Kashmir Conflict as a Catalyst for the Arm Race in South Asia
Kashmir Conflict as a Catalyst for the Arm Race in South Asia
Abstract
There is a fierce weapons race in South Asia as a result of the ongoing Kashmir dispute between India and Pakistan. The report illustrates how the region's recurring conflicts have fueled military growth, with a particular focus on the threats posed by the spread of nuclear weapons. The paper demonstrates through historical, political, and strategic analysis that the dispute in Kashmir has resulted in war and turned both nations against nuclear development and modern defense. According to the study, the weapons race has aided in both the two nations' economic development and regional stability.
By Nizalia Khan
National
University of Modern Languages
There will be a greater
chance of error, conflict, or intentional assault as defense spending and
nuclear weapons stocks rise, as well as significant harm to the environment and
human population. In order to lessen tension and lower the probability of
nuclear war, the report emphasizes the critical necessity for effective weapons
control agreements, constructive alliances, and confidence-building
initiatives. Lastly, the report emphasizes how crucial it is to end the arms race
and advance regional stability by settling the Kashmir dispute. It highlights
how important international organizations are to fostering communication,
maintaining nuclear stability, and advancing peace. A secure and prosperous
future is within South Asia's reach if these issues are resolved via efficient
and cooperative action.
Keywords:
South Asia, India-Pakistan, Kashmir dispute, Nuclear weapons, Regional
stability.
Introduction
The
Kashmir conflict is one of the long running and complex geopolitical dispute
that rooted back in 1947 when Partition of British India was emerging. At the
time of accession, the Maharaja of Kashmir Hari Singh chose to accede to India
without the concern of his people, leading to the first Indo-Pak war in
1947-48. Since then, the region of Jammu and Kashmir has remained a flashpoint
between India and Pakistan the conflict resulted in a United Nations-mediated
ceasefire and the establishment of the Line of Control (LoC), which divided the
region into two parts. After that both Nation claimed the entire Kashmir,
despite numerous diplomatic efforts and bilateral agreements, such as the
Shimla Agreement of 1972, the dispute remains unresolved. This enduring
conflict has not only led to several wars and skirmishes but has also significantly
contributed to the arms race in South Asia. The nuclearization of region has
further complicated the security dynamics that raising concerns about the
potential for nuclear escalation.
The
Kashmir conflict has fueled an intense arms race between India and Pakistan,
characterized by decades of nuclear weapons development. The two countries'
quest for military superiority is based on a realistic view of international
relations regarding power, security and anarchic systems in the world. Each country
sees the other's military advances as a threat to its own security that leading
to unilateral attacks that lead to an arms race. Both India and Pakistan have
conducted nuclear tests and declared themselves nuclear weapons states. This
development has changed strategy, incorporating the concept of nuclear
deterrence into its military doctrine. Theoretically, the presence of nuclear
weapons could lead to a major war because the increased costs could cause
damage.
However, the presence of nuclear arsenals also
increases the risk of catastrophic damage if there is a negative impact due to
miscalculation poor communication or misrepresentation. There is a related
effect. The Kargil War in 1999, just after both countries declared their
nuclear capabilities, highlighted the dangers of operating in the shadow of
nuclear weapons. The 2001-02 military coup that followed the attack on the
Indian Parliament and the 2019 Pulwama attack that led to clashes between the
two countries further underscore the tensions in India-Pakistan relations. Each
crisis has brought the region dangerously close to war, demonstrating the
uncertainty that nuclear deterrence can manage. The strategic interests and
alliances of these major powers often influence the policies and military operations
of India and Pakistan.
These international dimensions are important
for understanding the broader implications of the Kashmir conflict and the arms
race. High military spending by India and Pakistan drains resources from key
sectors such as education, health, and infrastructure. Ayesha Siddiqa’s study
of Pakistan’s military economy and analysis of India’s defense spending show
the costs of the arms race. Furthermore, its impact on human security,
including displacement, loss of life and psychological distress, contributes to
the serious impacts of humanitarian conflict. Bilateral negotiations,
third-party mediation and confidence-building measures have so far failed to
produce a solution. The risk of cross-border terrorism, the insurgency in Kashmir
and the major rivalry between India and Pakistan continue to increase tensions.
