Following Prime Minister Modi’s comments about Balochistan in his independence day speech, Ashok Swain warns that open support for Baloch separatists will not solve the Kashmir conflict. What is more, he writes that by threatening its neighbour’s territorial integrity India risks alienating key allies, and in the worst case scenario intervention could result in a nuclear conflict which would threaten the lives and livelihoods of millions.
India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi in his Independence Day Speech on 15 August 2016 raised the issue of Pakistan’s human rights violations in Balochistan. This has brought a new excitement in New Delhi, particularly among the right wing commentators as if India has finally found a solution to the Kashmir issue.
Since the death of a charismatic militant Burhan Wani in the hands of the security agencies on 8 July 2016, Kashmir is witnessing unprecedented violent protest. Modi and his advisors hope that Kashmir unrest will come to an end if India starts spreading the fire in Balochistan. If Modi and his advisors really believe that the Balochistan threat will dissuade Pakistani agencies to stay out of Kashmir and the contested state will be peaceful forever, they are living in a cloud-cuckoo land. History shows that Pakistani military establishment does not succumb to Indian threats. Instead, it uses this threat to accumulate more power for itself. India’s direct support to the East Pakistan liberation movement, which resulted in the creation of Bangladesh, did not succeed in changing the perception of Pakistani agencies. It only exacerbated their paranoia towards India further.
In the last decade, while Western attention has been mostly on the Taliban, the separatist struggle is turning quite violent in this scarcely populated but mineral-rich province in the south west of Pakistan. The Baloch have waged two major violent ‘freedom’ struggles against the state: an uprising from 1973 to 1977, which was crushed by the Pakistani Army using brute force. The second ongoing struggle started in 2005.
It is no secret that India has been supporting the separatists in Balochistan in their fight again Pakistani military without openly admitting it. Baloch activists have repeatedly admitted of receiving India’s ‘moral’ support and a representative of Balochistan Liberation Organization (BLO) has been living in New Delhi since 2009. Pakistan has been regularly accusing India for using its consulates in Jalalabad and Kandahar to fund, train and arm Baloch militants. A decade back, senior officials of Pakistan had even alleged that 600 Baloch tribals were being trained by India’s Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) in Afghanistan to handle explosives, engineer bomb blasts, and use sophisticated weapons.
Pakistan has failed to provide much proof about Indian involvement, however, according to 2010 WikiLeaks cables, US and British intelligence cautiously agrees with the Pakistani accusations. Last year, Pakistan had handed over a dossier to the UN Secretary General containing ‘evidence’ of Indian support to violence in Balochistan. In March this year, Pakistan claimed to arrest an alleged RAW operative from Balochistan. India has been always denied these accusations, but has continued to remain engaged unofficially. However, by openly committing India to Balochistan’s cause in his speech, Modi is likely to expose India’s geo-strategic limitations without gaining any additional advantage, and there is a lot to lose.
It is important to keep in mind that the Balochistan issue is not a straightforward one for India to directly engage in, as was the case with East Pakistan. India does not share a common border with Balochistan and is therefore dependent upon Afghanistan to provide more support to Baloch separatists. This is not as easy as some hawks in India tend to believe, especially as India is struggling to get enough security cover even to protect its own assets in a fast-deteriorating environment in Afghanistan.
India’s expanded engagement in Balochistan might also bring Iran on Pakistan’s side because Baloch nationalists have not only pitched themselves against Pakistan but against Iran as well. Balochs form a majority in Iran’s Sistan and Baluchestan provinces and, like the Kurds, they are Sunni Muslims. It is not hard to imagine an Iran-Pakistan axis developing rapidly to prevent Baloch aspirations for independence. So getting bogged down in Balochistan risks turning Iran to an enemy of India.
When India went to war with Pakistan over Bangladesh in 1971 it had the blanket support of the Soviet Union, one of the two superpowers in the Cold War. If India picks a fight over Balochistan, Pakistan will receive support from China whose $46 billion USD CPEC investment in the region is at stake, and it is unlikely that any global or regional power will come out openly on India’s side. Both its old friend Russia, and new ally the USA have tried their best to stay out of the Balochistan imbroglio to date. There is no reason to expect that they will change their stance now.
