The concept of strategic stability evolved during the Cold War basically to better understand the dynamics of super powers nuclear rivalry so as to avoid stumbling into a catastrophic conflict. In South Asia, the dyadic conflictual relationship saw three major wars and some serious border clashes in the first 25 years of independence from the British colonial rule. In this period Pakistan tried to counter balance India’s numerical advantage with a qualitative edge by acquiring advanced American military equipment and better professional training, writes Naeem Salik.
It also attempted to deal with the structural disparities vis-à-vis India through external balancing by developing security relationships initially with the US and later with China. However, it found to its great consternation during the 1971 war with India, that no outside power came to its assistance and resultantly it lost its Eastern wing which became Bangladesh owing to Indian military intervention. In the post war security review its leaders and security managers realized that in any future security threat environment it will have to fend for itself.
The separation of East Pakistan had further aggravated the widening gulf between the conventional military capabilities of India and Pakistan and to add to this were the anxieties caused by India’s rapidly advancing nuclear programme. It was realized that Pakistan was in dire need of an equalizer in the form of nuclear capability, not only to deter any nuclear threat emanating from India in the future, but to neutralize India’s conventional advantage as well. In a meeting of the scientists and engineers at Multan with Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto in chair it was decided to build nuclear fuel cycle facilities to develop a nuclear ‘option’ that could be converted into a ‘capability’ in case of a serious future security contingency. The project had hardly taken off when India conducted its first nuclear test code named ‘smiling Buddha’ on 18th May 1974,
which compelled Pakistan to accelerate its efforts to develop its own nuclear capability. However, the Indian test proved to be a wake-up call for the industrially advanced nations who started erecting barriers in the way of nuclear trade by establishing export control institutions such as the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) making it difficult for Pakistan to acquire the essential pieces of technology. Ironically, the same NSG gave an exceptional waiver to India in 2008 enabling it to enjoy the privileges of an NSG members without accepting any obligations in return. Pakistan’s difficulties were compounded further by imposition of controls on the acquisition of dual use items as well. The focus of international non-proliferation effort was also diverted to Pakistan as late Henry Kissinger told his Canadian counterpart after the 1974 Indian test that ‘let us not fight the fait accompli,’ India is already out of the barn and we should now try to prevent Pakistan from following suit.
On 11th May 1998 the Buddha smiled again in the Pokhran desert but the smile was much broader this time.
India declared itself a nuclear weapon state after conducting three tests and two more tests on 13th May. Immediately after the tests senior Indian political leaders such as the Home-Minister, L.K. Advani in a series of provocative statements declared that, “the nuclear tests have ushered in a new era in India-Pakistan relations,” and warned Islamabad that New Delhi would respond to provocations in Kashmir in a manner ‘costly for Pakistan.’
He also alluded to the possibility of ‘hot pursuit’ operations across the Line of Control in Kashmir.
Pakistan was left with no choice but to respond with nuclear tests of its own to re-establish the strategic balance in South Asia that had been seriously disturbed by the Indian tests. Consequently, Pakistan carried out five nuclear tests on 28th of May 1998 and a sixth on 30th May. The shrill rhetoric of Advani and other leaders was distinctly toned down after the Pakistani tests proving that power equilibrium has been restored in South Asia.