The possibility of nuclear proliferation remains a concern, underscoring the
urgent need for effective solutions and arms control. Develop threats and their
impacts on regional security.
This
study will use qualitative research methods, including historical analysis,
thematic analysis and primary data analysis, to explore the complexities of the
interaction between the Kashmir conflict and the arms race. Combining the
theoretical perspectives of realism and affect theory, this study will provide
insights into the behavioral patterns of India and Pakistan and their impact on
the wider arena. A detailed account of the Kashmir conflict, tracing its
history, roots, major wars and major political endeavors.
The
role of the Kashmir Conflict in creating Security Dilemma
The
development and acquisition of nuclear weapons by India and Pakistan in the
1970s and 1980s marked an escalation in the arms race, with the Kashmir
conflict remaining a major driver. India's nuclear program began in the 1940s
and was initially motivated by concerns about regional security and global
power. However, India's decision to conduct its first nuclear test, known as
the "Smiling Buddha" in 1974, was largely due to its rivalry with
Pakistan, particularly over Kashmir. India's nuclear tests led India and
Pakistan to accelerate their nuclear weapons programs, which began in the 1970s
under Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. Pakistan's ambition is clear, to counter
India's overtures and nuclear power and to enable India to cope with its
aggression, particularly over Kashmir. Another reason for Pakistan's pursuit of
nuclear weapons is the hope of establishing good relations with India and there
by counter balancing India's superiority in military capabilities. It has
conducted several nuclear tests and declared its own nuclear weapons state.
These tests are the result of a competitive strategy that has been going on for
years and has been greatly affected by the conflict in Kashmir.
For India, these tests are a demonstration of
its capabilities and a way to maintain its status as a regional power. For
Pakistan, these tests are a direct response to India’s nuclear program and are
aimed at ensuring that it continues to have a positive impact on the Indian
military, especially in Kashmir. The conflict has had a major impact on the
arms race in South Asia. On the other hand, theoretically both sides have
nuclear arsenals, which reduces the risk of an all-out war as the increased
cost could be devastating. On the other hand, the presence of nuclear weapons
also creates new risks in conflicts, such as the possibility of nuclear
escalation, miscalculations and missile attacks. The Kashmir conflict has
played a significant role in the strategic calculations of India and Pakistan,
and has also led to a major arms race. Both countries have invested heavily in
modernizing their conventional armies, acquiring new weapons and improving
military operations, particularly in Kashmir.
Pakistan is pursuing a military modernization strategy designed to implement and sustain its best offerings. This includes the acquisition of fighter jets, missile systems and naval assets, as well as the development of indigenous defense equipment. India’s current military operations are driven by broader regional interests, but the need to secure its border in Kashmir and contain Pakistan’s potential for aggression has been a key driver. It has a small defense base and focuses on building good relations with India through a combination of strategic and asymmetric approaches.
These include the acquisition of advanced
fighter jets, such as the JF-17 Thunder fighter jet developed in collaboration
with China, and the development of a variety of missile systems capable of
delivering air and nuclear warheads. Pakistan has also invested in
strengthening its air defenses and maintaining a strong military presence along
the Line of Control in Kashmir. It is trying to balance the capabilities of
others. This exercise is particularly evident in missile production; both
countries are developing a variety of short, medium and long-range missiles
that can hit any target in the region. The development of these resources is
linked to the importance of Kashmir; India and Pakistan are trying to ensure
that they can intervene or respond to any military activity in the region. The
Kargil War, which followed the nuclear tests of India and Pakistan, was a
significant event in the ongoing arms race and general rivalry between the two
countries.
The
conflict took place in the Kargil region of Jammu and Kashmir, and Pakistani
troops entered Indian territory, leading to a major military conflict. The
Kargil War is significant for many reasons, including its limitations, India's
use of air power and the fact that both sides possess nuclear weapons. While
the scope of the conflict is still limited, it demonstrates the weakness of the
peace process between India and Pakistan and the potential for a small-scale
war to lead to larger conflicts. The war also reinforces the importance of
military planning and the need for both countries to have a credible and
effective nuclear deterrent.
