirmed by developments in South Asia. By the beginning of the 70s, the Soviet Union had finally established the opinion that India was a reliable partner of the USSR in the East, since Soviet-Chinese relations were extremely strained, and relations between China 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 the US's priority partner in the region, as it was in the 60s. (¦) In Delhi, they knew that India’s “historical enemy,” Pakistan, was trying to promote the improvement of American-Chinese relations in order to devalue cooperation with India for Washington. 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 Henry Kissinger. In the early 1970s, the previously existing US-Indian understanding was evaporating.

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, and 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 funding, although half the population lived in the eastern part of the country.

In the 1970 parliamentary elections in Pakistan, the East Bengal Awami League party won the majority of votes. Thus, theoretically, 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 military administration of Pakistan (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.............

Indo-Pakistan conflict: origins and consequences (23.00.06)

Kharina Olga Alexandrovna,

student at Voronezh State University.

Scientific supervisor – Doctor of Political Sciences, Professor

Slinko A.A.

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 dates back as many years as the independent existence of India and Pakistan itself. The issue of ownership of the disputed territories - Jammu and Kashmir - is the cornerstone on which all the political aspirations of Delhi and Islamabad in the region converge, but at the same time, the roots of the problem go back to ancient times, resting at its core on inter-religious and, partly, ethnic strife.

Islam began to penetrate into Indian territory in the 8th century, and close interaction between Hindu and Muslim cultures began at the turn of the 12th – 13th centuries, when the first states led by Muslim sultans and military leaders arose in Northern 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 administration, carried out in accordance with the well-known rule of “divide and rule.” For example, elections to the Indian legislature were held in curiae formed according to religious affiliation, which undoubtedly fueled controversy.

The presentation of independence of British India on the night of August 14-15, 1947 and the partition of the country were accompanied by terrible clashes on religious and ethnic grounds. The death toll reached several hundred thousand people within a few weeks, 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 states that even the Indian population in Pakistan and the Muslim population in India turns out to be agents of hostile powers.

Even during the Muslim conquest of India, Only the northern and central parts of Kashmir were under the rule of the Muslim rulers; as for the south (Jammu province), the dominance of Hindu princes from the Dogra people remained here . The eastern, inaccessible part of modern Kashmir - the province of Ladakh - only nominally recognized the dominance 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 formed between the provinces of Kashmir, which still serve as the main source of tension in the region.

The British installed Hindu rulers over the Muslim population and at the beginning of the 20th century. In Kashmir, a number of discriminatory laws were passed against Muslims, relegating them to the status of “second-class” people. .

In 1932, Sheikh Abdullah founded Kashmir's first political party, the Muslim Conference, which in 1939 became known as the Jammu and Kashmir National Conference.

At the time of the partition of British India Muslims in Kashmir constituted about 80% of the population and, it seemed, its fate was predetermined: it was to become a province of Pakistan, but, according to the provisions of the law, the accession of a particular principality to India and Pakistan depended solely on the will of its ruler. Ruler of Jammu and Kashmir - Hari Singhwas a Hindu.

Already in October 1947, the dispute over the future of Kashmir escalated 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 the regular troops of Pakistan.

On October 24, the creation of a sovereign entity, Azad Kashmir, was proclaimed in the territory occupied by Pashtuns. and its entry into Pakistan. Hari Singha declared that Kashmir adjoins India and appealed to Delhi for help. Military assistance was hastily sent to Kashmir, and Indian troops quickly managed to stop the aggressor.

From October 28 to December 22, negotiations took place between the warring parties. However, hostilities were never suspended; regular Pakistani military units soon became involved in them, which made the war protracted for one year.

Indian troops attempted to occupy Azad Kashmir, but in May 1948 the Pakistani army crossed the border and occupied all of northern Kashmir by August. Greater pressure from Indian troops on Pashtun detachments led to the fact that, with the mediation of the UN, hostilities were stopped on January 1, 1949. On July 27, 1949, India and Pakistan signed a ceasefire agreement and Kashmir was divided into two parts. Several UN resolutions called on the parties to hold a plebiscite, however, neither India nor Pakistan wanted to do this.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 a law on a new administrative division of the country, India gave its Kashmir possessions a new status: the state of Jammu and Kashmir. The ceasefire line has become a border. Changes have also taken place in Pakistan. Most of the northern Kashmiri lands received the name of the Northern Territories Agency, and Azad Kashmir formally became independent.