After the overt nuclearization of India and Pakistan it was hoped that it will usher in an era of peace and stability in the region. However, any such hopes have been repeatedly dashed and South Asia has remained in the grip of recurring crises. During the Cold War the super powers recognized and respected each other’s deterrence capability especially after a Mutually Assured Destruction equation had been established. In South Asia however, India has been challenging the credibility of Pakistan’s nuclear deterrence on two planes. Firstly, it started propagating that there is a space below the nuclear threshold for a limited conventional war but it could not actualize this concept during the military stand-off in 2001-02 due to Pakistan’s timely counter mobilization. It then came up with a new war doctrine termed variously as the ‘Cold Start’ or ‘Pro-active’ operations doctrine which entailed reconfiguration of its offensive forces for rapid action and forward placement of logistics storage closer to the border with Pakistan. Realizing that even the application of a Cold Start doctrine aiming at shallow objectives the possibility of escalation to a nuclear conflagration cannot be ruled out it moved to a lower sub-conventional level by adopting what it termed as the ‘surgical strikes.’ It claimed to have carried out a land based surgical strike across the Kashmir Line of Control but Pakistan maintained that no such operation had taken place. Then in 2019 after the Pulwama incident Indian air force crossed the LOC into Pakistan administered area and launched stand-off bombs at a target inside mainland Pakistani territory at a town called Balakot
but the bombs missed their target. Pakistan in line with its policy of Quid-pro-Quo responded forcefully the very next day engaging military targets in the Indian administered Kashmir taking care to avoid causing casualties. Pakistani jets were followed by Indian air force fighters and in the ensuing dogfight an Indian MIG-21 was shot down and the pilot was captured by Pakistan. Pakistan released the captured pilot two days later as a goodwill gesture to diffuse the tensions. Then in April 2022 an Indian Brahmos missile crossed into the Pakistani airspace and landed near a town in Southern part of the Punjab province. Pakistan didn’t react impulsively and showed great degree of restraint and responsibility and called upon India to investigate the matter either by neutral experts or a joint Indo-Pakistani commission. India however, maintained that the missile was accidentally launched during maintenance and that they are conducting an internal inquiry. Pakistan’s restraint and responsibility seems to have been misinterpreted by India as a sign of weakness or its unwillingness or inability to respond. Consequently, after a terrorist incident at Pahalgam
a tourist resort in Indian occupied Kashmir wherein 26 tourists were killed India without having completed an inquiry, or apprehending the perpetrators and without coming up with any evidence blamed Pakistan.
Pakistan again suggested an investigation by a neutral panel but instead of paying any heed India launched missiles and stand off weapons at three locations well inside Pakistani territory destroying mosques and causing at least 31 casualties including women and minor children.
() As soon as the Indian aircraft had released their weapons staying deep inside Indian territory Pakistani J-10 C and JF-17 fighters shot down 6 Indian aircraft including at least 4 of its much-fancied Rafale fighters
using Chinese made PL-15 BVR missiles forcing IAF to ground its aircraft for the next 48 hours. This was largest aerial clash involving around 180 aircraft over 120 on the Indian side and rest on the Pakistani side, fighting with BVRs. Over the next three days there was intense exchange of missiles and drones by both sides. The four-day conflict was the most serious since the nuclearization of South Asia and was brought to an end through American brokering, though the Indian Prime Minister declared that this is only a pause and not a cease fire and ominously pronounced that terror incident in India in future would be considered an act of war—a highly provocative and destabilizing statement creating a perpetual state of tension between the two neighbours. However, it is apparent that Pakistan was able to re-establish the deterrence stability through its effective response to Indian aggression.
Pakistan’s long serving Director General of Strategic Plans Division—an organization responsible for managing Pakistan’s nuclear assets and planning for their operational employment speaking at IISS, London in February 2020 stated that Pakistan has shouldered the responsibility of maintaining the strategic balance in South Asia both in conventional and nuclear domains by taking appropriate counter measures whenever India has attempted to cause instability. However, the state of strategic stability in South Asia remains delicate at best. Pakistan has firmly responded to any Indian efforts to tilt the strategic balance in its favour by appropriate counter measures within the framework of its Full Spectrum Deterrence and proportionate responses through its quid-pro-quo policy that has been modified to Quid-pro-Quo Plus (QPQ+). Had Pakistan allowed the imbalances to persist the strategic stability would have been irreversibly degraded.
The Valdai Discussion Club was established in 2004. It is named after Lake Valdai, which is located close to Veliky Novgorod, where the Club’s first meeting took place.
Please visit the firm link to site