Recently,
the Pulwama attack in 2019 and subsequent airstrikes by India and Pakistan have
once again brought the Kashmir conflict to the forefront of the rivalry between
the two countries. The Pulwama attack by Pakistani military groups led to a
major military coup and the first attack on Pakistani territory since the 1971
war. Pakistan’s response with its own attacks has led to a conflict that can
only be resolved through political efforts, threatening military capacity. The
conflict in Kashmir has led to the need for both countries to strengthen their
conventional and nuclear forces, leading to an escalating arms race. Arms
Nation Pakistan has also attracted the cooperation of major international
powers, adding another layer of complexity to security in South Asia. The US,
China and Russia play a major role in shaping the military strategy and defence
policy of India and Pakistan, primarily through alliances, arms sales and
influence over politics. Military power has become a major factor in India’s
modern military operations. The US has provided India with advanced defense
technology, including fighter jets, missile systems and joint intelligence,
thus enhancing India’s ability to deal with threats from Pakistan and other
regional adversaries. US support for India is partly motivated by broader
considerations, including the need to counter China’s growing presence in the
region.
But
it is still affected by the conflict between India and Pakistan, particularly
over Kashmir, and financial assistance. This includes the sale of strategic
assets such as fighter jets and missile technology, as well as cooperation on
defense projects such as the JF-17 Thunder fighter jet. China’s support for
Pakistan is partly motivated by its own interests in the region, including
growing concerns about India’s power and a desire to maintain a stable and
friendly Pakistan as a weight for India. But it is also affected by the Kashmir
conflict; China sees its support for Pakistan as a deterrent to India. It has
provided India with advanced military equipment, including jet fighters, tanks
and missiles. Russia’s relationship with India is long-standing, rooted in
historical relations but also shaped by the great rivalry between India and
Pakistan, particularly over Kashmir. It wields significant influence and
provides India and Pakistan with the military capabilities needed to sustain a
successful rivalry.
At
the same time, the potential involvement of major powers in future conflicts
between India and Pakistan adds another layer of complexity to good security in
the region. The main catalyst for the rivalry is that India and Pakistan have
invested heavily in militaries including conventional and nuclear weapons. The
conflict over the disputed region of Kashmir has fueled insecurity and rivalry,
leading to a constant competition for military power. The introduction of
nuclear weapons into a conflict adds a new dimension of danger that, if left
unchecked, could lead to disaster. The intervention of major international
powers has increased stability in the region, fueled the ongoing arms race, and
increased the risk of escalation. The Kashmir conflict remains a critical issue
for regional and international security, and the need for effective resolution
and arms control has become urgent.
Drivers
of the Arms Race in South Asia
An
arms race in South Asia based on India-Pakistan rivalry is a product of the
interplay between various historical, strategic and ideological factors. Such
motivations are intertwined here in the political and social fabric as
pervasive mistrust, open wounds from previous interactions and a desire for
national self-determination. In this section, we explore these dimensions of
this arms race: historical legacies, security interests and dynamics,
geopolitical considerations, economic motivations as well as the desire for
technological supremacy.
The
arms race finds its roots in the partitioning of British India, a traumatic
experience that gave birth to the two new states, i.e. Along with this divide
came violence, forced movement of communities and resentment on both sides
leaving an atmosphere of mutual animosity that is still felt today. One of the
most contentious issues was the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir which
eventually resulted in a war between India and Pakistan in 1947-48 when its
accession to India was challenged. The war hardened mutual suspicion and
requirement for militarily readiness on both.
For
India, as the larger and better endowed state, its military was both a badge of
sovereignty to be challenged and a nation-building device. On the other hand,
in view of an existential threat posed by its comparatively stronger neighbor
India, Pakistan focused on spending more on defense to balance the conventional
superiority that India had. The disparity of size and resources generated a
vicious circle of insecurity that drove both states to militarize heavily from
the very beginning.
A
major culprit of the South Asian arms race has been the security dilemma,
wherein one state perceives defensive measures by another as directly
offensive. The relationship between India and Pakistan is a perfect
manifestation of this dynamic whereby each country perceives the others
military development as a direct security threat. The Agni missile series of
India and its purchase of S-400 missile defense system from Russia are the
relevant examples in this regard; both have been packaged as counter-measures
against both Pakistan and China. In Pakistan however, these initiatives are
viewed as aggressive, resulting in increased capabilities for its missile
technologies like the Shaheen and Nasr systems.