In August-September 1965, a second armed conflict occurred between India and Pakistan. Formally, the 1965 conflict began due to the uncertainty of the border line in the Rann of Kutch on the southern part of the joint India-Pakistan border, but the flames of war soon spread north to Kashmir.

The war actually did not end in anything - as soon as the monsoon rains began, the Rann of Kutch became unsuitable for the movement of armored vehicles, the fighting died down on its own, and with the mediation of Great Britain, a ceasefire was reached on September 23, 1965.

The results of the Second Indo-Pakistani War were damage of more than $200 million, a death toll of over 700 people and no territorial changes.

From January 4 to January 11, 1966, negotiations between the President of Pakistan Ayub Khan and the Prime Minister of India Shastri took place in Tashkent 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 expressed their firm resolve to restore normal and peaceful relations between India and Pakistan and promote mutual understanding and friendly relations between their peoples.

The 1971 war included civil insurrection, mutual terrorism and large-scale military action. While West Pakistan saw the war as a betrayal of East Pakistan, the Bengalis saw it as liberation from an oppressive and brutal political system.

In December 1970, the Awami League party, which advocated equal rights for both parts of the country, won the elections in East Pakistan. But the Pakistani government refused to hand over power to the Awami League and grant internal autonomy to the region. Punitive operations by the Pakistani army led to more than 7 million people fleeing to neighboring India.

At the same time, 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 categorical and ready to use military methods to resolve 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 appealed 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 a strategic partnership. After establishing international contacts, India lacked only the slightest moments to start a war, and it 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 took place between states, but there was no official declaration of war (autumn 1971). And the second is directly military, when 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 East Pakistani troops, operating from Indian territory together with the Mukti Bahini, inflicted significant damage on government troops.

On November 21, 1971, the Indian Army switched from supporting guerrillas to direct combat. 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 in the subcontinent entered the phase of armed conflict in both the east and the west, UN Secretary General K. Waldheim presented reports to the Security Council on the situation on the ceasefire line in Kashmir, based on information from 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 withdrawal of troops to their own side of the borders.”

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

On December 16, 1971, Pakistani General Niazi 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 Zulfiqar 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 the serious weakness of Pakistan, since it was completely deprived of its eastern half: the main and global change in the post-war situation was the formation of a new state on the world map - the People's Republic of Bangladesh.

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

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

The process of demarcation of the Line of Control in Jammu and Kashmir and 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 firefights on the Line of Control. Tensions also increased due to Pakistan's approval of a new Constitution for Azad Kashmir in August 1974 and the transfer of the regions of Gilgit, Baltistan and Hunza to the administrative subordination of the Pakistani federal authorities in September.

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

But as practice has shown, despite 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. Then the usual scenario developed: a restoration and replenishment tour, equipping with more high-tech weapons and a new outbreak of conflict.

Since the mid-1980s, for several years, the armies of both sides have been drawn into almost daily air or artillery duels at the northern tip of the border with China - the ownership of the high-altitude Siachen glacier in the foothills of the Karakoram was disputed.

The reason for the outbreak of hostilities on Siachen was information about the imminent arrival in Pakistan of a Japanese group planning in 1984 to climb Rimo Peak, located in the most important area from the point of view of control over the entire glacier. The Japanese were to be accompanied by a group of Pakistani soldiers, which Delhi did not like very much, and he accused Pakistan of trying to establish control over Siachen. Both India and Pakistan were planning to carry out an operation to capture the glacier by that time.

However, the Indian military was the first to attack. On April 13, 1983, the implementation of Operation Meghdoot began. Pakistani units, which arrived only a month and a half later, found themselves in a number of clashes unable to dislodge the Indians from the positions they had captured. However, they did not allow the Indian units to advance further.

A high degree of tension remained in the Siachen region until the mid-90s, 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 aggravation of the “Muslim issue” began, which was associated with the struggle of the Indian People's Party (BDP) for power. The target for inciting a general protest was a mosque built back 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 on 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 to the cemetery." This sparked 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, 2,000 people died at the end of 1992 - beginning of 1993. And in March 1993, a series of explosions carried out by Muslim terrorists occurred in Bombay. In 1996–1997, Muslims staged about a hundred explosions throughout India.