Not only is Balochistan not East Pakistan, the Pakistani Military has moved on since the early 1970s. In 1971 their most prized possessions were the Patton tanks, but today it is their tactical nuclear weapons. After the country split, Pakistan did not just sulk and accept Indian domination, it decided to acquire a large nuclear arsenal by hook or crook. Unlike India, Pakistan has always been very clear about its purpose in acquiring nuclear weapons: to defend itself against Indian aggression. And unlike India, Pakistan also refuses to commit to a ‘no first use’ of their weapons.
Based on the amount of fissile material Pakistan has produced, it is estimated to have 110-130 nuclear warheads compared to India’s 100-120. Both now possess ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and sea-based nuclear delivery systems. Most importantly, Pakistan’s recent deployment of tactical nuclear weapons for its artillery arsenal has taken away any advantage India had previously in the case of a conventional war. This seriously limits India’s manoeuvrability to intervene militarily in Pakistani territory, whether to retaliate against any terror group or support any ‘separatist struggle’.
Provoking Pakistan to an armed conflict now is like playing with fire. If India threatens the territorial integrity of Pakistan as it did in 1971 there is a real possibility of that the Pakistani military will retaliate with its prized weapons. It has the capacity to launch a nuclear strike against India within 8 seconds and could strike Delhi in five minutes.
Even the Indian policy of massive retaliation against the first use would not reduce the ability Pakistani nuclear missiles have to reach several Indian cities in minutes. Even a limited nuclear confrontation could therefore potentially kill millions in India. So unless Narendra Modi is prepared to sacrifice half of his country’s population to win against his nuclear-armed adversary, he should tread carefully. Pakistan understands well that India cannot openly engage in Balochistan conflict as it did in the case of Bangladesh. It is too much of a risk for India to gamble on. A self-assured Pakistan has already called Modi’s bluff, and is even using Modi’s speech to blame India for the domestic insurgency that it has created in Kashmir.
So contrary to the claim of certain Indian commentators, Modi’s bravado from the Red Fort on Balochistan will not deter Pakistani meddling in Kashmir now or in the future. Instead, it threatens to embolden Pakistan further in its desire to maintain its campaign and retaliate in India’s other soft spots like Punjab and Assam.
Cover image credit: Beluchistan CC BY-SA 2.0
This article gives the views of the author, and not the position of the South Asia @ LSE blog, nor of the London School of Economics. Please read our comments policy before posting.
About the Author
Ashok Swain is Professor of Peace and Conflict Research at Uppsala University, Sweden.
Realistic article on Bharat involvement in Baluchistan, creating a climate of unrest.
Muhammad Naeem ul Fateh
Very balanced analysis Mr Ashok
Interesting article, but unfortunately contains inadequate analysis.
Let me start with the author’s first assumption that Modi and his advisors operate in the belief that the Balochistan threat will dissuade Pakistani agencies to stay out of Kashmir, and that the contested state will be peaceful forever. Even a novice like me knows that if that is the motive, it won’t really work, particularly in the case of Pakistan, which hardly knows when to stop (reminding one of the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail).
The hard reality is, no matter how much Pakistan incites rebellion in the Kashmir valley, no matter how many nations admonish India over it, no one – not even the Chinese are militarily capable of wresting the valley from India and holding it at this moment. India is already determined over this, and can hold on to it with a cost it thinks it can bear. India doesn’t really need Balochistan as a pain-reliever over Kashmir, which it can manage as it is.
The author must have noticed that every mention of Balochistan has always been accompanied by Gilgit-Baltistan and Pakistan occupied Kashmir – the other regions India contests over Pakistan. The Indian PM’s carefully chosen words from the ramparts of Red Fort delivers a nuanced message (foreshadowed by his remarks at an all-party meeting a couple of days earlier), not just to Pakistan, but also China, over what it sees as strategic encirclement.
These were clearly not off-the-cuff remarks by a besieged and defensive establishment as the author alludes to, even though it might have helped in reassuring and rallying a noisy media and public over it. India has not spelt out in which form this new ‘solidarity’ with Balochistan will take. Whatever the case, it will be a long term commitment until India’s objectives are met, but tactically, it certainly doesn’t have to be a repeat of Bangladesh, even though lessons learnt from it can be put to good use when necessary.