Compounding
this threat is the Cold Start doctrine, an Indian military strategy envisioned
to combat Pakistan with quick conventional attacks that have intensified the
security dilemma. Pakistan developed tactical nuclear weapons in response,
believing they were a mandatory deterrence. This tit-for-tat logic also
demonstrates that what is intended as a defensive measure on one side is seen
as an offensive action by the adversary, thus driving forward these arms races.
Inherently,
the economic aspect of the arms race in South Asia is both a cause and
consequence of militarization. India-Pakistani Border where huge portions of
national budgets are spent on defense at the cost of social development.
India’s defence budget for 2023 was $81 billion, the third largest in the
world, whereas Pakistan allocated an estimated $11 billion (approximately 20%
of its annual budget) — these figures reflect a significant and fundamental
imbalance between the two nations.
Pakistan,
similarly faces very acute economic challenges because of the inflated cost it
incurs in order to establish a credible deterrent against India. Poverty and
inequality are further aggravated by the diversion of funds from critical
sectors such as education and health care in order to finance war expenditures.
And yet India—economically less vulnerable nowadays, but under fire for
devoting relatively more money to defense than social spending. Opponents,
however, say the overemphasis on militarization continues to deepen poverty and
underdevelopment in both countries — reinforcing a vicious cycle whereby
economic vulnerabilities trigger security threat.
The
weapons race is also significantly influenced by ideological considerations.
Pakistan is now seen as an existential threat in India due to the development
of Hindu nationalism under the Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP). This line of
reasoning is used to support aggressive military tactics and higher defense
budgets. On the other side, Pakistan sees its military as a protector against
alleged Indian aggression and sees itself as the defender of Muslim identity in
South Asia.
Tensions
are further increased by the ideological framing of the Kashmir dispute, in
which both countries defend their military operations as just and moral. In
addition to maintaining public support for large defense spending, this
ideological perspective makes attempts at communication and conflict resolution
more difficult. The South Asian weapons race has taken on a new dimension as a
result of technological developments. India's goal to become self-sufficient in
defense and less reliant on foreign suppliers is shown in its emphasis on
domestic defense manufacturing, such as the creation of the Agni missile family
and the Tejas fighter plane. India's technical ambitions are further
demonstrated by its space program, which included the successful anti-satellite
missile test in 2019.
Despite
having less sophisticated technology, Pakistan has achieved great advancements
in drone and missile technologies. Its dedication to modernization in spite of
financial limitations is demonstrated by its cooperation with China on programs
like the JF-17 Thunder fighter jet. In addition to intensifying the arms race,
the two countries' technological rivalry raises the possibility of
misunderstandings and unanticipated escalation.
The
stability and development of South Asia are significantly impacted by the
forces driving the arms race. Conflict resolution becomes more challenging when
military prowess is prioritized above communication, which feeds a vicious
cycle of mistrust. Long-term development possibilities are also jeopardized by
the economic consequences of militarization, especially for Pakistan, where
social investment is frequently sacrificed for defense spending.
Furthermore,
the weapons race makes already-existing disparities in the region worse, with
neighboring nations like Bangladesh, Nepal, and Afghanistan feeling the
repercussions of Indo-Pakistani hostilities. In addition to endangering
regional stability, South Asia's militarization impedes cooperative attempts to
tackle shared issues like poverty, terrorism, and climate change.
The
Kashmir Conflict and Its Role in Escalating Tensions
Both India and Pakistan have an excuse to keep up high defense budgets and military readiness levels because of the Kashmir dispute. Indian military' presence in Jammu and Kashmir is portrayed by Pakistan as an occupation that jeopardizes both its sovereignty and the rights of Muslims living in Kashmir. Despite its economic difficulties, Pakistan's emphasis on defense is justified by this story. About 20% of Pakistan's 2023 national budget went towards defense, with large expenditures made to update its missile weapons and keep up a credible deterrence against India. The area has become more militarized, with more than 600,000 Indian troops now based in Jammu and Kashmir, making it one of the world's most heavily fortified areas. Tensions increased after Article 370, which gave Jammu and Kashmir special autonomy, was repealed in 2019. This resulted in increased security and a more assertive military posture.