Simultaneously with these events, the situation in the state of Jammu and Kashmir worsened due to the sharp escalation of subversive activities of separatist gangs. As a result of almost continuous battles with terrorists and sabotage, India lost more than 30 thousand military personnel and civilians.

After both states demonstrated the possession of nuclear weapons in May 1998, many analysts on both sides of the border began talking about a possible nuclear war between them. However, at the end of 1998 – beginning of 1999, there was a noticeable “détente” in tensions between India and Pakistan. Visits were exchanged and several high-level meetings took place. The culmination of the “thaw” was the 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 the mutual reduction of tensions.

The early 2000s were characterized by severe terrorist attacks by Pakistani militants both in the state of Jammu and Kashmir and in certain cities of India and in Delhi.

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

India, gradually throwing more and more units into battle, by the end of May increased the number of troops to ten brigades of ground forces. Major fighting took place in the Kargil, Dras, Batalik and Turtok sectors and the Mushkoh valley. These events were called the “Kargil Conflict”. And the operation to recapture the captured heights was called “Vijay”.

India was prepared to expand military operations into surrounding areas to ease tensions in the Kargil region, but then refrained from crossing the internationally recognized border in Punjab, where Pakistani troops were concentrated. In general, the actions of the Indian armed forces did not go beyond the Line of Control.

Islamabad denied any involvement in the Kargil clashes, claiming that it was only providing moral support to the “freedom fighters.” Soon, direct evidence of Pakistani participation in military clashes was received - 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 gangs 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, there were periods of reduced tension. But, as subsequent events showed, the potential for hostility accumulated in relations between India and Pakistan did not allow even such a small success to take root: skirmishes between regular units of both countries, which had subsided after the end of the Kargil crisis, resumed on the Line of Control.

Currently, the border between the Indian and Pakistani parts of Kashmir runs along the Line of Control fixed by the parties to 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 of a new war cannot be ruled out. The situation is aggravated by the fact that new players are being introduced into the conflict under the pretext of maintaining peace, in particular the USA, Afghanistan and China.

The current state of the conflict is also different in that India and Pakistan also pursue economic interests related to the significant water and recreational resources of Kashmir.

While the Kashmir problem remains unresolved, mutual mistrust remains between India and Pakistan, and this encourages both sides to strengthen their defense capabilities and develop nuclear programs. A peaceful solution to the Kashmir issue on a bilateral basis can prevent the spread of nuclear weapons throughout the South Asian region.

Analysis of this problem currently indicates that specific proposals that take into account the interests of all three parties have not yet been developed. Both India and Pakistan actually recognize the existing realities - two Kashmirs, a state structure, the presence of a third force, reluctance to recognize each other’s decisions, a peaceful way to solve the problem, the futility of military methods to find consensus.

Literature

1. Belokrenitsky V.Ya. South Asia in world politics: textbook. allowance / 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) Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia. – M.: ROSSPEN, 2002. – 428 p.

3. Vasiliev L.S. History of the East: in 2 volumes: textbook / L.S. Vasiliev. – M.: Higher. school , 1998. – 495 p. – 2 t.

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

5.Gordienko A.N. Wars of the second half of the 20th century. / A.N. Gordienko – Minsk: Literature, 1998. – 544 p. (Encyclopedia of Military Art).

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

8. Ultsiferov O.G. India. Linguistic and regional dictionary / O.G. Ultsiferov: reference. ed. – M.: Rus. language – Media, 2003. – 584 p.: ill.

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

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

11. Manoj Joshi, The Lost Rebellion. New Delhi: Penguin India, 1999. – 483 p.

12.Prem Shankar Jha, Kashmir, 1947: rival versions of history. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1996. – 151 p.

While the world is focused on North Korea's ballistic missile tests, another potential conflict is raising concerns. In July, 11 people were killed and 18 were wounded in gun battles between Indian and Pakistani troops in Jammu and Kashmir, and four thousand people were forced to flee their homes.

On Sunday, India's former Information and Broadcasting Minister Venkaiah Naidu, who is nominated by the National Democratic Alliance to be the country's vice-president, said Pakistan must remember how Pakistan was defeated in the third Indo-Pak War in 1971. 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 was considering changes to the interpretation of its nuclear doctrine, which prohibits the first use of nuclear weapons. Previously, India only prescribed a massive retaliatory strike, which involved attacks on enemy cities.