I will take the author’s reference to reports of RAW stirring things up in Balochistan with a pinch of salt, because these reports are largely attributed to people from the Pakistani establishment, and no conclusive proof of RAW’s involvement has emerged, as yet.
I dont know people forget to remember that kul boshan yadav is pakistan custody and he admits that he is a raw operative working for india.
That proves nothing – anyone can be made to talk.
.
It is only Pakistan media saying such things. No such official statement has been published.
Hi Ashok,
I agree that India can never engage in Baluchistan directly but I beg to differ on all other views. Everyone is relating the Baluchistan issue to the Kashmir issue. I think that is not correct and is completely unfair to the people of Baluchistan. The Kashmir issue is that Pakistan says that Kashmir is their land though we should remember Ladakh is also part of Kashmir and they are quite unaware of the fact what’s all the fuss about. The Baluchistan issue is nowhere close to it. India never claims Baluchistan as part of its territory. Pakistan Army commits Genocide, rape, murder there because Urdu does not come to these people naturally. Someone may argue that India does the same in Kashmir. But does it? India is a highly respected, democratic and a tolerant state.Yes, I know AFSPA is there. But if it is not there, then we know what is Pakistan capable of if we have learnt anything from our previous wars with Pakistan. So, national security is foremost there. Again emphasizing that only 15% of Kashmir is under curfew.
I think we should look at Mr. Modi ‘s speech in a positive rather than in a negative frame of mind.India liberated Bangladesh. If it had not intervened, could you imagine what would have happened to the present Bangladesh. Pakistan Army raped 300,000 women in a span of 10 days. Could you even imagine this. That’s 30,000 women being raped every day and I’m not even going into the murders and all. 1971 could have been an opportunity for India but please mind that it did not create it. It gave refuge to 100,000 people then. There is no comparison between India and Pakistan. And the same goes for Baluchistan as well. Pakistan is an aggressor and many (if not all) don’t like this. Not just Baluchistan; Sindh, Gilgit and Baltistan face the same issue. Today’s Pakistan is of the Punjabi’s so if Mr. Modi supports the Baluchistan case, what’s wrong in that.
I also believe you have only told one side of the story. The man who has been caught in Baluchistan is 80 (approx) years old. Factoring that, he cannot be a RAW agent. And even if he is, he would be pretty much useless. He cannot train Baluchis or engage them with weapons alone. And just because “Pakistan” becomes aggressive does not mean India should stop doing what it should and start pleasing Pakistan. Every country needs to follow its own foreign policies. And by the way, it is Pakistan’s use of brute force that is creating problems for it in the first place. You refer to the dossiers Pakistan has provided to UN secretary general. I would request you to highlight the response Pakistan received from the then secretary general himself. India has never raked the Baluchistan issue in the past like it has today and still Pakistan has been meddling in the affairs of Indian territory for the past 70 years. You forgot Mumbai Attack, Parliament Attack and also the hiding of Bin Laden in Abbottabad (Pakistan). The Baluchistan issue has not been projected properly, hence we see the Western nations (including Russia and USA) not supporting their cause. India has a great economy that likes to make amicable relations with its neighbors. It is always wanting to do more. But we should understand, Pakistan is a failed state and a threat not only to India but US, Europe and the whole of world. The very Nuclear missiles Pakistan threatens India of (without any provocation) is a living proof that Pakistan is an arrogant child who does not want to learn from its mistakes.
P.S. I disagree with several specific observations, for example:
1) ” India is struggling to get enough security cover even to protect its own assets in a fast-deteriorating environment in Afghanistan.” -It is India that is training the Afghan soldiers and providing Defense capability to them. Afghanistan has already leased few acres of land to India to build a jet pathway. India has built the Afghanistan-India friendship dam project. BTW, everyone knows about the Afghan-Pakistan relations
2)”Pakistan further in its desire to maintain its campaign and retaliate in India’s other soft spots like Punjab and Assam” – We should remember that Pakistan is unsuccessful in Kashmir otherwise it would have been theirs by now (though it still pricks India). So, let us forget the other Indian states as of now.