Beyond traditional military conflicts, the Kashmir dispute has strategic ramifications that include asymmetric tactics and nuclear posturing. The Kashmir dispute is a major factor in strategic planning for both India and Pakistan since it has been incorporated into their larger military doctrines. Pakistan views India's conventional supremacy as counterbalanced by its use of tactical nuclear weapons (TNWs), which are justified by the unsettled situation of Kashmir. One example of how the Kashmir dispute affects nuclear strategy is the Nasr missile system, which was created expressly to counter India's Cold Start doctrine. In response, India has underlined the necessity of sophisticated missile defense and monitoring systems to counter Pakistan's conventional and nuclear threats.
Deep-seated
mistrust and conflicting goals have been the main causes of the recurrent
failures of attempts to resolve the Kashmir dispute. International mediation
efforts have been mainly unsuccessful, and bilateral agreements, like the Simla
Agreement of 1972 and the Agra Summit of 2001, have not produced much progress.
Kashmir will continue to be a source of stress, fueling the weapons race and taking
funds away from development to defense, as long as there is no mutually
agreeable settlement.
Threat
of Nuclear Escalation in South Asia
The
security climate in the region is now unstable due to the nuclearization of
South Asia. Although they act as a deterrent to full-scale violence, nuclear
weapons also increase instability by reducing the threshold for conflict when
there are unsolved concerns like the Kashmir dispute. The ramifications of
nuclear deterrence theories in the South Asian context are examined in this
section, along with doctrinal changes in Indian and Pakistani nuclear policies,
examples of near-nuclear conflicts, and the effect of developing missile
technology on escalation risks.
The
Cold War-era idea of nuclear deterrence holds that having nuclear weapons
deters war by raising the unacceptable costs of hostilities. Credible
deterrence and mutual assured destruction (MAD) are the two main tenets of this
approach. Credible deterrence depends on the ability and desire to deploy
nuclear weapons to stop aggression, even as MAD stresses that no side would
survive a nuclear battle.
Given
the disparity in conventional military might and the tense relationship between
India and Pakistan, nuclear deterrence in South Asia has special dimensions. With
its No First Use (NFU) policy, India, which has a more sizable and
sophisticated conventional force, sees nuclear weapons as a strategic reserve.
However, Pakistan rejects NFU in favor of a first-use posture since it views
its nuclear weapons as an equalizer against India's conventional dominance.
This difference reflects the two countries' different strategic goals: Pakistan
places a higher priority on deterrence against India's alleged existential
dangers, especially with regard to Kashmir, while India aims for regional
stability and international recognition as a responsible nuclear state.
South
Asia's past hostilities, lack of trust, and regular border clashes make it
difficult to apply standard deterrence ideas there. India and Pakistan have a
direct border and a history of unresolved disputes, which makes their nuclear
competition more combustible than that of the Cold War countries. South Asia is
a prime example of the stability-instability paradox, which holds that
lower-level conflicts are encouraged by the strategic stability that nuclear
deterrence provides. This contradiction is still primarily caused by the
Kashmir dispute, where India's conventional measures run the risk of escalating
into nuclear war while Pakistan's reliance on asymmetric warfare does not.
Analysis
of Doctrinal Changes in Indian and Pakistani Nuclear Policies
India
and Pakistan have continually adapted their nuclear doctrines to address
evolving security challenges, with significant implications for regional
stability.
India’s
Nuclear Doctrine: With a focus on NFU and huge
retribution in the event of nuclear aggression, India formally adopted its
nuclear policy in 2003. In addition to providing a credible deterrent against
nuclear or chemical assaults, this approach supports India's strategic goal of
preserving regional peace. Nonetheless, a movement towards more adaptable
deterrence is suggested by India's pursuit of sophisticated missile systems,
submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), and missile defense technologies.
Critics
contend that Pakistan's deployment of tactical nuclear weapons (TNWs) is one
example of a growing threat that India's doctrine may not sufficiently
confront. The future of NFU has also been called into question by recent
political rhetoric from Indian politicians, with some officials arguing for a
change to a more forceful stance. By making India's nuclear reaction more
unpredictable, such ambiguities could jeopardize strategic stability.