According to the newspaper, the new approach could involve preemptive, limited nuclear strikes against Pakistan's nuclear arsenal in self-defense. For now, all this is rather speculation, since conclusions are drawn based on an analysis of statements by Indian high-ranking officials without any documentary evidence.

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

Just a few 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 a June report, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) noted that India had added about 10 warheads to its arsenal over the year and was gradually expanding the infrastructure to develop its nuclear weapons.

Former Pakistani Brigadier General Feroz Khan, an expert on Pakistan's nuclear program, had previously said 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 Cold War-era NATO doctrine, which envisioned the use of tactical nuclear strikes against advancing enemy forces. To this, however, critics of Pakistan objected that Islamabad is using its nuclear status as a cover for waging a terrorist war in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir.

For India, the presence 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 be looked at in a black light. Hence the talk about changing interpretations 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 to make decisions on its nuclear program. US relations with Pakistan under Trump are also going downward: Americans have ceased to consider Islamabad as a reliable ally in the fight against radicals in Afghanistan. This is, of course, encouraging for India.

The scenario everyone is afraid of

Rising tensions in Hindustan could lead to catastrophic consequences. The trigger that will set off a chain of events leading to a preventive nuclear strike from one side or the other could be an escalation in the state of Jammu and Kashmir or a major terrorist attack in India like the attack in Mumbai in 2008.

The main problem, according to many analysts, is that no one knows what the criteria for the use of nuclear weapons by Pakistan are and what exactly it might perceive as the start of a war on the part of India. The second problem is that terrorist 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 consequences of a nuclear war between India and Pakistan. The authors concluded that although the total charges of the two countries are not so large, their use will lead to a climate catastrophe, which will cause major agricultural problems and mass starvation. 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 concerns the whole world.

Third Indo-Pakistani war - an armed conflict between India and Pakistan that occurred in December 1971. The cause of the war was India's intervention in the civil war in East Pakistan. As a result of the fighting, Pakistan suffered a heavy defeat, and East Pakistan (Bangladesh) gained independence.

Background [ | ]

In December 1970, parliamentary elections were held in the country, in which the East Pakistani party Awami League (Freedom League), led by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, received the majority of votes, which came up with a program of granting significant autonomy to the east of the country. According to the country's constitution, she received the right to form a government. But the leader of the Pakistan People's Party, which was victorious in the west, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, opposed the appointment of Rahman as prime minister. Negotiations between politicians with the participation of Yahya Khan were unsuccessful. On March 7, 1971, Rahman gave a speech in which he announced that his party was fighting for the independence of East Pakistan. In response, on March 25, the Pakistani army, consisting mainly of Westerners, launched Operation Searchlight to establish control over all cities in the eastern part of the country. The Awami League was banned and Mujibur Rahman was arrested. On March 27, Major of the country's armed forces Zaur Rahman read out on the radio the text of the declaration of independence written by Mujibur, proclaiming the creation of the state of Bangladesh. A civil war broke out in the country.

Bangladesh Liberation War[ | ]

Initially, the Pakistani army encountered minimal resistance. By the end of spring, it had occupied all the cities of Bangladesh and suppressed any political opposition. A guerrilla movement developed in rural areas, whose participants were known as "mukti bahini". Their ranks were quickly replenished by army deserters, as well as the local population. The army launched a brutal crackdown on Bangladeshis; According to existing estimates, by the end of 1971, from 200 thousand to 3 million people in the country were killed. At least 8 million refugees have fled to India.

Pakistan's military forces in Bangladesh were in a hopeless situation. The three divisions stationed here were dispersed to fight the guerrillas, had almost no air support and could not stop the advance of the three Indian corps. Realizing this circumstance, the Pakistani command tried to impose a war on India on two fronts and launched offensive operations in the west. However, on the western front, the superiority was on the side of the Indian army. At the Battle of Longewala on December 6, a single company of the 23rd Battalion of the Punjab Regiment successfully held back the advance of the reinforced 51st Pakistan Infantry Brigade; Indian fighter-bomber aircraft played a significant role in this battle, destroying a large amount of enemy equipment on the approaches to Longewala. In general, the Indian army not only repelled the Pakistani attacks, but also went on the offensive, capturing some border areas early in the war.

