Abdul Basit Alvi
A conventional war could thus turn nuclear within days or even hours, with catastrophic consequences for the entire region and beyond, given that a single 10-kiloton nuclear detonation could kill hundreds of thousands of people directly, and multiple detonations could cause a nuclear autumn or winter effect, reducing global temperatures, disrupting agriculture, and causing famine worldwide. Moreover, the world should indeed take notice, as the analysts argue, because the India-Pakistan rivalry no longer remains localized.
China has a vested interest in preventing India from dominating the region, and would likely supply Pakistan with intelligence, spare parts, and even direct support if a war broke out. The US wants India as a partner against China but also wants to prevent nuclear war and protect its assets in Afghanistan and the Gulf. Russia wants to maintain its arms sales to both India and Pakistan, and has already conducted joint military exercises with both nations. Gulf states like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates watch nervously as their economic investments in both countries—worth hundreds of billions of dollars—could be incinerated in a war, and they also rely on Pakistani troops for their own defense while courting Indian investment. Therefore, urging India to halt the weapon race is not merely a moral plea but a strategic necessity for global stability. The only viable pathway to stability is a comprehensive dialogue covering not just arms control but the root causes of Indo-Pak hostility: the Kashmir dispute, water sharing under the Indus Waters Treaty, cross-border terrorism, trade normalization, and cultural exchanges. BJP uses Pakistan bashing to unite its Hindu voter base. In the meantime, the $25 billion worth of approved projects will move forward through India’s defense procurement bureaucracy, which is notoriously slow but has been accelerated by emergency powers granted after the Galwan clashes. Factories will churn out Dhanush guns and armor-piercing shells, Russian technicians will help integrate the S-400 into India’s integrated air command and control system, drones will soon patrol the skies from the Arabian Sea to the Himalayas, and Su-30 engines will be overhauled to fly thousands more hours. The subcontinent thus stands at a perilous crossroads: either this massive military buildup leads to a stable deterrence through mutual fear, where both sides recognize that war is unwinnable and therefore avoid escalation, or it becomes the prelude to a conflagration that neither side fully intended but neither could prevent because of miscalculation, miscommunication, or militant provocation.
The world watches, and while the United Nations Security Council has issued vague statements urging restraint, there is no serious effort to mediate the underlying disputes or to cap the arms race through a treaty similar to the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) between the US and Russia. Whether the world will act before the Indian hysteria translates into war remains the most pressing and unanswered question of our time, and the answer may well determine the future of not just South Asia but the entire international order in the 21st century.
Concluded