The
Nuclear Doctrine of Pakistan: Deterring India's conventional
military dominance, especially in situations involving Kashmir, is the main
goal of Pakistan's nuclear policy. Pakistan prioritizes first-use choices and
opposes NFU, in contrast to India. Its emphasis on thwarting India's Cold Start
strategy, which calls for quick, limited military operations, is demonstrated
by its development of TNWs like the Nasr missile.
TNWs
provide serious hazards even though they strengthen Pakistan's deterrence
capability. Unauthorized use is more likely when authority is delegated to
field commanders during a crisis, particularly in situations with high levels
of tension. Furthermore, Pakistan's nuclear posture has come under fire from
throughout the world for lowering the bar for nuclear use and increasing the
likelihood of escalation.
Technology
and Missile Development's Contribution to Rising Escalation Risks
The
risks of nuclear escalation in South Asia have increased due to technological
developments in missile systems and delivery platforms. In order to retain credible
deterrence in a security context that is changing quickly, both India and
Pakistan are making significant investments in modernizing their arsenals.
India's
Progress in Technology: India has demonstrated
its intention to build a strong second-strike capability with the development
of long-range missiles like the Agni-V and the successful deployment of SLBMs.
Although these developments strengthen India's deterrence position, they also
make regional strategic stability more difficult to achieve. By eroding
Pakistan's faith in its deterrence capabilities, India's pursuit of missile
defense systems, such as the Advanced Air Defense (AAD) program, further
complicates the security calculation.
The
Missile Program of Pakistan: Pakistan has
concentrated on creating missiles with nuclear warheads that can go short and
medium distances. With the Nasr missile, Pakistan's approach to overcoming
India's conventional military superiority has undergone a dramatic change.
However, the use of TNWs presents issues with command and control, as well as
the potential for unintentional.
An
arms race in South Asia is more likely due to the quick advancement of missile
technologies and the lack of arms control agreements. A security conundrum is
created when TNWs and missile defense systems are deployed, whereby one
country's efforts to improve its security unintentionally make the other feel
less safe. The potential of escalation is increased by this dynamic as well as
the unpredictability of the conflict in Kashmir.
However,
nuclear escalation remains a major concern in South Asia's security
environment. On the one hand, deterrence theories are somewhat relevant given
their significance in the competition between India and Pakistan and the
Kashmir dispute, but they are not as relevant to solve tension between both
countries. The balance of power may shift in favor of miscalculation and
unintentional escalation as a result of growing mishaps brought on by doctrinal
changes and advancements in missile systems. Addressing these issues requires
more than just better crisis management techniques; it also requires containing
the underlying conflicts, many of which are fueling the region's instability
and arms race.
Findings
and Way Forward
The
arms race between India and Pakistan continues to escalate, creating a security
environment and exacerbating regional conflicts. Both countries view military
planning as the cornerstone of their national security strategies. However,
their actions are often influenced by outsiders, leading to insecurity and
violence. This constant operation is a major security challenge where measures
taken by one state to enhance security inadvertently exacerbate threats to
others, creating a perpetual cycle of hostility and weapons accumulation. The
framework is fraught with challenges such as territorial disputes, ongoing
border clashes and insecurity between India and Pakistan. These conditions
increase the risk of miscalculation, especially in times of high pressure. The
introduction of military technologies such as hypersonic missiles and tactical
nuclear weapons has further destabilized the region.
These strategies shorten the time required for decision-making during a crisis, leaving little room for de-escalation or diplomatic solutions. A nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan would be catastrophic, killing millions of people and damaging the environment. The study, published in the journal Science Advances (2019), estimates that even a nuclear conflict in the region could kill more than 125 million people. The environmental impact would also be severe, as acid would be released into the atmosphere and cause extensive damage worldwide. Survivors will face health problems, including cancer and radiation-induced disabilities, and future generations will continue to suffer. Important systems such as health, agriculture, and transportation will also be damaged, and the region will be plunged into long-term economic crisis and conflict.
The persistent threat of nuclear proliferation continues to create
public anxiety and disrupt local economies, especially in sensitive areas such
as Kashmir. The militarization of these areas restricts mobility, hinders
economic growth, and restricts access to basic services, creating a cycle of
poverty and anger that leads to regional conflicts. Another important issue is
that India and Pakistan spend a large portion of their budgets on defense. This
is primarily due to significant investments in education, health, and
infrastructure. For example, India’s 2023-24 defense budget is estimated at
$72.6 billion, making it one of the largest defense budgets in the world.