On the eastern front, Indian forces, together with Mukti Bahini units, quickly bypassed the enemy’s main defensive nodes. The decisive factor here was high mobility in difficult terrain. The PT-76 amphibious tanks and Soviet-made Mi-4 transport helicopters have proven themselves well. By the end of the second week of the war, the Indian army approached Dhaka. Seeing no point in further resistance, on December 16, the commander of Pakistani troops in Bangladesh, General Niazi, signed the act of surrender of his group. On December 17, India announced a ceasefire. This ended the war.

War at sea [ | ]

Military operations at sea were marked by a number of combat contacts between the fleets of the warring parties.

The Indo-Pakistani conflict of 1971 demonstrated the prematureness of abandoning the placement of large-caliber cannon artillery (over 100-127 mm) on ships. It turned out to be a much cheaper means of combating coastal objects, and at the same time no less effective than guided ship-based missiles. It was also confirmed that submarines continue to be reliable naval weapons - just like unguided torpedoes and "traditional" depth charges.

Results [ | ]

As a result of Indian military intervention, Bangladesh gained independence. .

The 1971 war was the largest in a series of Indo-Pakistani conflicts.

Soviet-American confrontation[ | ]

Relations between India and Pakistan, South Asia's two nuclear powers, are strained by unrest in the Muslim-majority Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir. Indian Interior Minister Rajnath Singh, speaking at a parliamentary hearing, accused Islamabad of attempting to destabilize and supporting terrorism in the border state. The Indian security official's statement came after Pakistan's UN Ambassador Maleeha Lodhi called on the UN Security Council to put pressure on the Indian government to "stop repression." A new escalation of the “oldest conflict on the UN agenda,” which has left 45 people killed and more than three thousand injured over the past two weeks, began after Indian security forces killed an activist of the Hizb-ul-Mujahideen group, which seeks the separation of Kashmir from India.

The hearing on the Kashmir issue, held in the Lok Sabha (lower house of the Indian Parliament), was held after Chief of the Indian Army Staff Dalbir Singh Suhag visited Jammu and Kashmir last week due to escalating tensions. Following the visit, he presented a report on the situation in the region to the head of the Ministry of Defense, Manohar Parrikar.

The latest high-profile incident in Jammu and Kashmir took place in the town of Qazigund. Indian troops opened fire on a crowd pelting them with stones, killing three people. In general, the number of victims of the new aggravation in Jammu and Kashmir - the largest in the last six years, despite the curfew imposed in a number of districts of the state, over the past two weeks amounted to 45 people (more than 3 thousand were injured of varying degrees of severity).

The unrest broke out after security forces killed 22-year-old Burhan Wani, one of the leaders of the Hizb-ul-Mujahideen group, which is fighting for the separation of Jammu and Kashmir from India and is recognized as a terrorist group in the country, during a special operation on July 8. Burhan Wani was killed in a shootout with Indian troops along with two other activists of the organization.

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

The Indian Home Minister's statement continued the war of words between Asia's two nuclear powers and long-time antagonists, for whom divided Kashmir has remained a major bone of contention since their founding. This makes the Kashmir issue "the 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 partition of British India into India and Pakistan. Then Pakistan managed to occupy a third of Kashmir. Another part - 38 thousand sq. m. km of the Aksai Chin mountainous region was occupied by China after the military invasion of 1962. As a result, Kashmir found itself 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 a parliamentary hearing came after Pakistan's UN Ambassador Maleeha Lodhi called on the UN Security Council to put pressure on the Indian government to "stop repression." And a few days earlier, Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif added fuel to the diplomatic conflict by calling Burhan Wani "a soldier who fought for independence." At the same time, he promised that Islamabad will continue to provide all possible support to the associates of Burhan Wani.

In connection with the latest escalation in Kashmir, increasingly militant statements are being heard in Islamabad: Prime Minister Sharif's critics accuse him of not being tough enough. Let us 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 this, both capitals started talking about an Indo-Pakistani reset. However, recent events in Kashmir threaten to undo the developments of recent years and return the two nuclear states of South Asia to the era of the previous confrontation.

“Having called the normalization of relations with Pakistan one of his priorities and relied on personal contacts with Nawaz Sharif, Prime Minister Modi clearly underestimated the conflict potential of the Kashmir problem, which can escalate from time to time against the will of the leaders of the two states. Apparently, this is what is happening today “,” Tatyana 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.