• Research
  • Strategic Europe
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Europe logoCarnegie lettermark logo
EUUkraine
  • Donate
{
  "authors": [
    "Husain Haqqani"
  ],
  "type": "legacyinthemedia",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
  "programAffiliation": "russia",
  "programs": [
    "Russia and Eurasia"
  ],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "South Asia",
    "India",
    "Pakistan"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Political Reform",
    "Security",
    "Foreign Policy",
    "Nuclear Policy"
  ]
}
REQUIRED IMAGE

REQUIRED IMAGE

In The Media

Bad Neighbors in South Asia

Link Copied
By Mr. Husain Haqqani
Published on Feb 19, 2003

Source: Carnegie

Originally appeared in the International Herald Tribune, February 18, 2003

While world leaders are preoccupied with Iraq and North Korea, relations between South Asia's nuclear rivals are deteriorating. India recently expelled Pakistan's acting ambassador in New Delhi, accusing him of funneling money to anti-India politicians in Kashmir. Pakistan retaliated by expelling the most senior Indian diplomat in Islamabad. The two neighbors are now left with low-level diplomatic contact.

Meanwhile, Indian and U.S. officials have accused Pakistan of reviving the flow of militants into Indian-controlled territory after several months of restraint that followed the threat of war last year. If this pattern of hostility continues, it is likely that Indian and Pakistani forces will again be involved in eyeball-to-eyeball confrontation when the spring thaw in the Himalayas makes fighting possible.

The United States has periodically engaged in shuttle diplomacy to keep the two nuclear-armed rivals from going to war, most notably in 2002, when both sides mobilized more than a million troops along their 2,000-kilometer frontier after a failed terrorist attack on the Indian Parliament. But the region needs a sustained peace process. Without it, the cycle of bluster and violence could escalate to unpredictable levels.

Frustrated by its inability to secure an Indian commitment to negotiate the future of Kashmir, Pakistan could continue down the slippery slope of using Islamic militancy as an instrument of policy. Sufficiently provoked, India could decide to follow Israel's example of dealing with the Palestinians or the U.S. example of dealing with Iraq.

The problem, of course, is that Pakistan is neither as weak as the Palestinians nor as vulnerable as Iraq. It has a sizable arsenal of nuclear weapons and a demonstrated ballistic missile capability. It is also a strategically located American ally.

At the heart of the conflict is mutual suspicion that each country wants to divide and destroy the other. Pakistan lives in dread of being "erased from the world map" - a phrase used by India's defense minister recently to describe what would happen in the event of nuclear war. Both sides refuse to seek a long-term solution to their pathological antipathy.

Before initiating a peace process, the United States should try to prevent an arms race. Pakistan has re-entered the international arms market as a buyer. India wants to expand the overwhelming superiority in conventional weapons that it already enjoys.

From 1997 to 2001, India was the fifth largest importer of arms in the world, after Taiwan, China, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. India has several major deals in the works with the United States, Russia, Israel and France that could make it the second biggest arms importer. In addition, India's Defense Research and Development Organization is engaged in indigenous development of weapons and systems. Economic problems limit Pakistan's ability to match India's arsenal. Pakistan's defense budget stands at around $3.3 billion, which is $10 billion less than India's. Of course, India has security concerns beyond Pakistan, notably in relation to China, whereas Pakistan's defense is primarily India-specific.

China, which supplies one-third of Pakistan's weapons, finds it useful to help Pakistan in keeping India bogged down in South Asia.

But in the absence of dialogue or a sustained peace process, India's decision to enlarge the military imbalance is driving hard-liners in Pakistan to press for further support of Islamic militants in Kashmir.

Some experts in India have argued that India should spend Pakistan into the ground, much as the United States crippled the Soviet Union. Because Pakistan has a much smaller economy, it cannot compete with India weapon system for weapon system, so it relies on nuclear deterrence and unconventional warfare. The one area where it has competed successfully, and possibly even managed parity, is in nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. India's secular identity and the evolution of Islamic Pakistan toward sustainable democracy are being undermined by their military rivalry and tension. Security concerns have made Pakistan's military stronger than other national institutions and independent of civilian control. Hindu chauvinism directed against religious minorities, especially Muslims, is on the rise in India.

The growing power of Islamists in Pakistan and Hindu ideologues in India makes the region more dangerous, adding to the list of reasons why the United States and other concerned powers should give it more constructive attention.

Mr. Husain Haqqani
Former Visiting Scholar
Husain Haqqani
Political ReformSecurityForeign PolicyNuclear PolicySouth AsiaIndiaPakistan

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie Europe

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    Can Europe Still Matter in Syria?

    Europe’s interests in Syria extend beyond migration management, yet the EU trails behind other players in the country’s post-Assad reconstruction. To boost its influence in Damascus, the union must upgrade its commitment to ensuring regional stability.

      Bianka Speidl, Hanga Horváth-Sántha

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    Taking the Pulse: Can the EU Attract Foreign Investment and Reduce Dependencies?

    EU member states clash over how to boost the union’s competitiveness: Some want to favor European industries in public procurement, while others worry this could deter foreign investment. So, can the EU simultaneously attract global capital and reduce dependencies?

      • Rym Momtaz

      Rym Momtaz, ed.

  • Article
    What Can the EU Do About Trump 2.0?

    Europe’s policy of subservience to the Trump administration has failed. For Washington to take the EU seriously, its leaders now need to combine engagement with robust pushback.

      Stefan Lehne

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    To Survive, the EU Must Split

    Leaning into a multispeed Europe that includes the UK is the way Europeans don’t get relegated to suffering what they must, while the mighty United States and China do what they want.

      • Rym Momtaz

      Rym Momtaz

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    Europolis, Where Europe Ends

    A prophetic Romanian novel about a town at the mouth of the Danube carries a warning: Europe decays when it stops looking outward. In a world of increasing insularity, the EU should heed its warning.

      Thomas de Waal

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Europe
Carnegie Europe logo, white
Rue du Congrès, 151000 Brussels, Belgium
  • Research
  • Strategic Europe
  • About
  • Experts
  • Projects
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
  • Gender Equality Plan
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Europe
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.