Despite its small economy, Pakistan’s planned defense spending of $10.5 billion
by 2023 shows its determination to maintain military partnerships with its
neighbors. These expenditures come at a significant economic cost, especially
in Pakistan, where economic pressures such as inflation, external debt and
unemployment are severe, as resources are diverted to development.
The
arms race has a major impact on the region’s economic development. Shifting
even a small portion of defense spending to healthcare in Pakistan could
improve living standards, reduce poverty and accelerate economic growth.
Similarly, in India, balancing defense spending with investment in human development
will help ensure more sustainable and inclusive growth.
The
nuclearization of South Asia has also attracted international attention and has
often led to world powers engaging in a peace conflict. However, these
interventions are not always unjust and sometimes exacerbate existing tensions.
For example, US support for cooperation with India has raised security concerns
in Pakistan. At the same time, China’s relationship with Pakistan is seen by
India as a strategic challenge that poses regional security challenges. The
interaction of international influences has made regional security more
problematic and has made it easier to cope with tensions to resolve these
issues. Without these plans, the region will face the risk of continued
instability, which will cause serious harm to the people of the region and the
international community.
Solutions
and mitigation strategies
Despite
the seriousness of the problem, there are ways to reduce the risks associated
with the arms race in South Asia. These strategies aim to encourage dialogue,
promote diplomacy and strengthen international cooperation to resolve deep
tensions and reduce the likelihood of conflict.
1:Confidence-building measures between India and Pakistan
Confidence-building
measures (CBMs) are important for reducing trust and ensuring environmental
security in South Asia. Initiatives such as direct lines of communication
between military leaders, joint military operations and approval of military
movements near the border can help prevent misunderstandings and escalation.
Existing CBMs, such as the 2005 agreement that provided advance warning of
missile tests, provide a starting point for greater cooperation. Extending
these measures to emerging areas such as nuclear weapons and cyber operations
can foster mutual trust while also addressing new security challenges.
- Measures and the Peace Process
Continuous
diplomatic engagement is essential to resolving issues under arms. A new
dialogue on the Kashmir conflict, perhaps mediated by an outsider or an
international organization, could be a step toward peace. Track II diplomacy
involving civil society actors and informal channels can successfully negotiate
by improving community understanding and reducing violence. Furthermore,
encouraging cultural exchange, trade cooperation, and economic cooperation
between India and Pakistan can help improve relations and enhance trust over
time.
- The role of international organizations
International
organizations, including the United Nations (UN) and the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA), have noted that volunteering plays an important role in
promoting weapons. and supporting regional stability. The United Nations has
historically been involved in the Kashmir conflict and can act as a mediator by
encouraging dialogue and promoting a solution. The IAEA can help create an
effective force to monitor activities in the region, drawing on its expertise
in nuclear security. These efforts not only help implement nonproliferation
policies, but also reduce the risk of unauthorized use of nuclear weapons.
- Security Agreements and Proposals to Reduce Nuclear Risks
An
Arms Control Agreement Appropriate for South Asia is important to contain the
arms race and reduce the threat of nuclear proliferation. Bilateral agreements
could focus on limiting missile deliveries, limiting the use of nuclear
weapons, and improving the security of nuclear facilities. Establishing a
nuclear risk reduction center, similar to Cold War plans, would allow for
immediate communication and coordination in the event of a crisis and reduce
the risk of escalating repression. Multilateral efforts with regional
stakeholders could also strengthen arms control and support long-term peace and
stability in South Asia.
By
taking these steps, South Asia can work to reduce tensions and build a
foundation for peace and security, thus benefiting the land and the
international community.
Conclusion
India and Pakistan are engaged
in a protracted weapons race as a result of the Kashmir dispute, which
continues to influence South Asian politics and history. One of the most
susceptible areas of the world is now experiencing a perilous climate as a
result of this ongoing rivalry, which is characterized by military use and
advancements in nuclear technology. Deep insecurity, conflict resolution in the
area, and the adoption of improved tactics demonstrate the pressing need for
fresh concepts and collaboration to deal with these problems and improve
security.
