The most dangerous place on earth

Adil Najam, Assistant Professor, International Relations & Environmental Policy, Boston University, Boston

The most dangerous place in the world today is not the Middle East. Not Iraq. Not even some godforsaken cave where disgruntled al-Qaeda remnants plan their next move. The most dangerous place is a 620-mile track of mostly high-mountain terrain -- much of it inhabitable -- that the UN calls the Line of Control.

Over the last half century, the line -- which separates India and Pakistan in the disputed state of Kashmir -- has witnessed anything but "control". A continuous war has raged here for over fifty years.

Military "incidents" involving death and serious injury happen routinely. Tensions escalate recurrently, especially when the government in one or both countries has domestic crises they wish to distract attention from. Sometimes things get totally out of hand; as they did most recently during the 1999 Kargil Crisis.

Both countries are amongst the poorest in the world; yet they have amongst the largest standing armies. Between them, they boast an active military force of nearly two million and an additional 1.5 million paramilitary forces. India, which spends about five times more than Pakistan on its military has overwhelming superiority in every aspect. The great equalizer, however, is the fact that both have nuclear weapons and each has ballistic missiles capable of delivering them.

What makes this the most dangerous place is not just the history of conflict, the propensity for belligerence, and the possibility of nuclear annihilation. It is also the fact that the two countries sit smack in the middle of the toughest and most militarized neighborhood in the world.

Russia remains the largest military supplier to India, which was a close and trusted ally of the Soviet Union during the cold war. A series of military pacts between India and Russia will ensure that the later is dragged into any war in the region. Pakistan has similar relationships with China, which has its own concerns about India's military aspirations.

More than that, China itself occupies a small part of Kashmir and is very much a party to this dispute. Any conflict between India and Pakistan is likely to involve not two, but four nuclear powers.

One wrong move along the 620-mile line of control could quickly spark a forest fire in a region that is already a tinderbox: Nearly three billion people, four nuclear powers, a host of unstable regimes, and home to about three-fourths of the world's nuclear arsenal and even more of the world's standing militaries.

Indeed, this is the most dangerous place on the planet today. This week it got even more dangerous. The Prime Minister of India gave a pep rally to his troops in Kashmir. He proclaimed that the time for the "decisive fight" has arrived and that they should prepare for "sacrifices." Pakistan vowed to use "full force" in its defense.

With nearly 750,000 Indian soldiers now facing an estimated 250,000 Pakistani soldiers along the 620-mile tract, this rather unprecedented escalation in the language of belligerence from both sides cannot be easily brushed aside as mere brinkmanship. Unlike other recent altercations, this time India seems to lack the inclination and Pakistan the ability to de-escalate.

For the Vajpai government in India, a "limited war" in Kashmir must be an appealing idea. It would distract domestic attention from the ethnic slaughter in Gujarat that has already claimed over 1000, mostly Muslim, lives. His Hindu nationalist party, the BJP, leads a fragile minority government that barely survived a recent no-confidence motion in Parliament.

The Kashmir escalation seems to have already paid dividend as the domestic media that had become very critical has rallied to the Prime Minister's emotional appeals for war unity. The hawks in the country see this as a moment of opportunity when they can sneak behind the cover of the global war on terrorism. The belief is, hopefully mistaken, that as long as Delhi can disguise the Kashmir dispute as a threat of "Islamic Terrorism", the U.S. will have look the other way.

The problem, of course, is that the choice to keep the war "limited" is not India's alone. Since Sept. 11, Gen. Pervez Musharraf's attempts to cleanse the military and intelligence establishments of religious zealots have won him many friends, but have also created many enemies. Given the public's mood, the military's patience, and his own disposition he simply cannot be seen to be weak on Kashmir at this moment.

To do so would be to validate all that the religious extremists have been saying. War histrionics from India provide the Islamic extremist fringe in Pakistan the exact ammunition they need: A rallying cry to help them regroup, recruit, and retaliate. Doing so will undermine the measures that Musharraf has been taking in Pakistan and also the larger global war on terrorism.

In short, domestic conditions in both India and Pakistan are ripe for escalation.

For the sake of its own sanity, the rest of the world must not allow things to spiral out of control. The international community, and particularly the U.S., needs to step in and push both sides to move towards a meaningful resolution to the Kashmir dispute. A good first step would be for both countries to begin with the Security Council resolutions that they have each accepted. Half a century ago the United Nations had come up with a four-step formula that was largely designed by the U.S. First, cease fire. Second, establish international monitoring. Third, demilitarize. Fourth, ask the people of Kashmir what they want. This sounds even more sensible today. Maybe, the world should give it one more try.