3) “Pakistan has the capacity to launch a nuclear strike against India within 8 seconds and could strike Delhi in five minutes.” Would request you to read about the Indian defense deals with Russia and Israel. Capabilities of Brahmos and AS400 is where you may start reading from.
4)”Both now possess ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and sea-based nuclear delivery systems.” – Pakistan DOES NOT have the capability to launch a nuclear attack from Water. It is only capable of doing so via Land and Air at the moment.
5)”Modi’s bravado from the Red Fort on Balochistan will not deter Pakistani meddling in Kashmir now or in the future” – Then what will? Please don’t say dialogue. Mr. Atal Bihari Vajpayee, PM of India in 2001 tried to make friendly relations with Pakistan by flagging off the bus route via Wagah border. What we got was Kargil war. Even after losing all its battles, Pakistan has not learned a thing. Pakistan cannot even maintain friendly relations with all other Islamic states.
BTW – Patton tanks were the best tanks in the world if you are talking about 1971.
It is time Pakistan understands the importance of India as a neighbor. Baluchistan would never ever have gotten out of hand if Pakistan would just listened to these people.
The whole point of Modi’s speech is to alienate Pakistan.
Excellent & balanced approach. India took advantage of Pakistan’s internal political crisis in 1971 & through military aggression disintegrated Pakistan. In post 9/11 scanrio it was cross border terrorism. Not only that India nuclearised South Asia in 1974 for its hegemony. Since Pakistan can’t match India in conventional weapons so it has no option other than to depends on its nuclear capability to deal with Indian threat. Kashmir will remain a nuclear flashpoint unless India will not give up its Kashmir obsession.
The article sounds most unbalanced view focusing what other nations can do without giving much weight on what each nations can do/respond. I strongly believe there will be no more World Wars which is fought in the war field instead it will be a economic and Cold Wars in the future. Hence I doubt Pakistan is unaware of the after effect of Nuclear strike on Indian cities.
A fair on ground assessment which underlines the parties to exercise maximum restraint as any physical adventure by either side may have dominos effect with incalculable loss.,Pakistan should guard against non state actors in exacerbating the situation while India should pull down its militaristic structure from the civilian area of the valley while extending olive branch to politicians of all hues . This is the minimalist position that could bring down the temperature.
Baluchistan is certainly not reenactment of Bangla Desh which had physical proximity to India unlike Balichistan which forms a compact land mass of what Pakistan is . Pockets of dissidents and foreign sponsored separatist elements ensconced in Switzerland and European capitals cannot be denied but the odds against them are far too heavy .Baluchistan unlike Former East Pakistan is multi ethnic mix of population and at the threshold of tak off given the new constitutional dispensation which gives her prior right and claim our its rich mineral resources and the coastline. I think this posturing by India may well continue for some more time before it is taken over by fatigue syndrome. She should be wiser to know about the red line when she has it’s soft under belly in the north east, six sister states, which were historically never a part of the subcontinent but for the British rule. .
This report is blaming india for pakistan wrong doings. India is merely pointing to the human rights violations which it is doing on Balochistan which USA,european countries and many others always do. To prevent nuclear war situation international community should strip Pakistan of nuclear weapons as it is not a responsible or mature state. They are having existential crisis.
Amnesty international has more pages full of atrocities committed by Indian troops in Kashmir than in Balochistan. So you reckon the international community will try and go in (with troops?) and strip Pakistan of Nuclear weapons and their will be no repercussions?
It’s a well known fact that Pak is a huge threat to world peace. They have been protecting world’s most wanted terrorists and criminals. Kashmir is an integral part of India and Modi is protecting it’s people from the bad influences of separatists.
As for Baloch, Pak’s human rights violations have been well documented. Unfortunately, there hasn’t been much support for them. Rest of the world should unite and support Baloch and protect them from Pak’s atrocities.
The reasoning here is VERY POOR and misleading.
Pakistan is a rent seeking state; i.e. it chooses to use instruments of state policy to seek favors, aid and territory in return for use of it’s soil (or in return for preventing use of it’s soil), from adversaries and allies alike (India, US, China or Afghanistan). Such a state is not suicidal; when it commits the mistake of nuclear misadventure, it’s ability to seek rent would be finished. It’s leaders cannot all escape to the west; and even if they did, they would be prosecuted for war crimes.