According to this analysis, the
South Asian arms race is seriously endangering global peace in addition to
destabilizing the area. The two nations increased nuclear capability raises the
possibility of a misunderstanding or confrontation, as well as potential health
risks as well as the surroundings. However, allocating funds to defense
spending erodes vital public health investments, raises societal pressures, and
creates inequalities.
An essential first step in
ending the cycle of militancy and lowering the possibility of nuclear
escalation is resolving the Kashmir dispute. Tensions can be decreased and
trust can be raised through confidence-building activities like leadership
exchanges, consensus discussions, and military-to-military communications. In
order to promote communication and provide the groundwork for peace, social
cooperation—backed by trustworthy intermediaries and international
organizations—is crucial. Long-term security can also be enhanced by regional
accords on nuclear risk reduction and arms control.
In order to support
peacebuilding and assist South Asia in overcoming long-standing obstacles,
international organizations are essential. tackling the important armaments
race concerns and promoting collaboration can pave the way for a sustainable
and prosperous future. Achieving peace in South Asia is not just a regional
priority, but a global one, with the potential to transform the lives of
millions of people and contribute to global security.
References
Kurr, Nikolis. "Solutions to the Conflict
in Kashmir." International ResearchScape Journal 3, no. 1 (2015): 5.
Kuszewska, Agnieszka. "The India-Pakistan
conflict in Kashmir and human rights in the context of post-2019 political
dynamics." Asian Affairs 53, no. 1 (2022): 198-217.
Jalil, Ghazala Yasmin. "Missile Race in
South Asia." Strategic Studies 40, no. 1 (2020): 39-57.
Akhtar, Zia. "Kashmir's Right to
Self-Determination: UNSC Resolutions, Human Rights Violations and Culpability
under International Law." Athens JL 9 (2023): 139.
Bhumitra Chakma. Strategic dynamics and
nuclear weapons proliferation in South Asia: a historical analysis. Vol.
489. Peter Lang, 2004.
Khattak, Masood Ur Rehman. "Indian
Military’s Strategic Thinking Since 2001: Implications for the Deterrence
Stability of South Asia."
Ganguly, Sumit. The origins of war in South
Asia: Indo-Pakistani conflicts since 1947. Routledge, 2019.
Kapur, S. Paul. Dangerous deterrent:
Nuclear weapons proliferation and conflict in South Asia. NUS Press, 2009.
Kuszewska, Agnieszka. "The India-Pakistan
conflict in Kashmir and human rights in the context of post-2019 political
dynamics." Asian Affairs 53, no. 1 (2022): 198-217.
Jervis, Robert. "Cooperation under the
security dilemma." World politics 30, no. 2 (1978): 167-214.
Rana, Ayesha. "Challenges to Strategic
Stability in South Asia." Strategic Studies 38, no. 2 (2018): 1-20.
Shah, Hassan Jalil, and Naseem Anwar Khan.
"NUCLEAR DETERRENCE AND CONFLICT TRANSFORMATION: ASSESSING STATES
BEHAVIOUR IN SOUTH ASIA." Margalla Papers 23, no. 2 (2019).
Levesques, Antoine, Desmond Bowen, and John H.
Gill. "Nuclear deterrence and stability in South Asia: perceptions and
realities." International Institute for Strategic Studies. https://www.
iiss. org/-/media/files/research-papers/nuclear-deterrence-and-stability-in-south-asia---perceptions-and-realities.
pdf (2021).
Jervis, Robert. "Cooperation under the
security dilemma." World politics 30, no. 2 (1978): 167-214.
Pape, Robert A. "Soft balancing against
the United States." International security 30, no. 1 (2005): 7-45.
Noor, Sitara. "Pakistan's Evolving
Nuclear Doctrine." Arms Control Today 53, no. 8 (2023): 12-18.
Kapila, Subhash. "India and Pakistan
Nuclear Doctrine: A Comparative Analysis." Institute for Peace and
Conflict Studies. Nuclear Issue 1 (1999): 260.
Perkovich, George. India's nuclear bomb:
the impact on global proliferation. Univ of California Press, 1999.
Jervis, Robert. "Cooperation under the
security dilemma." World politics 30, no. 2 (1978): 167-214.
Related Research Papers
